carlfense Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Is anyone . . . anyone at all . . . saying that they support looting and vandalizing? That they think it's acceptable? Serious question because I might have missed it. If you're looking for a difference that'd be a good place to start. 1 Link to comment
tschu Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 And it's in mostly liberal cities where these problems exist the most, Detroit, Chicago, St Louis, New York etc etc. Is it because liberal policies are keeping the black community from exceeding or coincidence since the black community is mostly democrat thus the city leans liberal. I don't even... Link to comment
Junior Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 And it's in mostly liberal cities where these problems exist the most, Detroit, Chicago, St Louis, New York etc etc. Is it because liberal policies are keeping the black community from exceeding or coincidence since the black community is mostly democrat thus the city leans liberal. I don't even... Yea, I tried to come up with a response, but I had nothing. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 13, 2014 Author Share Posted August 13, 2014 And, where have I said in any of my posts that the feds or police in any of the situations I have discussed are completely innocent and handled the situation perfectly? My point of my original post was that police or federal force tends to be looked at by political sides as an "OK" thing as long as it is going against the other side. To be clear, I don't think the Feds in Nevada handled the situation very well and I don't think the police in St. Louis have handled it perfectly well either. Link to comment
Junior Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 And, where have I said in any of my posts that the feds or police in any of the situations I have discussed are completely innocent and handled the situation perfectly? My point of my original post was that police or federal force tends to be looked at by political sides as an "OK" thing as long as it is going against the other side. To be clear, I don't think the Feds in Nevada handled the situation very well and I don't think the police in St. Louis have handled it perfectly well either. So why try to connect two completely unrelated situations, with essentially nothing in common? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 13, 2014 Author Share Posted August 13, 2014 And, where have I said in any of my posts that the feds or police in any of the situations I have discussed are completely innocent and handled the situation perfectly? My point of my original post was that police or federal force tends to be looked at by political sides as an "OK" thing as long as it is going against the other side. To be clear, I don't think the Feds in Nevada handled the situation very well and I don't think the police in St. Louis have handled it perfectly well either. So why try to connect two completely unrelated situations, with essentially nothing in common? I'm not connection the two situations. I'm comparing the attitudes of the various political sides in the US to various police actions. I'm not condoning the actions of the police/feds 100% in either case. I'm simply pointing out that the political sides are quick to come out and defend the police/feds as long as they are going against the other side. Sorry if my point flew over your head. Link to comment
Junior Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 And, where have I said in any of my posts that the feds or police in any of the situations I have discussed are completely innocent and handled the situation perfectly? My point of my original post was that police or federal force tends to be looked at by political sides as an "OK" thing as long as it is going against the other side. To be clear, I don't think the Feds in Nevada handled the situation very well and I don't think the police in St. Louis have handled it perfectly well either. So why try to connect two completely unrelated situations, with essentially nothing in common? I'm not connection the two situations. I'm comparing the attitudes of the various political sides in the US to various police actions. I'm not condoning the actions of the police/feds 100% in either case. I'm simply pointing out that the political sides are quick to come out and defend the police/feds as long as they are going against the other side. Sorry if my point flew over your head. I understand the point you are trying to make. But I don't think anyone here ever argued that the police should start shooting at the people in Nevada. So it's a completely irrelevant point... but score one for you? Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Is anyone . . . anyone at all . . . saying that they support looting and vandalizing? That they think it's acceptable? Serious question because I might have missed it. If you're looking for a difference that'd be a good place to start. I don't know if this counts but on page one, ZRod said: At least it's in response to someone being killed and not a sports team winning or losing. Moiraine said this: I imagine when the system itself fails and you feel like this crap happens all the time, you start to want to do things that aren't legal because the legal stuff did nothing for you And then it turned into a whole thing. I don't think anyone "supports" it, but justifying it isn't right either. Link to comment
tschu Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Understanding why something occurred and justifying it are two very different things 1 Link to comment
