Riots/Police/Social Justice Issues

[soon]

3 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

 

 

And it's only 3 pm or so in Chicago...we still have 56 hours to go before the weekend is over.

Just so everyone can see a clear picture - there have already been more unarmed people shot today in Chicago alone  than police shot (unarmed) all of last year (in the entire U.S.)

Think about that.

The only reason you don't hear about this type of stuff is because 80% of the media is liberal leaning and 90% of the large cities in the U.S. are run by liberals.  It's very sad and unfortunate that the exponentially worse issue of inner city violent crime in the U.S. is being overshadowed because of politics. 

 

1) I think that a great many posters from countries whose news media and cultures intersects with US media and politics know all about the issue of gun violence in Chicagos minority communities. Its been ongoing for some years and decades. Also, if we're playing Media Issue Olympics, why arent you aghast that the liberal media isnt covering the fact that Chicago is still run by the mob, 24/7?

2) There is a clear delineation between State violence and person-to-person violence. And State violence can even be legal - such as the death penalty. But we are talking about State violence that strips one of their rights. So, while the social contract we all share as common people definitely rejects interpersonal violence, it doesnt bear the same societal responsibility that the States contract with the people holds. Which is to protect our rights from threats, not be a threat to our rights.

3) We all know this Chicago argument. Youve left out the central plank of this golden oldie, which is to explicitly state that much of the gun violence in Chicago is 'black on black.' Which is often put forward as way of denying the racism of some examples of police/state violence. But this gun violence takes place in areas of deep poverty and disadvantage. The history of real estate in Chicago is fascinating. Concentrated pockets of desperate and disenfranchised people is unacceptable. That is what the gun violence in Chicago teaches us.

4) You are either not understanding BLM, or you are misrepresenting it. Because the cops work hard to arrest those involved in gun violence in Chicago. Then the authorities seek to convict them. That has not often been the case when cops murder civilians. Thats a root of the entire issue.

[Ace Nova]

1 hour ago, soon said:

1) I think that a great many posters from countries whose news media and cultures intersects with US media and politics know all about the issue of gun violence in Chicagos minority communities. Its been ongoing for some years and decades. Also, if we're playing Media Issue Olympics, why arent you aghast that the liberal media isnt covering the fact that Chicago is still run by the mob, 24/7?

2) There is a clear delineation between State violence and person-to-person violence. And State violence can even be legal - such as the death penalty. But we are talking about State violence that strips one of their rights. So, while the social contract we all share as common people definitely rejects interpersonal violence, it doesnt bear the same societal responsibility that the States contract with the people holds. Which is to protect our rights from threats, not be a threat to our rights.

3) We all know this Chicago argument. Youve left out the central plank of this golden oldie, which is to explicitly state that much of the gun violence in Chicago is 'black on black.' Which is often put forward as way of denying the racism of some examples of police/state violence. But this gun violence takes place in areas of deep poverty and disadvantage. The history of real estate in Chicago is fascinating. Concentrated pockets of desperate and disenfranchised people is unacceptable. That is what the gun violence in Chicago teaches us.

4) You are either not understanding BLM, or you are misrepresenting it. Because the cops work hard to arrest those involved in gun violence in Chicago. Then the authorities seek to convict them. That has not often been the case when cops murder civilians. Thats a root of the entire issue.

1. Highly Doubtful that the rest of the word knows the actual statistics, especially when comparing it to police shootings.   What Mob?  If you are referring to Mexican Cartels, then you would be closer to the truth.  And even so, what does that say about the government in that area?  

2. So it doesn’t matter that thousands of inner city people are murdered every year?  Got it.
BTW you’re reasoning that it’s state and city driven make zero sense because SO ARE THE POLICE.

3. You obviously don’t seem to get it yet if you “know about it”. Regardless, if it is as you say; then why not put that on the forefront?  Oh, I get it, it’s “state and city problem”  So is the police.  SMH.

