Yes. I am pushing opinion. But opinion based on reason and, I'd argue, a more complete picture then what we see unfolding these days
Protests following the killing of George Floyd
- Thread starter Abizzz
- Start date
Yes. I am pushing opinion. But opinion based on reason and, I'd argue, a more complete picture then what we see unfolding these days
Yea I’ve made up my mind that systemic racism exists and a waffly pseudo-intellectual opinion piece that talks about how “they don’t cite racism when things benefit blacks over whites” isn’t going to alter that.
I think the point is that there are peer reviewed studies that say the opposite...
It not about feelings, and its a little condescending for you to suggest that
So essentially you’re arguing against facts with opinions, which provide you with a more complete picture than what the rest of see unfolding the these days because their opinions agree with yours. Glad we understand each other
So other biases will explain why being a particular skin colour will get you a harsher sentence? Its not a racial bias?
Sorry but I am not understanding what you’re getting at.
Yes we know sexism exists so why you insistent that racial bias doesnt exist in the system but other biases do?
Ok
Hope he washed his hands
Wtf did I just watch?
For those of you who didn't see it the first time, you're witnesing the 1980s.
Last edited:
I'm saying it's not easily explained. You don't need malevolence to explain incompetence.
No, that's not what I've said
I would agree if it was incompetence. Its happening on the scale it does and for the length of time it has it not incompetence to me and more important to the countless studies that have been conducted on the matter
Yea, this fecking guy:
the guy e.cantona wants us all to listen to said:
Ain’t giving me cause to rethink my views.
Rightt...
Reading that gave me an insight into how the conversation got where it did.
Let's agree there is racial bias. I agree with that. Then one question may be, to what extent? Is it racial or is it more complex. Does poverty, social status, sex, or other things play into it as well? How do we decide what is what? I'd argue it is a complex question, and there's is not a clear cut answer. Yes, there is racial bias. There is also other biases at play. There are many things behind the numbers. How do one decide what is what.. We see 10 videos of apparent racist behaviour. Does that extend to the general population? Are there other similar videos, showing non racial bias? It is an almost endless thing. And some might say, but you didn't mention this or that. Well I f'n can't. It's complex. Read opposing views
You know all this was already said before the MacPherson report came out right? Which found that it was bollocks, and the police were indeed institutionally racist, along with much of the rest of our government institutions.
I mean... You can understand why they find some most words confusing.
Then there is nothing else to discuss since no body argued that there are not any other issues or biases at play
Having racial bias in the system is wrong and that is the crux of the point. A racial bias in the system of justice is wrong and that is why people are fighting to eradicate it.
Separately people are also fighting to eradicate sexism, homophobia, non binary gender bias and other things
Seperately people alo fight against oppression based on class.
So I dont know why you would come into a thread based on race to argue that racial bias isn't an issue when you agree there is racial bias.
Don't think I ever said it's not an issue. If we're discussing it, it's an issue. What I did hint at, was it not being systemic. And there's a lot to discuss regarding racial bias and to what extent it's affecting society.
Hughes has written some good articles over the past couple of years. Hard to believe he’s still only 24. The kid has a bright future ahead.
Agree. Young but really good writer. Seemingly tries to see both sides of it. Probably gets it wrong now and then, but not afraid to correct himself
I'm sorry but you're wrong and it is NOT the law in the US. You have no obligation to comply with the police if there is no probable cause to stop you. Period. It's illegal for a cop to detain you if there is no crime or suspicion of a crime. It's crazy people think police have the license to do anything just because of the hazards of their jobs.
Completely inane logic. Assuming the worst is why only 83% of people who are killed by police are armed. The racist motivation lies in the systemic racism in crime and punishment in the US. I can point you literature from criminologists who lay it out using publicly available data.
Furthermore, in affluent neighborhoods in the US, the police do not assume worst. Detectives don't assume the worst. Prosecutors don't assume the worst. Judges don't assume the worst. Probation officers don't assume the worst. They do everything in their power to rehabilitate "thugs" from these neighborhoods.
