Jump to content

Riots/Police/Social Justice Issues


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 654
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So it's the people when we're bumming choir boys but the leaders when we're protesting racial injustice? Right. Gotcha.

I don't need to go through your entire posting history.  I've used some of your most recent posts to support my opinion.  Guess you weren't paying attention.  

Posted Images

27 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, IF the governor hadn't gone out and condemned the murder THEN people would be rioting because of that, too ;)

But that likely didn't help either because...

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

People didn't riot because their governor said it like it is, people rioting because a fucking cop shot a black man seven times in the back. 

 

 

 

Which leads us to conclude...

 

2 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

 

Wouldn't it be better to let the fire simmer down, so that you don't burn the food and risk burning down your house? 

Once the fire simmers down, you can cook your food and feed it to the people in your house. 

When half the people in your house see the food you are serving, they think to themselves, "That doesn't look good". 

But since you cooked the food properly by letting the fire simmer down, they eat it and most of them realize "It's not that bad after all". 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

See these are the things that were not known initially. It helps to create an overall picture of what happened and why it happened.

The problem is how police operates, not what the general public knew or didn't know. Is this guy Jack The Ripper or Charles Mason? If the answer is no, then he didn't deserve seven shots. If he comited a crime, sure he should be arrested and face trial. But police can't be out there shooting suspects around just because the suspects are unwilling to cooperate. If the Governor of Wisconsin called them out. I can't blame him. Police can only kill a suspect in self defense. It doesn't look like this was the case

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Why does everyone have to stick to one position with no nuance? Why can't the kid have been dumb for bringing the rifle and trying to LARP as a cop, but the rioters were also idiots and wrong to bum rush him and physically assault him? Both these things can be true.

From the footage I saw plenty of people carrying guns. You know if you bring guns someone will get shot.

And seeing all those looters breaking into stores and stealing stuff, why isn't any new people talking about these savages destroying a city and destroying other people's way of life and making a living?

I see no reason for breaking into stores and stealing shit to protest shootings? It's just an excuse to riot and steal shit. It makes me sick.

Yes, there are many things wrong going on right now, but rioting and looting isn't the answer. And I don't believe it's all outside people causing all the trouble.

I saw the police of that city in Wisconsin talking today. Not mentioning the lootings and stores getting broken into. It was about how things will get better and people will come together.

This is so much a part of the problem with some leaders just ignoring so much shit going on in their cities. Police can't go in and arrest them or God forbid subdue them because they might yell police brutality. If you act like a savage they should have the right to treat you like a savage. Everything is so our of hand and the virus is still raging on.

By the time of the election I can only imagine how much worse it'll be between the virus and anything else people feel like doing.

And when/if all the states open their schools, OMG!

3 minutes ago, Padme said:

The problem is how police operates, not what the general public knew or didn't know. Is this guy Jack The Ripper or Charles Mason? If the answer is no, then he didn't deserve seven shots. If he comited a crime, sure he should be arrested and face trial. But police can't be out there shooting suspects around just because the suspects are unwilling to cooperate. If the Governor of Wisconsin called them out. I can't blame him. Police can only kill a suspect in self defense. It doesn't look like this was the case

As long as people are allowed to carry guns, people are going to get killed. It's sucks, but that's how it'll be. Too easy to get guns in America and too easy to learn how to use them.

Keep talking about the right to bear arms and people will continue to believe they can carry a gun and shoot whoever they feel like it. Terrible. I doubt it's ever going to stop

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

But that likely didn't help either because...

 

 

 

Which leads us to conclude...

 

 

First you need to explain why you conclude that the governor"s tweet didn't have some effect in calming the waters and that if he hadn't shown leadership and responsibility by acknowledging the tragedy and the police's accountability the rioting would be even worse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

NHL has now postponed today and tomorrows playoff games. MLB had already done the same earlier. NBA players decided to go back to playing. So that means our Raptors can get back to defending our title!

Again, the players are in quarantine, living just to play these games. And the leagues have obviously taken huge losses already this season, financially speaking. Im sure postponing games doesnt help their bottom line much.

Look what Kaepernick has done! Incredible! :headbang:

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

It could have gone that way but it didn't, did it?

