Discussion: Racism - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cool, then I misunderstood the implication and I acknowledge they have what seems to be an important function.



Thanks - I had the wrong idea then.

No, you didn't. While these laws began like Mad One states they have evolved and added protections. States and cities pass laws that prevent deportation or try to avoid Federal Laws on deportation. For instance, a few years back in California reduced the maximum sentencing for misdemeanors from 365 to 364 days. The reasoning? There is a federal law that requires the deportation of illegal immigrants if they have been sentenced in prison for 365 days or more.

Some other examples

L.A. no longer turns over people arrested for low-level crimes to federal agents for deportation and moved away from honoring federal requests to detain inmates who might be deportable past their jail terms

“The ordinance, dubbed “Due Process for All,” is a response to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Secure Communities program. The program asks that authorities hold undocumented people charged with any crime in custody, even if they would normally be released, so federal agents can consider deportation. Under the new ordinance, approved on Tuesday, unless an individual has a prior conviction for murder, sexual assault, trafficking or assault with a deadly weapon, San Francisco authorities would be unable to keep the person in custody based solely on immigration status.
 
Again, this feels like speculation based on your biases. If you can show me that there hasn't been an incident where a white kid was wrongfully killed and riots or a revenge murder didn't happen then you're exaggerating. I'm not saying there isn't a difference in how the incidents would be treated, but I doubt it's as bad as you're saying nationwide.

Are you familiar with Ethan Couch? He was an underage white kid that was s***-faced drunk and ran into a broken down SUV with people trying to help. Killed 4 people and seriously injured 9 others. His lawyers defense was he had "affluenza" which was a made up term for he was raised a rich white kid so he didn't know right from wrong.

He got sentenced to 10 years of probation.

Only after violating his probation, going on the run to Mexico, and then getting caught did he get sentenced to 2 years in prison.

I've seen people of color get 3-5 times that for personal use non-narcotic drugs.
 
Though to be fair that was a travesty of justice even by our already flawed justice system's standards.
 
Hellified said:
That's your opinion, not a fact. The U.S. allows certain laws to be influenced by community standards, and, though you may think that absolute uniformity-- say, every state having "imperfect self defense" laws-- would be a blessing, that's not necessarily the case, just because you think so.
if enough people in florida thought and feel the same way they could make it so.

If Florida law didn't recognize manslaughter, it couldn't have been added to the charges, and the jury couldn't have discussed it. Are you getting manslaughter confused with aggravated assault? It's true that the latter charge was not allowed by the trial judge. This decision might be based in racism, but we'll never know. Might the jury have judged Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter if they hadn't had to deal with the second-degree murder charge? We'll never know that either, but in my opinion the D.A. confused the matter by yielding to public opinion and trying to overcharge the defendant.
A judge said on Thursday that jurors in the George Zimmerman case can consider the lesser charge of manslaughter, but she delayed ruling on whether they may also consider third-degree murder after defense attorneys called the proposal "outrageous".

The judge, however, agreed with the prosecution that jurors could consider manslaughter as a lesser charge.

West said he wanted the six jurors to only consider the second-degree murder charge or not guilty.

"The state has charged him with second degree murder. They should be required to prove it," West said. "If they had wanted to charge him with manslaughter … they could do that."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/zimmerman-trial-manslaughter-charge

y'know google works for everybody:whatever:

had they found him guilty of manslaughter it would have been legally controversial.


Really? The question of whether the law is applied fairly and universally to all citizens doesn't matter to you? OK, but I don't know how you're going to fight the supposedly systemic racism without resorting to the law.



But if a practice ISN'T on the books as the law of the land, then it can be fought through the actual system. But "you know this," even if you don't want to admit the distinctions between law and custom.

you didn't look up black codes and jim crow laws did you...Much of the change in the US didn't come from using laws on the books but having laws struck down or creating new laws. That requires the conscience of the people being pricked enough to want to effect change in the laws. Thats what the civil rights marches was primarily about..civil disobedience. Its why some white people in the 1800s were called abolitionists..to abolish slave laws.

your earlier statement There were some official laws on the books, like laws against racial intermarriage, but by and large most of the strategies used to oppress black people were not laws, but customs. Is just not true.