I prefer arguments backed by a preponderance of evidence and, preferably, statistical regressions. Saying "black people commit more crimes than whites" or "only X amount of people have died from police violence" is lazy and there is no attempt to analyze the data. There are also respected criminologists and Ivy League researchers who have written extensive literature that would completely destroy some of the arguments they are using.
It's pretty easy to watch a youtube video of an eloquent person with a bunch of degrees saying things, but anyone who gives a shit should trust the countless peer-reviewed literature more than a talking head.
EDIT: I suggest you read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander if you want to understand how systemic racism works in US criminal defense. Also, read Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson if you want to look at it from the view of cops, detectives, prosecutors, and judges. The data is there.
Last edited:
Let's go for the psychopathy angle then. What are the odds of 4 of those 8000 being in one place at one time as with Floyd's death?
Or we follow a different track and say it just takes one, and three officers who are either indifferent to human life or cowards, and who don't even react to being filmed from multiple angles, for minutes. And there's the other problem, this is isn't a few seconds worth of cop behaving badly in a complicated, fast-moving situation where they feel their lives are in danger, it's around ten minutes worth of footage of them watching someone die.
If it's not something systemic allowing them to switch off their sense of right and wrong, then what is it?
The same goes for the statistical analysis that asks why are the numbers are so high. Maybe they put most of those "8000+" worst cops into predominantly black areas? In which case, that's also systemic.
It's also about the aftermath of the shooting. Who gets arrested? Whose evidence gets heard - and listened to, and whose gets written off as unreliable or biased? Who has the best lawyers presenting their case, even if the police department actually take it to trial?
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...eorge-floyd-protests?utm_source=pocket-newtab
How The Antifa Fantasy Spread In Small Towns Across The US
Rumors of roving bands of Antifa have followed small protests all over the United States. Why are people so ready to believe them?
How The Antifa Fantasy Spread In Small Towns Across The US
Rumors of roving bands of Antifa have followed small protests all over the United States. Why are people so ready to believe them?
I didn't say it's the law. I said you should comply. You don't know what information the cop has. You may know you're innocent. The cop don't. There's at least one gun in this interaction. I didn't say the police should detain you for no reason or suspicion of a crime. I am saying the opposite.
My logic may be inane. How do you propose an armed cop, in the US, with the amount of crime and firearms in play, should approach a potentially dangerous interaction? I don't understand what you're trying to say here, the 17% unarmed killed by police were all unjust? If you claim systemic racism, you should be able to back it up. By actual data points. You claim there's plenty. Shouldn't be hard to provide.
I probably agree with this.
I agree. One should have evidence to support ones argument. One should use relevant data, analyse it and reason from that.
Yes.
Alexander seem somewhat biased, can't say much about Stevenson. I'm sure there are many examples of injustice. The conclusion from that won't necessarily be systemic racism.
I agree, it is an horrendous thing that happened to George Floyd. Is nothing one can say to justify it.
This is further complicated by the fact that the country is swimming in about 400m firearms (about half the global population of guns), at a time when there are disproportionate economic disparities the races. This creates a social powderkeg each time cops pull someone of another race over, and all of this is even before we get into bad cops/racist cops etc.
400? Half the global population of guns? That's insane. A population of 328 million. Just imagine being a lone cop walking up to some reported unrest, or car pulled over with high music blasting. I'd be scared out of my mind being a cop in the US.
That's the most recent number I've seen, which breaks out to more than 1.2 guns per household. Cops go to work through the prism of this security dilemma every day ; a securitized mindset that incentives them to escalate for fear of getting killed (this is again before we factor in bad or racist cops). When you combine what is happing on the cop side with what is happening on the side of minority citizens in terms of lingering structural disenfranchisement, it really isn't much of a surprise to see where we are today.
A relatively small thing in the wider scheme, but nice to see some positivity ... didn't see colour, just someone who needed help.
Speaks well too.
Speaks well too.
I've never even thought of disenfranchisement. Had to google it. The gulf between poor and the middle class. Not only income or economic wealth. There are so many people f'ed in that/(sorry, apparently your) country.
Started writing a post in another forum but I figured it could be better posted in here. I'm trying to explain my viewpoint on these sort of debates, both in here and in general and why I believe it turns sour so quickly, and what can be done about it.