There is nothing the Governor (or anyone) could say that would have prevented any protests or riots.  Those were inevitable.  You're either delusion or naive to think that the African American community in Kenosha and elsewhere in Wisconsin were waiting on the words of the Governor on whether they were going to take to the streets.

3 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

When people (eventually) watch the video, they will form their own conclusions, regardless of the governor's opinion.

Who is forming their opinion based solely on what the Governor says?  LOL

3 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

So why throw gasoline on a fire that is already burning? 

As I said before, silence on this matter is to be complicit.  Nobody is throwing gasoline on an issue by acknowledging facts.

3 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

Wouldn't it be better to let the fire simmer down, so that you don't burn the food and risk burning down your house?  Once the fire simmers down, you can cook your food and feed it to the people in your house.  When half the people in your house see the food you are serving, they think to themselves, "That doesn't look good".  But since you cooked the food properly by letting the fire simmer down, they eat it and most of them realize "It's not that bad after all". 

Man alive....  Your analogies are something else.  

See my last remark.  Silence would have likely exacerbated the problem. 

If half the people have a problem with what the Governor said, that's on them.  As @SoulMonster has pointed out, who the fuck runs around worrying about what deluded assholes think?  Public officials shouldn't be couching their statements based on the sensitivities of some imagined group of idiots who take offence to the statement of facts.  If American society is really that fragile, you have bigger problems than whatever is said on twitter by elected officials. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

First you need to explain why you conclude that the governor"s tweet didn't have some effect in calming the waters and that if he hadn't shown leadership and responsibility by acknowledging the tragedy and the police's accountability the rioting would be even worse. 

I was using your statement that "People do not riot because of what the governor says."  Do you no longer think that is the case?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, downzy said:

There is nothing the Governor (or anyone) could say that would have prevented any protests or riots.  Those were inevitable.  You're either delusion or naive to think that the African American community in Kenosha and elsewhere in Wisconsin were waiting on the words of the Governor on whether they were going to take to the streets.

Did you misread my response?  This is what you posted...

 

For many who acknowledge the problem, seeing their elected official acknowledge the action for what it is would be an effort to keep things peaceful.  Had Evers said, "black man shot in the back by the cops.  Can't really say more than that because we don't know all the facts," it would have likely inflamed anyone who is remotely familiar with the problem.   Failure to acknowledge the painfully obvious would only worsen the problem.  

 

I was responding to your statement and saying that the Governor trying to "keep things peaceful"  "Could have worked but it didn't".  I was basically agreeing with your follow up post saying, "There is nothing the Governor (or anyone) could say that would have prevented any protests or riots." 

 

1 hour ago, downzy said:

Who is forming their opinion based solely on what the Governor says?  LOL 

I'm guessing you misread my post again?

I responded, "When people (eventually) watch the video, they will form their own conclusions, regardless of the governor's opinion."  

 

1 hour ago, downzy said:

If half the people have a problem with what the Governor said, that's on them.  As @SoulMonster has pointed out, who the fuck runs around worrying about what deluded assholes think?  Public officials shouldn't be couching their statements based on the sensitivities of some imagined group of idiots who take offence to the statement of facts.  If American society is really that fragile, you have bigger problems than whatever is said on twitter by elected officials. 

 

The analogy was in reference to handling a divided population and then accomplishing police and social justice reform.  So the "half of the house" was a much broader term. It wasn't saying that "half the people" had a problem with the governor's specific statement.  But about half of the population could have different views on police reform and social justice issues. 

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ratbrain said:

eil2fqsingj51.jpg

 

Initially I thought the cops should have tackled this guy instead of letting him get to his car. Now I'm not so sure. If they had done that, he might have stabbed them in the struggle and possible killed one of them. If they knew he had the knife that explains their reticence to get into a physical fight with him and why they gave him opportunities to stop and surrender. However, once he gets to the vehicle they can no longer take a chance that he isn't going for a gun and they decide to take him out. This is how it could have actually gone down.

These are questions that will come up during a trial and need to be answered before people start screaming about one thing or another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

For many who acknowledge the problem, seeing their elected official acknowledge the action for what it is would be an effort to keep things peaceful.  Had Evers said, "black man shot in the back by the cops.  Can't really say more than that because we don't know all the facts," it would have likely inflamed anyone who is remotely familiar with the problem.   Failure to acknowledge the painfully obvious would only worsen the problem.  