And acts like lynchings while not legal, the lack of prosecution or guilty verdicts for the perps was completely within the legal system. And thats what black and other minorities had and have to deal with more than anything. Thats why you have some cops today walking around like their teflon because they know the system gives them the benefit of the doubt no matter what they do...until theres an ultra egregious act that sparks enough outrage for people to want to change the system or laws.


Well, since you agree with my earlier statement that the more common injunction is against black men mingling with white women, what was the point of using a little girl in the story at all? Personally, I think it was a heavy-handed warning to White America: "See, because you honkies have made it life so impossible for black men, the protagonist of the story couldn't even render aid to a lost little girl." They couldn't have shown a white woman in a comparable situation, so they tried to do a comedic version of a "Bigger Thomas" dilemma. My point in questioning the scenario is that because it doesn't seem true to life, it accomplishes nothing more than preaching to the converted.
whats not true to life..how black men feel theyre perceived by white people?

How long have you been black to be able to make that judgment? What is this white 'splaining?? you gonna tell black men how they feel about something now?
 
Last edited:
Are you familiar with Ethan Couch? He was an underage white kid that was s***-faced drunk and ran into a broken down SUV with people trying to help. Killed 4 people and seriously injured 9 others. His lawyers defense was he had "affluenza" which was a made up term for he was raised a rich white kid so he didn't know right from wrong.

He got sentenced to 10 years of probation.

Only after violating his probation, going on the run to Mexico, and then getting caught did he get sentenced to 2 years in prison.

I've seen people of color get 3-5 times that for personal use non-narcotic drugs.

That was more to do wealth I think. The wealthy do tend to get away with a lot. Even wealthy POC.
 
Last edited:
if enough people in florida thought and feel the same way they could make it so.


A judge said on Thursday that jurors in the George Zimmerman case can consider the lesser charge of manslaughter, but she delayed ruling on whether they may also consider third-degree murder after defense attorneys called the proposal "outrageous".

The judge, however, agreed with the prosecution that jurors could consider manslaughter as a lesser charge.

West said he wanted the six jurors to only consider the second-degree murder charge or not guilty.

"The state has charged him with second degree murder. They should be required to prove it," West said. "If they had wanted to charge him with manslaughter … they could do that."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/zimmerman-trial-manslaughter-charge

y'know google works for everybody:whatever:

had they found him guilty of manslaughter it would have been legally controversial.




you didn't look up black codes and jim crow laws did you...Much of the change in the US didn't come from using laws on the books but having laws struck down or creating new laws. That requires the conscience of the people being pricked enough to want to effect change in the laws. Thats what the civil rights marches was primarily about..civil disobedience. Its why some white people in the 1800s were called abolitionists..to abolish slave laws.

your earlier statement There were some official laws on the books, like laws against racial intermarriage, but by and large most of the strategies used to oppress black people were not laws, but customs. Is just not true.

And acts like lynchings while not legal, the lack of prosecution or guilty verdicts for the perps was completely within the legal system. And thats what black and other minorities had and have to deal with more than anything. Thats why you have some cops today walking around like their teflon because they know the system gives them the benefit of the doubt no matter what they do...until theres an ultra egregious act that sparks enough outrage for people to want to change the system or laws.



whats not true to life..how black men feel theyre perceived by white people?

How long have you been black to be able to make that judgment? What is this white 'splaining?? you gonna tell black men how they feel about something now?

I hope you're not just making assumptions about another poster's race, we don't need any of that.

Their point I assume was that there isn't a particular stereotype portraying black men as pedophiles for black guys to be afraid of being seen as such.
 