Ultimately I think the hostility in the discourse comes down to a lot of us lacking the ability distinguish from those new to the topic and those just in there to troll or spout their awful views.
That and the "bad" people are so good at imitating the ignorant and misinformed and use that to create a further divide, and over time a lot of us try to skip an important step for some reason to the type of conversation that will reveal those who geniunely hold horrible views. We still often enough are wrong in our assumptions.
Africanspur, Sara & Villain are just three of the many people I think have shown an incredible amount of both restraint and patience with those who could be in need of a proper conversation, not just in this thread but on these topics in general.
In my experience the tone in my head changes immediately if the people i converse with have had it explained and I see them picking at a small portions without asking questions towards or acknowledging the overarching point initially raised. At that point I assume they are being disengenous due to them acting in a way that makes them seem uninterested in understanding and more like they are looking for an argument.
I want so badly to have the patience to give everyone the benefit of the doubt because every ignorant or misinformed individual deserves that benefit and effort, and being ignorant or misinformed is not a crime. I wouldn't be shocked if i look back on my own views on this a few years later and think back at how daft I was being, one way or the other.
Mind you that I think there is most often more than one viable viewpoint, but not all viewpoints should be debated on equal terms.
The comic strip in the spoiler to me says that we can have a debate over a lot of topics, come to a common ground or an understanding that we simply see things too differently and accept that we both want the world to improve but we believe that it is best done in different ways.
For example i think some criticism of holding a in-person protests during the pandemic could be valid. I also from what I've seen, agree with criticism about the protest not seeming to have any clear short term objectives for how to improve the situation to a point where order is assumed and calmer discussions could and should be had.
I accept that there can be confusion and mixed emotions when new terms people don't fully understand or feel are made that way to make you feel uncomfortable are used.
Terms like white guilt & white privilege might seem new and anti-white to some, but they have a function in conversation that simplifies having the talk for a lot of people who have way more of these conversation than most of us will ever have. Those of us who use them could absolutely be better at explaining them when someone takes offense, but it shouldn't derail the topic to the extent that it often does.
Normally when we read a word we don't understand we either look it up or ask the people who use the word to explain the meaning of it to us, then we accept that and move on.
You can debate if the economic systems in place hold people of color down and discuss the findings in a civil way whether you believe that is down to systemic racism or class wars, or a mix.
We can debate whether there is legitimacy in arguments that says organisations like the KKK have infiltrated the police to hold down people of color, or that the police institution in itself has long lasting policies that affect people of color disproportionally.
These sort of things can be debated because you can put forward evidence to support or disprove them, and if you find yourselves agreeing on the premise you can still debate solutions from different points of views.
What I don't believe I and many others can accept is viewpoints that try to diminish the severity or importance of debating and sorting the issues that are initially raised when they are affecting so many people over such a long time.
All lives matter for example was started as a counter-protest to deafen out black lives matter, which was started to put focus on and change the perceived disproportional violence police commit towards people of color. All lives do of course matter, but black lives matter isn't called "only black lives matter", or try to communicate that there is only injustice towards people of color. To start out with a premise like that is either being ignorant at the problem being addressed or being misinformed at the use of all lives matter. We shouldn't be accepting the use of comments like all lives matter because our common ground will have less focus on debating and sorting out the problem black lives matter is trying to communicate, but as before I will agree that we can be better at explaining why instead of letting our emotions take over or skip the important step of figuring out if someone is genuine or disingenuous.
We can of course agree that not nearly all people who write all lives matter means to derail the topic, but that is how it will be taken because that is how it is used by the bad 3rd party in the world wide conversation, and it portrays the black lives matter movement as if people that support it doesn't believe all lives matter.
"Black on black crime" is another that is used to change the topic of discussion instead of addressing the issues raised.
Ultimately I think the hostility in the discourse comes down to a lot of us lacking the ability distinguish from those new to the topic and those just in there to troll or spout their awful views.