I was responding to your statement and saying that the Governor trying to "keep things peaceful"  "Could have worked but it didn't".  I was basically agreeing with your follow up post saying, "There is nothing the Governor (or anyone) could say that would have prevented any protests or riots." 

Come on, you're (hopefully) smarter than this.

You know you're conflating two different but similar positions.  The Governor was never going to be able to prevent protests, riots regardless of what he said.  The only thing he could do is make things worse by ignoring the reality of the situation.  Thankfully he chose not to do that.  

There are two separate arguments here.  First, that his comments made things worse.  Second, that his comments were divisive.  

With respect to the first argument, I'll reiterate my point for the umpteenth time.  Evers not acknowledging the facts at hand would have made things worse.  Platitudes about waiting to get all the facts when people can see with their own eyes that another black man was shot down (in the back no less) would only inflame residents of Kenosha.  Why do you think Trump's poll numbers tanked soon after Floyd's murder?  You say dumb shit, you're going to see dumb response.  Ignoring the cold reality of the situation would not have produced a better result.

With respect to the second argument, they are only divisive to those who refuse to acknowledge the problem of racism (whether overt or implicit) in American law enforcement and legal system.  If you took offence or had issue with his comment, you're part of the problem why things don't get better.

5 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

I responded, "When people (eventually) watch the video, they will form their own conclusions, regardless of the governor's opinion."  

Right, so who in their right mind is going to take issue with Evers' comments once they have seen the video?  How is this even an issue?

5 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

The analogy was in reference to handling a divided population and then accomplishing police and social justice reform.  So the "half of the house" was a much broader term. It wasn't saying that "half the people" had a problem with the governor's specific statement.  But about half of the population could have different views on police reform and social justice issues. 

And those half of the people hold opinions that are not well informed.  The Governor was simply stating a fact.  If that fact is at odds with the opinions of some who don't see a problem, well, that speaks to a problem that no tweet by the Governor is going to fix.  They're probably the same fact-adverse people who found agreement in the bullshit peddled at this week's RNC.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

 

 

"Trump will have put three times as many African Americans on stage as he has appointed to his West Wing, Cabinet, and US Attonry's offices ... combined.  It's a sign that the rhetoric doesn't remotely match the record." - John Avalon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

I was using your statement that "People do not riot because of what the governor says."  Do you no longer think that is the case?

Of course the people rioted because of the cop killing and not because of the governor's tweet. I am not sure what confuses you. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, downzy said:

You know you're conflating two different but similar positions.  The Governor was never going to be able to prevent protests, riots regardless of what he said.  The only thing he could do is make things worse by ignoring the reality of the situation.  Thankfully he chose not to do that.  

There are two separate arguments here.  First, that his comments made things worse.  Second, that his comments were divisive.  

With respect to the first argument, I'll reiterate my point for the umpteenth time.  Evers not acknowledging the facts at hand would have made things worse.  Platitudes about waiting to get all the facts when people can see with their own eyes that another black man was shot down (in the back no less) would only inflame residents of Kenosha.  Why do you think Trump's poll numbers tanked soon after Floyd's murder?  You say dumb shit, you're going to see dumb response.  Ignoring the cold reality of the situation would not have produced a better result.

With respect to the second argument, they are only divisive to those who refuse to acknowledge the problem of racism (whether overt or implicit) in American law enforcement and legal system.  If you took offence or had issue with his comment, you're part of the problem why things don't get better.

Right, so who in their right mind is going to take issue with Evers' comments once they have seen the video?  How is this even an issue?

And those half of the people hold opinions that are not well informed.  The Governor was simply stating a fact.  If that fact is at odds with the opinions of some who don't see a problem, well, that speaks to a problem that no tweet by the Governor is going to fix.  They're probably the same fact-adverse people who found agreement in the bullshit peddled at this week's RNC.  

- You can't have it both ways.  You can't say "nothing the governor could say or do would help things"  Then say, If he had not talked about it, it would have been worse.