Last edited:
Avoiding the unarmed and committing no crime part, makes it sound like you are being intellectually dishonest.

The post you quoted literally has "unarmed" in it, why you always on my nuts fam? I know you're an argumentative snot, but trying to cast aspersions on my honesty seems like a relatively cheap shot, but okay :up: I should've said "having all the same characteristics as the Trayvon murder" in order to avoid confusion, but I clearly didn't do that because I'm a sneaky liar trying to catch people out :o
 
Are you familiar with Ethan Couch? He was an underage white kid that was s***-faced drunk and ran into a broken down SUV with people trying to help. Killed 4 people and seriously injured 9 others. His lawyers defense was he had "affluenza" which was a made up term for he was raised a rich white kid so he didn't know right from wrong.

He got sentenced to 10 years of probation.

Only after violating his probation, going on the run to Mexico, and then getting caught did he get sentenced to 2 years in prison.

I've seen people of color get 3-5 times that for personal use non-narcotic drugs.

I've already said I know and acknowledge people get treated differently depending on their demographics, primarily race.

What does seem to happen in this thread, though, is every incident where a white person gets what seems to be too low a sentence it's automatically assumed it's because they're white and because of no other extraneous variables. While I completely agree that sounds far too low and he should've gotten a harsher sentence since I don't know the full details of the case and I'm uninformed about American law there's little way for me to tell whether it's because he's white (quite possible) or because there's some other mitigating aspect.
 
I've already said I know and acknowledge people get treated differently depending on their demographics, primarily race.

What does seem to happen in this thread, though, is every incident where a white person gets what seems to be too low a sentence it's automatically assumed it's because they're white and because of no other extraneous variables. While I completely agree that sounds far too low and he should've gotten a harsher sentence since I don't know the full details of the case and I'm uninformed about American law there's little way for me to tell whether it's because he's white (quite possible) or because there's some other mitigating aspect.

As others have mentioned and the insanely stupid "affluenza" defense his lawyer used, it most certainly had a lot to do with him being a rich white kid.

I can actually chime in here from some personal experience though. Back in 2009 or 2010 when I was still an active alcoholic, I had a warrant out for drunkenly breaking into my old neighbors apartment above me. Had a warrant out and when I got picked up for it I was charged with burglary which is a felony.

I had a public defender and had essentially went on record as having committed the crime. I also had prior charges of DUI's and petty theft. My public defender got a deal where the felony was withheld adjudication so I'm not a felon after completion of my 3 years of probation which I was released early from for good behavior type of thing.

I saw at least 2 POC while going through the system have almost the same charge as me (non-violent burglary) and they ended up with prison time.
 
Oh, good lord.. somebody would find a black woman to represent for the Trumptonian demographic-- sheesh, beloved.. way to turn off your brain.. (yeah, I went there.. I don't care..). You can be "conservative" all you want, you can be Republican, but dang.... (sigh).. I don't relate to being ride-or-die for this dude.. the cognitive dissonance to me is sickening..

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...-time-either/ar-AAqlbfr?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp


Parson Hicks, 35, a strong supporter of President Trump, dismissed the moral outrage at his remarks about violence in Charlottesville, Va., over the past week.

For Parson Hicks, a health care finance executive who supports President Trump, this past week has felt a little like déjà vu. Mr. Trump says something. His opponents howl and then predict, with certainty, a point of no return.


The last time this happened, she said, was in October with the notorious “Access Hollywood” recording of Mr. Trump talking lewdly about women. His opponents were sure he was finished. His supporters knew better.

Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter

“Let’s be honest, the people who are currently outraged are the same people who have always been outraged,” said Ms. Hicks, 35, a lifelong Republican who lives in Boston. “The media makes it seem like something has changed, when in reality nothing has.”