That and the "bad" people are so good at imitating the ignorant and misinformed and use that to create a further divide, and over time a lot of us try to skip an important step for some reason to the type of conversation that will reveal those who geniunely hold horrible views. We still often enough are wrong in our assumptions.
Africanspur, Sara & Villain are just three of the many people I think have shown an incredible amount of both restraint and patience with those who could be in need of a proper conversation, not just in this thread but on these topics in general.
In my experience the tone in my head changes immediately if the people i converse with have had it explained and I see them picking at a small portions without asking questions towards or acknowledging the overarching point initially raised. At that point I assume they are being disengenous due to them acting in a way that makes them seem uninterested in understanding and more like they are looking for an argument.
I want so badly to have the patience to give everyone the benefit of the doubt because every ignorant or misinformed individual deserves that benefit and effort, and being ignorant or misinformed is not a crime. I wouldn't be shocked if i look back on my own views on this a few years later and think back at how daft I was being, one way or the other.
Mind you that I think there is most often more than one viable viewpoint, but not all viewpoints should be debated on equal terms.
For example i think some criticism of holding a in-person protests during the pandemic could be valid. I also from what I've seen, agree with criticism about the protest not seeming to have any clear short term objectives for how to improve the situation to a point where order is assumed and calmer discussions could and should be had.
I accept that there can be confusion and mixed emotions when new terms people don't fully understand or feel are made that way to make you feel uncomfortable are used.
Terms like white guilt & white privilege might seem new and anti-white to some, but they have a function in conversation that simplifies having the talk for a lot of people who have way more of these conversation than most of us will ever have. Those of us who use them could absolutely be better at explaining them when someone takes offense, but it shouldn't derail the topic to the extent that it often does.
Normally when we read a word we don't understand we either look it up or ask the people who use the word to explain the meaning of it to us, then we accept that and move on.
You can debate if the economic systems in place hold people of color down and discuss the findings in a civil way whether you believe that is down to systemic racism or class wars, or a mix.
We can debate whether there is legitimacy in arguments that says organisations like the KKK have infiltrated the police to hold down people of color, or that the police institution in itself has long lasting policies that affect people of color disproportionally.
These sort of things can be debated because you can put forward evidence to support or disprove them, and if you find yourselves agreeing on the premise you can still debate solutions from different points of views.
What I don't believe I and many others can accept is viewpoints that try to diminish the severity or importance of debating and sorting the issues that are initially raised when they are affecting so many people over such a long time.
All lives matter for example was started as a counter-protest to deafen out black lives matter, which was started to put focus on and change the perceived disproportional violence police commit towards people of color. All lives do of course matter, but black lives matter isn't called "only black lives matter", or try to communicate that there is only injustice towards people of color. To start out with a premise like that is either being ignorant at the problem being addressed or being misinformed at the use of all lives matter. We shouldn't be accepting the use of comments like all lives matter because our common ground will have less focus on debating and sorting out the problem black lives matter is trying to communicate, but as before I will agree that we can be better at explaining why instead of letting our emotions take over or skip the important step of figuring out if someone is genuine or disingenuous.
We can of course agree that not nearly all people who write all lives matter means to derail the topic, but that is how it will be taken because that is how it is used by the bad 3rd party in the world wide conversation, and it portrays the black lives matter movement as if people that support it doesn't believe all lives matter.
"Black on black crime" is another that is used to change the topic of discussion instead of addressing the issues raised.
Last edited:
I hope the guy he carried out - and all his friends and family - do the right thing and give this guy the praise and thanks he deserves.
Great post Oddie.Started writing a post in another forum but I figured it could be better posted in here. I'm trying to explain my viewpoint on these sort of debates, both in here and in general and why I believe it turns sour so quickly, and what can be done about it.
Ultimately I think the hostility in the discourse comes down to a lot of us lacking the ability distinguish from those new to the topic and those just in there to troll or spout their awful views.
That and the "bad" people are so good at imitating the ignorant and misinformed and use that to create a further divide, and over time a lot of us try to skip an important step for some reason to the type of conversation that will reveal those who geniunely hold horrible views. We still often enough are wrong in our assumptions.
