Discussion: Racism - Part 2

[Laderlappen]

what sense does that make? Thats like saying MLK was racist because his focus was on black people during the civil rights marches...

The difference is both white and black people are victims of police violence.

 

[Docker2.0]

what sense does that make? Thats like saying MLK was racist because his focus was on black people during the civil rights marches...

Exactly! That statement made no sense! He just saw a dude get killed in cold blood and the murderer got away with it, yet he says BLM shouldn't exist. Again, I'm no fan of BLM but this case is exactly why they exist. The blindness is deafening. You wonder if people are really that blind to racism or just pissed that people just don't take it and shut up.

 

[Laderlappen]

Exactly! That statement made no sense! He just saw a dude get killed in cold blood and the murderer got away with it, yet he says BLM shouldn't exist. Again, I'm no fan of BLM but this case is exactly why they exist. The blindness is deafening. You wonder if people are really that blind to racism or just pissed that people just don't take it and shut up.

NRA was just accused of being selective based on race who they support. That's exactly what Black Lives Matter is. It's bad when NRA does it but apparently fine if BLM does it? That's a double standard.

 

[Docker2.0]

NRA was just accused of being selective based on race who they support. That's exactly what Black Lives Matter is. It's bad when NRA does it but apparently fine if BLM does it? That's a double standard.

Well did NRA say anything this case?

 

[Lighthouse]

NRA was just accused of being selective based on race who they support. That's exactly what Black Lives Matter is. It's bad when NRA does it but apparently fine if BLM does it? That's a double standard.

Shocker!! And guess what! Feminists support women's issues, the World Jewish Congress supports jewish issues too! What about other people? Don't they care about them?

 

[Laderlappen]

Well did NRA say anything this case?

Probably not.

 

[Docker2.0]

NRA was just accused of being selective based on race who they support. That's exactly what Black Lives Matter is. It's bad when NRA does it but apparently fine if BLM does it? That's a double standard.

Probably not.

Yet you don't understand why groups like BLM or NBP exist. If you are not racist or don't see race, why do you complain when people who have experienced voice their displeasure? It's like me complaining about people who say they've been abducted by aliens. I've never seen any or been abducted but who am I to complain about someone who says they have?

 

[Laderlappen]

Yet you don't understand why groups like BLM or NBP exist. If you are not racist or don't see race, why do you complain when people who have experienced voice their displeasure? It's like me complaining about people who say they've been abducted by aliens. I've never seen any or been abducted but who am I to complain about someone who says they have?

Incidents like Castille got a ridicously amount of attention and it got attention based on skin color. It's one thing to support black victims because they are black. I think it's another thing to demand other groups to do the same and then accuse them of not supporting black victims if they don't.

 

[terry78]

The NRA is a very subtle group when it comes to who they deem "good guys with a gun" though. If you're a black guy and you own a gun legally you better have every ****ing document and receipt stating so because you're ****ed if you're caught strapped out somewhere and don't have it on you.

 

[Lighthouse]

They also defend law breakers like the Bundy's but are silent when a black gun owner is shot by authorities.

 

[Docker2.0]

Incidents like Castille got a ridicously amount of attention and it got attention based on skin color. It's one thing to support black victims because they are black. I think it's another thing to demand other groups to do the same and then accuse them of not supporting black victims if they don't.

Because there is a real argument about blacks being shot by cops so of course it's going to be about race. Wait! Is that the only thing you are complaining about? Is that because the cop shot him and people bring up his race, you don't want to hear about it? Yet you don't see the problem with that?

 

[Laderlappen]

Because there is a real argument about blacks being shot by cops so of course it's going to be about race. Wait! Is that the only thing you are complaining about? Is that because the cop shot him and people bring up his race, you don't want to hear about it? Yet you don't see the problem with that?

No I'm saying people wouldn't demand NRA to speak up if Castile was a white man. Black victims already gets extra support because they are black but now people demand other movement to do the same.

 

[Lighthouse]

No I'm saying people wouldn't demand NRA to speak up if Castile was a white man. Black victims already gets extra support because they are black but now people demand other movement to do the same.

Absurd.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

The difference is both white and black people are victims of police violence.

I think you have to look at the ratios of black and white people to police violence. even if more white people are victim to police violence, if you compare it to the ratio of the white population in America, it might be minuscule compared to the amount of people people victimized to police violence in the overall ratio of black America

 

[godisawesome]

The issue with the NRa vs BLM is that the former's manifesto and cause is wholly unconnected to race, at least ostensibly, while the latter is explicitly about the cultural construct of race. When the NRA speaks, it's supposed to always be focused exclusively on the guns and the gun rights, while when BLM speaks, it's supposed to always be focused around some kind of racial injustice.