It was a week of incessant tumult, when Mr. Trump tumbled into open warfare with some in his own party over his statements on the violence in Charlottesville, Va.; business executives abandoned his advisory councils; top military leaders pointedly made statements denouncing racism in a way he did not; and his embattled chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, stepped down. But around the country, Mr. Trump’s supporters — and, according to many polls, Republicans more broadly — agreed with his interpretation of a swirl of racially charged events and stood with him amid still more clatter and churn.

Sixty-seven percent of Republicans said they approved of the president’s response to the violence in Charlottesville last weekend, compared with just 10 percent of Democrats, according to a CBS News survey conducted over the past week.

It’s an indication of what now seems an almost immutable law of the Trump presidency. There are signs that Mr. Trump’s support among Republican leaders and some Republican voters is weakening. But in an increasingly tribal America, with people on the left and the right getting information from different sources and seeing the same facts in different ways, it reflects the way Mr. Trump has become in many ways both symbol and chief agitator of a divided nation.

Moral outrage at Mr. Trump’s response to Charlottesville continues to glow white hot, but it has a largely partisan tinge.

From Ms. Hicks’s perspective, the president simply pointed out a fact: Leftists bore some responsibility for the violence, too. Of course, Nazis and white supremacists are bad, she said. But she does not believe Mr. Trump has any affinity for them. He said so himself. But she is exasperated that a significant part of the country seems to think otherwise. The week’s frenzied headlines read to her like bulletins from another planet.

“I feel like I am in a bizarro universe where no one but me is thinking logically,” she said. “We have gone so off the rails of what this conversation is about.”

Ms. Hicks, who is black and grew up in Charlotte, N.C., welcomes the public soul-searching on the meaning of Confederate monuments. She believes that the statues were erected to intimidate black people and that they should be taken down. But instead of focusing on that, she sees opponents of Mr. Trump focusing on Mr. Trump.

“This is not about me as a black person, and my history,” she said. “This is about this president and wanting to take him down because you don’t like him.”

Mr. Bannon’s departure was more noise that didn’t mean much, she said. “The show is going to go on.”

Much of what powers the love for Mr. Trump among his core supporters is his boxer’s approach to the political class in Washington and to the news media, a group that in their eyes has approached them with a double standard and a sneering sense of superiority for years.

Larry Laughlin, a retired businessman from a Minneapolis suburb, compares Mr. Trump to a high school senior who could “walk up to the table with the jocks and the cheerleaders and put them in their place.” That is something that the “nerds and the losers, whose dads are unemployed and moms are working in the cafeteria,” could never do. Mr. Trump may be rich, he said, but actually belonged at the nerd table.

“The guys who wouldn’t like me wouldn’t like Trump,” he said. “The guys who were condescending to him were condescending to me.

“I feel like I’m watching my uncle up there. Where me and Chuck Schumer — that’s like going to the dentist,” he added, referring to the Democratic leader in the Senate.

Gregory Kline, 46, a lawyer in Severna Park, Md., who is a Republican, said he did not vote for Mr. Trump but understands that part of the president’s support comes from fury at the left, particularly the media. When there is an attack by Muslim terrorists, for example, the media reaches for pundits who say most Muslims are good. But when it is a white supremacist, “every conservative is lumped in with him,” he said.

“It’s not that people are deaf and dumb and don’t see it,” he said of Mr. Trump’s sometimes erratic behavior. “It’s that they don’t care. I’ve heard rational people I really respect make the craziest apologies for this president because they are sick of getting beat on and they are happy he’s fighting back.”

Is there anything Mr. Trump could do that would change the minds of his supporters? For the most loyal, probably not. A recent Monmouth University poll found that, of the current 41 percent of Americans who approve of the job he is doing, 61 percent say they cannot see Mr. Trump doing anything that would make them disapprove of him. (A similar share of the other side says there is nothing Mr. Trump could do — other than resigning — to get them to like him.)