-If you still have doubts that his comments could have been divisive, (or that these people don't exist) go take a look at the thousands of comments in his twitter feed. 

 

As far as the video comment....:facepalm::facepalm:  FOR THE 3RD TIME, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING.  ONCE THEY LOOK AT THE VIDEO THEY WON'T CARE ABOUT HIS OPINION and they will form their own opinion. 

 

You choose to dismiss entire demographics of people who don't share your same ideologies or values. 

I don't dismiss them...instead, I'll try to see their side of it (right or wrong) and I'll try to get them to see my side of it.  That's how the greatest leaders in history united groups of people.

They likely didn't do it by calling others "delusional" "ignorant" "deplorable" "enemies of the state" etc. I mean, are we bullies in high school or are we people trying to make things better?

But hey, like I said earlier, maybe we need to have some more brawls, more riots, more shootings....maybe even a few wars so people realize what's important in life... and maybe then, people will start acting like human beings with each other again.  

 

 

 

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Initially I thought the cops should have tackled this guy instead of letting him get to his car. Now I'm not so sure. If they had done that, he might have stabbed them in the struggle and possible killed one of them. If they knew he had the knife that explains their reticence to get into a physical fight with him and why they gave him opportunities to stop and surrender. However, once he gets to the vehicle they can no longer take a chance that he isn't going for a gun and they decide to take him out. This is how it could have actually gone down.

These are questions that will come up during a trial and need to be answered before people start screaming about one thing or another.

Tackle him? Yes. Use force to take the knife away from him? You bet. Seven bullets? No! Btw why the cops let him walk around with the knife in his hand? Aim the gun at him ( in fact they are doing that) All the police has to do is tell the guy "hold it right there and put the knife down"

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

You choose to dismiss entire demographics of people who don't share your same ideologies or values. 

And what "values" would that be, exactly? That it is okay to kill blacks or that the police shouldn't be critized when they do? 

Why do you constantly ignore explaining who all these people who would be divided by the governor's tweet are? I think I must have asked you 4 or 5 times to explain that point. Who are these people who felt pushed away when the governor tweeted? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

And what "values" would that be, exactly? That it is okay to kill blacks or that the police shouldn't be critized when they do? 

Why do you constantly ignore explaining who all these people who would be divided by the governor's tweet are? I think I must have asked you 4 or 5 times to explain that point. Who are these people who felt pushed away when the governor tweeted? 

Values?

- Conservative

-Religious

- Pro law enforcement

- Pro Military

- Pro Business

- Pro Family

- Pro Life

- Pro 2nd Amendment

- Pro Flag

- Pro National Anthem

Those are typical conservative values. 

You could easily do it yourself but I'll go ahead and post some of the responses  on his Twitter feed  (feel free to look for yourself, there's thousands more)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

There thousands more...and that's just twitter

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Values?

- Conservative

-Religious

- Pro law enforcement

- Pro Military

- Pro Business

- Pro Family

- Pro Life

- Pro 2nd Amendment

- Pro Flag

- Pro National Anthem

Those are typical conservative values. 

These are just a list of conservative values. I was talking about the specific values that would make people feel pushed away by the governor's tweet and lead to division. As I said, the only such "values" I can think of is thinking it is okay to shoot black people in their backs and that police are exempt from criticism and cant do anything wrong. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

These are just a list of conservative values. I was talking about the specific values that would make people feel pushed away by the governor's tweet and lead to division. As I said, the only such "values" I can think of is thinking it is okay to shoot black people in their backs and that police are exempt from criticism and cant do anything wrong. 

 

Did you read the the tweets?  Did any of the tweets say what you just said?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, I didn't read the tweets. I am asking you, not random people on twitter.

None of them said that. 

The majority (of conservatives) are basically asking, "Why are you coming to a conclusion without all the facts" 

Others are saying, "He looked like he could have been reaching for a weapon."   and things like "It's irresponsible to tweet this without knowing the facts.  All you are doing is inviting people to riot" 

There's a lot more but that's the general idea. 

Not a single person said it was "ok to shoot a black person in the back"  or that "law enforcement can do what they want"

 

Most moderates seemed to expressed sympathy.

Most liberals seemed to express anger.

 

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...