4. I never  mentioned a single word in regards to BLM.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Ace Nova

[soon]

9 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

2. So it doesn’t matter that thousand of inner city people are murdered every year?  Got it.

Wow.

 

10 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

3. You obviously don’t seem to get it yet if you “know about it”. Regardless, if it is as you say; then why not out that on the forefront?  Oh, I get it, it’s “state and city problem”  SMH.

Huh?

10 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

4. I never  mentioned a single word in relation to BLM.

Fascinating.

So you started a thread to discus the BLM riots - the original title, out of a few thread titles since, was directly about a cop shooting iirc. But apparently now it should be clear that you are not speaking in relation to BLM riots? If you are telling the truth, than what riots is the thread title in reference too??

Also,

Your original argument is premised upon the assertion that liberal media covers some stories too much, and other stories too little. Id love to hear what are the news items in the liberal media that you feel get too much attention in comparison to minority (black) gun violence in chicago? Prolly BLM riots since that is part of the thread title?

[Ace Nova]

32 minutes ago, soon said:

Wow.

 

Huh?

Fascinating.

So you started a thread to discus the BLM riots - the original title, out of a few thread titles since, was directly about a cop shooting iirc. But apparently now it should be clear that you are not speaking in relation to BLM riots? If you are telling the truth, than what riots is the thread title in reference too??

Also,

Your original argument is premised upon the assertion that liberal media covers some stories too much, and other stories too little. Id love to hear what are the news items in the liberal media that you feel get too much attention in comparison to minority (black) gun violence in chicago? Prolly BLM riots since that is part of the thread title?

The thread title is about "Riots" not about a "peaceful BLM movement".  I think that BLM has every right to protest peacefully and they seem to be getting at least some laws changed/amended, etc.  And that's the way things should be done, imo.

The riots, shootings/violence (within the riots) and causing further division/violence between people of different backgrounds should not be happening. 

 

Edit:  I didn't see that last part of your post.  I edited my post because it's easy to blame the media but in reality, they are a ratings driven platform and will cater to what gives them the best ratings. 

The issue with inner city violence (not being a priority)  has more to do with dissimulation that exists within politics, which fuels the media and in turn, creates an ideology within a certain segment of the population. 

That "newfound ideology"  is born from disinformation and/or only knowing "partial truths" and adhering to partisan politics. 

So when people within Democratic run cities are killing each other at alarming rates (when compared to police killings) the police killings will always take the forefront, in order to take the focus away from the much bigger problem.  Anyone that has "true humanitarian" intentions would (without question) focus on the issue of inner city violence first. 

The (not so amusing part) is if they were to focus on that first, most issues with the police would be reduced by default!  They are doing it backwards, imo.  They could even focus on them simultaneously.  But they don't, do they? Ask yourself why.  

 

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by Ace Nova

[DieselDaisy]

 

Amidst insanity, Candace Owens, as usual, speaks a whole load of sense. Pity she wasn't running for President,

 

[Dazey]

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

Amidst insanity, Candace Owens, as usual, speaks a whole load of sense. Pity she wasn't running for President,

 

Yeah. Nonsense. 

Shame she’s not so horrified about having an “alleged” multiple rapist on the ballot. 

Edited September 13, 2020 by Dazey

[Gibsonfender2323]

18 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

 

 

And it's only 3 pm or so in Chicago...we still have 56 hours to go before the weekend is over.

Just so everyone can see a clear picture - there have already been more unarmed people (By other people)  shot today in Chicago alone  than police shot (unarmed) all of last year (in the entire U.S.)

Think about that.

 

Doesn't go with the narrative. Thats Black on Black crime and nobody cares about how that is the cause of most violent deaths. pshh

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Dazey said:

Yeah. Nonsense. 

Shame she’s not so horrified about having an “alleged” multiple rapist on the ballot. 

She is supporting Biden?

BLM is about peace and love,

 

[Iron MikeyJ]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

Amidst insanity, Candace Owens, as usual, speaks a whole load of sense. Pity she wasn't running for President,

 

I agree, Candace Owens NEEDS to be on a ballot in 2024. 