But for many others, support is conditional. (Mr. Trump’s poll numbers have dropped considerably since he took office in January.) Michael Dye, a 52-year-old engineer who is the treasurer for the Republican Party in Annapolis, Md., said he was “a bit stunned” that Mr. Trump had not focused more on condemning what was a large neo-Nazi march through the middle of the University of Virginia, Mr. Dye’s alma mater.

“At best it is naïve to think that the people showing up for the original protest were there simply because they were upset that this statue was being taken down,” said Mr. Dye, who said he voted reluctantly for Mr. Trump.

Of the chant “Jews will not replace us,” he said: “You can argue that it was 10 percent of the crowd. But there are those types in there and I’ve got a problem with that and I wish he’d specified that.”

Even with his reservations, Mr. Dye said he would still vote for Mr. Trump. He wants his party to hold the reins and steer policy, and if Mr. Trump is the only route to that, he will take it.

Partisanship is now so deep that what we see depends entirely on who is looking. So when Mr. Trump said there had been “violence on both sides,” Democrats — and some Republicans — heard a dangerous moral equivalence between neo-Nazis and the people who opposed them. But for many Trump supporters, his words appealed to a basic sense of fairness.

“Anyone who was fair-minded could see that there was violence on both sides,” said John McIntosh, 76, who lives in New Bern, N.C., and voted for Mr. Trump. He said that did not excuse the driver of the car that killed a counterprotester and injured many others.

When those who were horrified tried to convince those who were not, it did not go well.

“Everybody is like, how can you not see it, he’s a total white supremacist, a total Nazi,” said Debra Skoog, a retired executive in Minneapolis and a lifelong Democrat who voted for Mr. Trump. “I just don’t see it that way. I don’t find his language as incriminating as some people do.”

Yascha Mounk, a political scientist at Harvard University who writes about democracy, said partisanship in the United States today is dangerously deep.

“It’s now at a stage where a lot of Americans have such a loyalty to their political tribe that they are willing to go along with deeply undemocratic behavior,” he said. “If their guy says, ‘I think we should push back the election for a few years because of a possible terrorist attack,’ I fear that a significant part of the population would go along with it.”

And in a polarized nation, many see a moment, full of passion on both sides, in which actions like taking down statues in the dead of night — as happened in Baltimore on Wednesday — are just bound to lead to more division.

“People who see this stuff going down the memory hole as quickly as it is happening feel unsettled by it,” Mr. Kline said. “The left doesn’t realize that the reaction a lot of people would have is to sit back and say, ‘Wait a minute, what’s going on here?’ ”
 
Basically common sense is gone.
 
Trump has a lot of minority supporters but like the white ones, they are just under cover. Trust me,I know tons of them.
 
I get people who are in the same type of position as the lady above because the only color they have any loyalty to is green. I absolutely understand the rich folks that stick by him, my dad is one. I don't agree with them but I get it.

What I don't understand is how anyone that is in the middle to lower class tiers thinks the Trumpster Fire will have any type of positive impact on their life. Specifically after the crap they have been passing our trying to pass. Those are the folks that truly live in some fantasy realm with no bearing on reality.
 
So she admits the statues had malicious intent and wants them down but cannot fathom why people are opposing Donald Trump - the guy who a few days ago complained about the statues being taken down.
 
It's simple, people don't understand basic economics or which decisions affect them and how, so they take statements like "I'll protect American jobs and improve the economy" at face value.
 
I hope you're not just making assumptions about another poster's race, we don't need any of that.

Their point I assume was that there isn't a particular stereotype portraying black men as pedophiles for black guys to be afraid of being seen as such.

the point of that video is to illustrate how Andre (the black guy) is hyper aware of the perception of black men being a danger to white femininity and the repercussions for black men. Again based on real historical incidents that have happened one of which I already posted. Whether or not that danger is specifically pedophilia is beside the point
 
Please explain. Many things said in here I don't get all point of it. Why in USA you speak and think of race every day? In other countries we worry about work hard and take care of family. We worry of government yet, but not directly of other citizens all the time. We not thinking of race, gender, religion all day everyday. But Americans do??? The focus on these things when I in US always make me shake head. If someone asian white or black it doesn't matter. Just another human being who happens to look different from you. Stop everyday thinking of race, that is not of productive way to live life.
 