Which means that people aren't judging the NRA's possible approach to race based on what they do but in *how* and *when* they do it; by their very nature, an action taken to directly address race wouldn't fit their MO. But considering their willingness to politicize most issues even *tangentially* attached to guns, being silent on a nationally publicized event in which it seems that even the most innocent explanation is that a legal gun owner having his hand in the vague area of his weapon (after informing the cop and by all accounts not deliberately appearing he was going for the gun) led to his shooting?

I mean, why didn't the NRA at least grab its usual loudspeaker to speak about gun owners following some gun safety rules around cops, or to question whether or not police training could be modified? They're willing to put out carefully worded state,nets in the wakes of mass shootings, so why not here?

And the answer most people seem to come to is that, at the very least, the NRA did not value the political capital they could gain by standing for Castile. Which implies at the least an apathetic, ignorant kind of racism. And otherwise, it kind of implies the corporate powers behind the NRA may have felt that backing Castile would hurt their sales to racists, which is kind of frightening.

 

[Sithborg]

No I'm saying people wouldn't demand NRA to speak up if Castile was a white man. Black victims already gets extra support because they are black but now people demand other movement to do the same.

Probably a good thing, though. As they are the victims more often.

 

[Travesty]

I think you have to look at the ratios of black and white people to police violence. even if more white people are victim to police violence, if you compare it to the ratio of the white population in America, it might be minuscule compared to the amount of people people victimized to police violence in the overall ratio of black America

Looking at population is an extremely skewed way of looking at it. It would be better to look at crime statistics.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Looking at population is an extremely skewed way of looking at it. It would be better to look at crime statistics.

why does population skew it?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

NRA was just accused of being selective based on race who they support. That's exactly what Black Lives Matter is. It's bad when NRA does it but apparently fine if BLM does it? That's a double standard.

Black Lives Matter is based around the idea that black people should not be considered lesser for simply being black. It is a question of equal rights, equal representation.

The NRA says it is for legal gun ownership for all American, even if they are are terrorist watch list. But then they represent American people unequally based on their race.

So your point is nonsensical.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

No I'm saying people wouldn't demand NRA to speak up if Castile was a white man. Black victims already gets extra support because they are black but now people demand other movement to do the same.

They wouldn't have to. That is the point. It shows the NRA for what they really are. They are selling some, "the way we were" BS, that includes a big helping of racism. Like Trump talking about how good it would be to be the 1950s again. With the racism, women being treated like inferior beings, and where being gay was a medical condition.

 

[hellified]

The difference is both white and black people are victims of police violence.

yeah but only one of those groups has a system that historically has been skewed in their favor by and large.

 

[hellified]

NRA was just accused of being selective based on race who they support. That's exactly what Black Lives Matter is. It's bad when NRA does it but apparently fine if BLM does it? That's a double standard.

Its not a double standard...BLM is born out of a history of a society that has demonized and stereotyped black people to such a degree that the perception of blacks has skewed the justice system and law enforcement.

 

[hellified]

The issue with the NRa vs BLM is that the former's manifesto and cause is wholly unconnected to race, at least ostensibly, while the latter is explicitly about the cultural construct of race. When the NRA speaks, it's supposed to always be focused exclusively on the guns and the gun rights, while when BLM speaks, it's supposed to always be focused around some kind of racial injustice.

Which means that people aren't judging the NRA's possible approach to race based on what they do but in *how* and *when* they do it; by their very nature, an action taken to directly address race wouldn't fit their MO. But considering their willingness to politicize most issues even *tangentially* attached to guns, being silent on a nationally publicized event in which it seems that even the most innocent explanation is that a legal gun owner having his hand in the vague area of his weapon (after informing the cop and by all accounts not deliberately appearing he was going for the gun) led to his shooting?

I mean, why didn't the NRA at least grab its usual loudspeaker to speak about gun owners following some gun safety rules around cops, or to question whether or not police training could be modified? They're willing to put out carefully worded state,nets in the wakes of mass shootings, so why not here?

And the answer most people seem to come to is that, at the very least, the NRA did not value the political capital they could gain by standing for Castile. Which implies at the least an apathetic, ignorant kind of racism. And otherwise, it kind of implies the corporate powers behind the NRA may have felt that backing Castile would hurt their sales to racists, which is kind of frightening.

in short the value of the life of that black man didn't matter to the NRA regardless of the fact that he was legally armed..and we're back to square one.

hence: BLACK LIVES MATTER!

 

[terry78]

Not to the NRA they don't.

 

[Docker2.0]

Black cop gets shot by white cop because he feared for his life. If he gets off with that excuse this time, we really need to riot!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-police-officer-shoots-off-103000395.html