Africanspur, Sara & Villain are just three of the many people I think have shown an incredible amount of both restraint and patience with those who could be in need of a proper conversation, not just in this thread but on these topics in general.
In my experience the tone in my head changes immediately if the people i converse with have had it explained and I see them picking at a small portions without asking questions towards or acknowledging the overarching point initially raised. At that point I assume they are being disengenous due to them acting in a way that makes them seem uninterested in understanding and more like they are looking for an argument.
I want so badly to have the patience to give everyone the benefit of the doubt because every ignorant or misinformed individual deserves that benefit and effort, and being ignorant or misinformed is not a crime. I wouldn't be shocked if i look back on my own views on this a few years later and think back at how daft I was being, one way or the other.
Mind you that I think there is most often more than one viable viewpoint, but not all viewpoints should be debated on equal terms.
The comic strip in the spoiler to me says that we can have a debate over a lot of topics, come to a common ground or an understanding that we simply see things too differently and accept that we both want the world to improve but we believe that it is best done in different ways.
For example i think some criticism of holding a in-person protests during the pandemic could be valid. I also from what I've seen, agree with criticism about the protest not seeming to have any clear short term objectives for how to improve the situation to a point where order is assumed and calmer discussions could and should be had.
I accept that there can be confusion and mixed emotions when new terms people don't fully understand or feel are made that way to make you feel uncomfortable are used.
Terms like white guilt & white privilege might seem new and anti-white to some, but they have a function in conversation that simplifies having the talk for a lot of people who have way more of these conversation than most of us will ever have. Those of us who use them could absolutely be better at explaining them when someone takes offense, but it shouldn't derail the topic to the extent that it often does.
Normally when we read a word we don't understand we either look it up or ask the people who use the word to explain the meaning of it to us, then we accept that and move on.
You can debate if the economic systems in place hold people of color down and discuss the findings in a civil way whether you believe that is down to systemic racism or class wars, or a mix.
We can debate whether there is legitimacy in arguments that says organisations like the KKK have infiltrated the police to hold down people of color, or that the police institution in itself has long lasting policies that affect people of color disproportionally.
These sort of things can be debated because you can put forward evidence to support or disprove them, and if you find yourselves agreeing on the premise you can still debate solutions from different points of views.
What I don't believe I and many others can accept is viewpoints that try to diminish the severity or importance of debating and sorting the issues that are initially raised when they are affecting so many people over such a long time.
All lives matter for example was started as a counter-protest to deafen out black lives matter, which was started to put focus on and change the perceived disproportional violence police commit towards people of color. All lives do of course matter, but black lives matter isn't called "only black lives matter", or try to communicate that there is only injustice towards people of color. To start out with a premise like that is either being ignorant at the problem being addressed or being misinformed at the use of all lives matter. We shouldn't be accepting the use of comments like all lives matter because our common ground will have less focus on debating and sorting out the problem black lives matter is trying to communicate, but as before I will agree that we can be better at explaining why instead of letting our emotions take over or skip the important step of figuring out if someone is genuine or disingenuous.
We can of course agree that not nearly all people who write all lives matter means to derail the topic, but that is how it will be taken because that is how it is used by the bad 3rd party in the world wide conversation, and it portrays the black lives matter movement as if people that support it doesn't believe all lives matter.
"Black on black crime" is another that is used to change the topic of discussion instead of addressing the issues raised.
I don't think it helps that people ignore what they both accept but disagree quite vehemently over assumptions on threads in the CE.
Thank you @oates.
I wouldn't be too surprised if we're like that In other forums as well, although CE seems to have it easier with turning us on each other in a nasty way quickly.
I also don't think it helps that the media survives on news that make us react negatively, and the political leaders being all too happy with dividing us into deplorables and people with them.
I wouldn't be too surprised if we're like that In other forums as well, although CE seems to have it easier with turning us on each other in a nasty way quickly.
I also don't think it helps that the media survives on news that make us react negatively, and the political leaders being all too happy with dividing us into deplorables and people with them.
Surprised this hasn't been posted throughout this whole thread. (Unless I've missed it)
Explains really well the problems both sides have simply understanding each other.
Why don't they stay out of it.