Please explain. Many things said in here I don't get all point of it. Why in USA you speak and think of race every day? In other countries we worry about work hard and take care of family. We worry of government yet, but not directly of other citizens all the time. We not thinking of race, gender, religion all day everyday. But Americans do??? The focus on these things when I in US always make me shake head. If someone asian white or black it doesn't matter. Just another human being who happens to look different from you. Stop everyday thinking of race, that is not of productive way to live life.

Here in New England I don't think of race much at all. It's why when I see all these demonstrations and KKK guys it gives me a jolt. How are these guys still around? I can only assume that it is different in the South. :(
 
ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE EXTREME LEFT AND THIS ANTIFA MOVEMENT WHICH ARE REALLY FASCISTS WORKING WITH BILLIONAIRE ELITES LIKE GEORGE SOROS TO KILL THIS COUNTRY.

20992837_1413331212054894_8756247138516375769_n.jpg


See where it says from these punks, I assume from their Facebook..."There is no room for CAPITALISTS, CONSERVATIVES, LIBERTARIANS "CLASSICAL LIBERALS" OR SUPPORTERS OF THE CONSTITUTION." I happen to be ALL those things.

THESE PEOPLE ARE MERCENARIES AS THEY ARE PAID FOR BY SOROS AND FOREIGN BANKERS WHOSE GOAL IS THE NEW WORLD ORDER!

And to Kelly that #Resist...means one thing...TOTALITARIAN BIGGER, MORE INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT LIKE THAT OF OBAMA OR BUSH OR CLINTON!

I am for LIMITED GOVERNMENT. And if that makes me a racist, well then it's clear to me the people using that term, the left ARE THE RACISTS THEMSELVES...

As they

  • STARTED THE KKK (Nathan Bedford Forest)
  • WROTE JIM CROW LAWS
  • STACKED THE COURTS WITH DRED SCOTT SUPPORTERS
  • WERE AGAINST THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 (INCLUDING AL GORE SR. WHO INFAMOUSLY FILIBUSTERED FOR HOURS)

STILL DON'T BELIEVE ME? Ask Carol Swain, professor at Vanderbilt University.

[YT]g_a7dQXilCo[/YT]
 
"You MUST Leave" feels like a threat they can't make good on.

"Do not command what you cannot enforce" comes to mind.
 
There's enough of that crap on Facebook and Twitter; please don't bring it here.
 
Yes, because there was not a radical shift in the parties sometime in the 60s. That the Republicans trying to claim the "party of Lincoln" title feels wrong. This is line of "talk" is intellectually dishonest, as is trying to paint nazis as a leftist movement just because of the word "socialist" in their name. It is about as valid to their goals as is "Poeple's Democratic Republic" is to North Korea.

And Robert Anthony, lay off the Infowars for a week, okay?
 
There's enough of that crap on Facebook and Twitter; please don't bring it here.

Bar the overuse of capitals the poster hasn't made offensive remarks, I don't agree with the conspiratorial new world order nonsense but it would be remiss not to consider the possibility that the political friction in the USA doesn't make for a great opportunity to make money for some people.
 
Bar the overuse of capitals the poster hasn't made offensive remarks, I don't agree with the conspiratorial new world order nonsense but it would be remiss not to consider the possibility that the political friction in the USA doesn't make for a great opportunity to make money for some people.

There is also the intellectually dishonest arguments. What the parties were 2 generations ago means little to what they are NOW.
 
There is also the intellectually dishonest arguments. What the parties were 2 generations ago means little to what they are NOW.

Sure, I agree with both points you made in the second last post. They both seem to be popular fallacies these days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,368
Messages
22,092,898
Members
45,887
Latest member
Barryg
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"