[Dazey]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

She is supporting Biden?

BLM is about peace and love,

 

Again. You're talking bollocks.

[downzy]

12 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

Amidst insanity, Candace Owens, as usual, speaks a whole load of sense. Pity she wasn't running for President,

 

So let me get this straight.

The cop who shot Blake seven times in the back while he was allegedly unarmed attempting to return to his car that contained his three children has no blame in the consequences of his actions?

Candace Owens is a fraud who makes money appealing to conservatives because she's black.  It's a hustle.  And it would appear that there are enough suckers out there to buy the bullshit she peddles.

 

[downzy]

12 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

She is supporting Biden?

BLM is about peace and love,

 

This is absolutely nuts.

The fact the LA county sheriff would tweet something like this is nuts.

Yes, absolutely, the three to five people being assholes at the ER should be arrested.

But why are they tweeting this message?  Weren't the cops present on the scene?  Did they think tweeting this warning was the most effective way to communicate to the less than half dozen people being assholes? 

I don't know, maybe whoever tweeted this on behalf of the LA sheriffs simply wanted to rile up the pinheads who are looking for any opportunity to tie a few assholes to a large and widely supported movement rooted in efforts to gain equal treatment by US law enforcement.  

In that respect, mission accomplished.  

You wanted examples of why I think you're a racist DD.  Here you go.  

[Gibsonfender2323]

21 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

She is supporting Biden?

BLM is about peace and love,

 

Fuck those assholes Absolute scum and indfensible.

[Gibsonfender2323]

California is a lost cause. 

 

https://heavy.com/news/2020/09/jose-ometeotl/

Edited September 14, 2020 by Gibsonfender2323

[Gibsonfender2323]

https://www.wgal.com/article/lancaster-police-body-cam-video-shooting-man-armed-with-knife-ricardo-munoz/34009627

 

So whats the controversy?

[Iron MikeyJ]

10 hours ago, downzy said:

So let me get this straight.

The cop who shot Blake seven times in the back while he was allegedly unarmed attempting to return to his car that contained his three children has no blame in the consequences of his actions?

Candace Owens is a fraud who makes money appealing to conservatives because she's black.  It's a hustle.  And it would appear that there are enough suckers out there to buy the bullshit she peddles.

 

Typical Liberal twattle speak. You can't argue her points, so you attack her character/motivation. You also can't call her a "racists" so it doesn't fit the typical Liberal response narritive.

 

Let me ask you a serious question, do you think that Biden gave Cardio B his first proper interview in months even slightly questionable? 

 

For the record, I'm not a "Trump supporter." I've never been to a "rally." I've even voted democrat for the past 3 elections. I've always considered myself a true "Independent." It's the far left that has changed the entire Democratic party, to a place that I can no longer support. 

Edited September 14, 2020 by Iron MikeyJ

[soon]

13 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Let me ask you a serious question, do you think that Biden gave Cardio B his first proper interview in months even slightly questionable? 

Nah, Biden just likes that WAP

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Fuck those assholes Absolute scum and indfensible.

 

2 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Typical Liberal twattle speak. You can't argue her points, so you attack her character/motivation. You also can't call her a "racists" so it doesn't fit the typical Liberal response narritive.

 

Let me ask you a serious question, do you think that Biden gave Cardio B his first proper interview in months even slightly questionable? 

 

For the record, I'm not a "Trump supporter." I've never been to a "rally." I've even voted democrat for the past 3 elections. I've always considered myself a true "Independent." It's the far left that has changed the entire Democratic party, to a place that I can no longer support. 

Broadening the term ''left'' beyond mere party politics, to include the mainstream media, corporate-entertainment-celebrity world and general twitterati, the whole moral compass has been lost, by which the left just do not care about the murder, destruction, anarchy - let's not forget the dodgy ideology which was demonstrably present from the beginning. They just do not care seemingly! The most we have seen are a few sports organisations climbing down from active support - English FA Premier League removed badges, and cricketers no longer kneeling. The whole defence is to simply put ear plugs in, cover the eyes with a blindfold when clips like the above are produced and scream ''racist'' over-and-over again: that is the level of intellectual reasoning we have arrived at! 