LukeinNE Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 You serious? I mean, you can't be.... right? *Shrug* I suppose it's possible that some white murder victims have gotten the Trayvon Martin treatment from the national media in the last few years, but if they have, I haven't seen it. Exactly. You're making my point for me. A very large chunk of the black demographic is subject to poverty and inner-city troubles, and we all look the other direction and don't care and don't see it as an issue. That in itself is a huge problem. But since there's not a direct (i stress direct) cause for this cycle of poverty that these people can see, the frustration gets let out onto each other. But it's still the cause of oppression - deep poverty that is still left over from the days of slavery, lack of educational opportunities, biases show by others, there are a million reasons. The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives on this issue is that conservatives believe any significant change must come from within the black community itself and liberals seem to think government intervention is the only way to go, with individual responsibility getting cursory lip service, at best. Our safety net has made poverty dramatically more comfortable since the 1960s, but it's been woeful at eliminating poverty. You keep demanding that "we" fix the problem that "we" created. How do you propose "we" fix this problem? Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Understanding why something occurred and justifying it are two very different things True. But the debate is really did they loot and riot because they were really mad at the situation or were they opportunistic? In my opinion, it was the latter. I am sure some on here will agree and disagree but that's my opinion and it won't change regardless of the outcome of the investigation 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Understanding why something occurred and justifying it are two very different things Link to comment
Junior Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/08/13/black_bystander_maced_seattle_pro_palestine_protest_turns_weird_ugly.html An unarmed black bystander was maced near a pro-Palestine protest at Seattle's Westlake Mall this past Saturday after a strange confrontation with a belligerent, shirtless white man. The bystander, 25-year old Raymond Wilford, encountered the shirtless man outside the mall. According to witnesses, the latter individual was already on the scene and had been using racial slurs while confronting pro-Palestinian protestors. In images captured by photographer Alex Garland, the shirtless man can be seen moving toward and then squaring off with Wilford. (No punches were thrown by either of them, and a report by the Seattle Police Department says the shirtless man instigated the confrontation.) That's when a mall guard stepped in, looked past the shirtless individual, maced Wilford, and took him into custody. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 13, 2014 Author Share Posted August 13, 2014 http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/08/13/black_bystander_maced_seattle_pro_palestine_protest_turns_weird_ugly.html An unarmed black bystander was maced near a pro-Palestine protest at Seattle's Westlake Mall this past Saturday after a strange confrontation with a belligerent, shirtless white man. The bystander, 25-year old Raymond Wilford, encountered the shirtless man outside the mall. According to witnesses, the latter individual was already on the scene and had been using racial slurs while confronting pro-Palestinian protestors. In images captured by photographer Alex Garland, the shirtless man can be seen moving toward and then squaring off with Wilford. (No punches were thrown by either of them, and a report by the Seattle Police Department says the shirtless man instigated the confrontation.) That's when a mall guard stepped in, looked past the shirtless individual, maced Wilford, and took him into custody. What a bunch of f'ing idiots. Link to comment
LukeinNE Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/08/13/black_bystander_maced_seattle_pro_palestine_protest_turns_weird_ugly.html An unarmed black bystander was maced near a pro-Palestine protest at Seattle's Westlake Mall this past Saturday after a strange confrontation with a belligerent, shirtless white man. The bystander, 25-year old Raymond Wilford, encountered the shirtless man outside the mall. According to witnesses, the latter individual was already on the scene and had been using racial slurs while confronting pro-Palestinian protestors. In images captured by photographer Alex Garland, the shirtless man can be seen moving toward and then squaring off with Wilford. (No punches were thrown by either of them, and a report by the Seattle Police Department says the shirtless man instigated the confrontation.) That's when a mall guard stepped in, looked past the shirtless individual, maced Wilford, and took him into custody. A rent-a-cop acted in a stupid, overzealous way, stop the presses! I mean...I dunno, I just think it's sort of silly to build a case for a national conspiracy against blacks with a bunch of anecdotes. I'm not saying racial bias isn't real, it is, the only point of contention is pervasiveness, it's just not a good way to argue. I could easily match you story for story with non-black people being treated badly by police. I mean goodness, there's actually an "excessive use of force cop" meme: Link to comment
Recommended Posts