Case in point, idem. 

Maybe it is that thing where, by now admitting it is all a load of anarchic race-baiting they'll be admitting they hitherto were in error - I hope it is that as the alternative explanation is far worse, an almighty weakening of human morality in the left, formally the political spectrum prioritising social justice and toleration. I am going to opt for the former for my own sanity! I'll give them a reprieve. But yes, the polarities are so extreme between left and right - true for both Britain and America - that nobody is willing to climb down and admit they made a mistake in supporting the thing.

I do think there were a lot who simply didn't read about it - especially so for sportspersons. They probably saw it as just another generic ''kick out racism'' type campaign. 

[Gibsonfender2323]

3 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

The left has no moral high ground to stand on, yet they truly believe they do. 

I can agree and disagree with policy on both sides, I've never seen it as a "one size fits all" type of thing. Unfortunately that isn't the case anymore (both sides are guilty of this). Having said that, I've encountered far more conservatives that are at least willing to have an open minded discussion. You might not be able to change their minds, but at least they are willing to have the conversation. I can't say the same about liberals for the last 8-10 years. They used to be open minded, but not anymore. When a point is made they don't agree with, they cover their ears and yell racist. 

 

Which again I find ironic since they have no moral high ground to stand on, but they REALLY BELIEVE they do. Nazi Germany believed they were right as well. It's scary when people believe in their heart they are on the side of right. That's when history has shown us the "bad" things happen.

and most conservatives I have meet in my very liberal state don't care about race. The lefties are mostly self hating white people conservatives  don't care whether if someone is blackm white or green.

[DieselDaisy]

13 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Nazi Germany

As a historian, the parallels I keep seeing are shocking. The holier than thou sense of righteousness; the sheep like servitude of the gormless masses; the collaboration of media-corporates. Even the footage is identical. Have you seen that cafe clip where they hounded that woman. The disturbing thing is all the other diners instantly doing a black power salute in order to not be seen as outside the movement (or merely to evade abuse). Exact same thing. And ''racist'' is now exactly what ''witch'' was in the 17th century, and ''Jew'' was in 1930s Germany, a basically meaningless term used to denounce dissent.

Edited September 14, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[Gibsonfender2323]

Lancaster PA up in flames last night over a justified shooting. Thank god for body cams

[downzy]

15 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Exact same thing. And ''racist'' is now exactly what ''witch'' was in the 17th century, and ''Jew'' was in 1930s Germany, a basically meaningless term used to denounce dissent.

You have been spewing your nonsense for years without anyone calling you a racist.  

But the totality of your posting history here, coupled with the need to tar and feather a large social movement because of the actions of a few assholes, finally brought home the charge of being a racist.  To claim that I level the charge only to denounce dissent is to ignore the numerous responses and counter-arguments myself and others have provided.  

[Iron MikeyJ]

2 minutes ago, downzy said:

You have been spewing your nonsense for years without anyone calling you a racist.  

But the totality of your posting history here, coupled with the need to tar and feather a large social movement because of the actions of a few assholes, finally brought home the charge of being a racist.  To claim that I level the charge only to denounce dissent is to ignore the numerous responses and counter-arguments myself and others have provided.  

It hasn't been just a "few assholes" though. If the "movement" is causing violence, then doesn't that imply the "movement" has some major issues?

On a side note, it's not logical to say the "movement" is different than the "organization." Which I'm not saying anyone here has said that (maybe they have, IDK?) My point is, where is the money that is being raised by the "movement" going? It's going to the organization, therefore the two are one in the same. Before you say "what money? When you see BLM in commercials or on an NBA court, then people ARE indeed giving them money. I would like to see a record of how much money BLM has made in 2020, I bet it's an alarming amount. Where is that money going? Back to the community? No. 

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

It hasn't been just a "few assholes" though. If the "movement" is causing violence, then doesn't that imply the "movement" has some major issues?

You might not have seen this post from me:

On 9/10/2020 at 10:35 AM, SoulMonster said:

More than 93 % of all Black Lives Matter protests in the USA have been peaceful:

"In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity. Peaceful protests are reported in over 2,400 distinct locations around the country. Violent demonstrations, meanwhile, have been limited to fewer than 220 locations — under 10% of the areas that experienced peaceful protests."
https://acleddata.com/acleddatanew/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ACLED_USDataReview_Sum2020_SeptWebPDF.pdf

Despite this, "one recent poll suggested that 42% of respondents believe most protesters [associated with the BLM movement] are trying to incite violence or destroy property".

Hmm...how can this be? How can people have such an erroneous perception of the movement? Can it be due to people deliberately focusing on the rare examples of violence and destruction to undermine the BLM movement because they don't agree with racial equality?

So the vast majority of BLM protest marches have been entirely non-violent. This would come as a surprise to anyone following far-right social media, or just reading DieselDaisy's posts, which tries to paint the entire movement as violent in an effort to undermine its objective which is racial equality.

And as for your idea that something is wrong with a movement that contain violent components: Can you think of any movement of people of the size of BLM that wasn't exploited by thugs and vandals to some extent? What you are seeing is just humanity in action. It doesn't take away from the movement's genuine objective.

And lastly, racism. The definition of racism has been pretty stable (valuing some races/ethnicicities/peoples higher than other; or rather, some lower than others), but as society has become less and less racist and with less and less tolerance for overt examples of racism, racist people have learnt to hide their racism better. So the displays of racism have morphed somewhat. Racists simply have to be a bit more clever about their racism. They have to because they dare not be honest about their feelings on race. They dare not openly admit believing some races are lesser than others (actually, we had one self-acclaimed racist here some moths ago, horrible but refreshing). But here's a way to identify a racist who doesn't want to be identified: He or she is someone who never say anything suggesting he isn't a racist, he or she is someone whose beliefs and opinions entirely align with racist ideology without explicitly admitting being a racist, he or she is someone who would consistently attack/reject/dismiss attempts at racial equality ("the entire BLM movement can be rejected because of some vandalism and violence"), and is someone who, when confronted with this, will refuse to deny being a racist. I mean, if you consistently attack the idea of racial equality for obviously vicarious motives, that is a pretty clear giveaway. Don't get me wrong, one can easily be against BLM because one doesn't like protests in general, or doesn't like the fact that 7 % of the protest marches contain some violence, or because some protesters want to destroy statues. That's fair enough. On its own that's not wrong. But when you consistently undermine and mock any attempts at racial equality, or fight the notion that racism exists and is wrong, then the sheer burden of all this would strongly indicate that you are a racist.  You quack like a duck, you walk like a duck, and you align ideology with a duck  - yeah, safe to say you are a duck.

 

 

[downzy]

17 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

It hasn't been just a "few assholes" though. If the "movement" is causing violence, then doesn't that imply the "movement" has some major issues?

The demand for being treated equally by the US legal system isn't responsible for the violence produced by a slim minority. 

A recent study showed that 93 percent of the protests in the name of BLM was peaceful. 

Do you think it is at all fair to judge the 93 percent by the actions of the 7?

20 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Which I'm not saying anyone here has said that (maybe they have, IDK?) My point is, where is the money that is being raised by the "movement" going? It's going to the organization

There is no one single dominant BLM organization.  Much of the money raised was used (unfortunately in some cases rather haphazardly) to assist with bail and legal fees.  

22 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I would like to see a record of how much money BLM has made in 2020, I bet it's an alarming amount.

And what's wrong with that if one organization is using the money to get the word out?

23 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Where is that money going? Back to the community? No. 

And you base this on what knowledge?