Protests following the killing of George Floyd

[Gehrman]

Yes, I saw the response - it's typical to equate BLM with 'black on black crime' and suggest 'why doesn't this black person's life matter' etc. It's a foolish tactic rooted in ignorance, which is not only completely different to what BLM is, but is only brought up in bad faith.

And no you can't apply the same logic to every injustice in the world, different injustices require different approaches, some are political and require years worth of strategising, voting & preparation to help fix. However the world won't fix itself if everyone thinks someone else will do the job.
For BLM, it's not simply enough to not be racist and be horrified at the treatment that minorities are subject to. It's educating those around you, challenging friends & families who's views on the matter are warped and having uncomfortable conversations. Simply doing nothing and saying you're not racist - just means that violence against black (& other minorities) will continue.

Arnie-ni wrote:
"arnie_ni said:
Seen from a nfl player a young black kid, couldn't be more than 10 was shot dead at the weekend but an unidentified black person.

Why does this not get a similar uproar and discussion?

Im not trying to stoke the flames here, im genuinely asking why does this almost seem accepted?

Obviously i know why there is uproar of police killings."

and I replied:

"Because it's not a racially motivated killing and an example of police brutality and racism.

I think people are choosing their causes to highlight as there is virtually an unlimited number of daily atrocities around the globe.

We barely hear about Syria anymore and think stiill around 20.000 people have been killed in that conflict this year. Still lots of killings in Iraq as well and people dying from hunger in Yemen and Africa. "

I don't think there was anything wrong with that reply.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Historians, do we have examples of anti civil rights era propaganda and rhetoric so I can compare and contrast, I'm curious about it's evolution since then...

Not a historian by any means, but.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZ9Ltn2VoAY6DZm?format=jpg&name=900x900


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/dc/a5/f4/dca5f4f5b47e4f5f1c087d822e1d1872.jpg

 

[afrocentricity]

Not a historian by any means, but.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZ9Ltn2VoAY6DZm?format=jpg&name=900x900


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/dc/a5/f4/dca5f4f5b47e4f5f1c087d822e1d1872.jpg

Thanks

 

[villain]

Arnie-ni wrote:
"arnie_ni said:
Seen from a nfl player a young black kid, couldn't be more than 10 was shot dead at the weekend but an unidentified black person.

Why does this not get a similar uproar and discussion?

Im not trying to stoke the flames here, im genuinely asking why does this almost seem accepted?

Obviously i know why there is uproar of police killings."

and I replied:

"Because it's not a racially motivated killing and an example of police brutality and racism.

I think people are choosing their causes to highlight as there is virtually an unlimited number of daily atrocities around the globe.

We barely hear about Syria anymore and think stiill around 20.000 people have been killed in that conflict this year. Still lots of killings in Iraq as well and people dying from hunger in Yemen and Africa. "

I don't think there was anything wrong with that reply.

I didn’t say it was ‘wrong’ I said your stance on BLM is unclear and your posts in this thread only back that up further, using two paraphrased phrases as an example.
You’re far more interested in focusing on the riots, not the context in which they happen & why they only receive media attention, nor how few there are in comparison to the wider movement.

 

[calodo2003]

Historians, do we have examples of anti civil rights era propaganda and rhetoric so I can compare and contrast, I'm curious about it's evolution since then...

Google 1960s small town newspapers in the South, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, for example. I was reading about a string of tornados that hit Tuscaloosa one day in the late 60a in its hometown newspaper. I flipped to the ‘Letters to the Editor’ page & counted three letters in which ‘n****r’ & its close variants were used. Each letter had the full name of the author & the neighborhood in which they live in the signature.

This was not one lucky coincidence that I hit on openly racist, published letters to the newspapers, it was the norm.

 

[Halftrack]

Well if you insist of nitpicking and using semantics to detract from the point I’m trying to make, then refer to post 7935. So now you see the use of the word nothing are you satisfied?

So one of the posters you mentioned used nothing, but what about the others?

And I'm fairly sure that, if you ask @JPRouve , they'd tell you that they didn't mean that literally nothing at all has changed, just that Black Americans are still an oppressed minority, still marginalized, still discriminated against.

I think its very unproductive to the discussion to nitpick the words others have used when its clear what they are trying to say. You said virtually nothing had changed as a result of the protests does it really change the substance of the argument by saying nothing instead of virtually nothing? Halftract was being merely being pedantic in an attempt to derail my argument using semantics which failed. I didn't dismiss what he said I pointed out that he was wrong because someone else had actually said nothing had changed repeatedly while asking me for a response.

When you make a point that hinges on someone saying something they haven't said, which renders your whole point moot, it should be pointed out. Your might have had a point if you were only addressing JPRouve, but you weren't.

And no, I wasn't being pedantic, I addressed an inaccuracy that left you with no argument against all but one of the people you were arguing against. It wasn't an attempt at derailing your pitiful argument, it was a refutation of it, made incredibly easy by your inability to engage with what people actually write.

 

[JPRouve]

So one of the posters you mentioned used nothing, but what about the others?

And I'm fairly sure that, if you ask @JPRouve , they'd tell you that they didn't mean that literally nothing at all has changed, just that Black Americans are still an oppressed minority, still marginalized, still discriminated against.

I actually told him what has not changed and it's a fact that it hasn't, people in the US are still protesting about police brutality and economic inequalities toward minorities, decades of peaceful protests haven't changed that. I also told him that if he wants to extend the point to things like lynching and legal segregation then yes things have changed but it's not the topic of these protests, it's nothing else than whataboutism.

 

[Halftrack]

I actually told him what has not changed and it's a fact that it hasn't, people in the US are still protesting about police brutality and economic inequalities toward minorities, decades of peaceful protests haven't changed that. I also told him that if he wants to extend the point to things like lynching and legal segregation then yes things have changed but it's not the topic of these protests, it's nothing else than whataboutism.

Ah, so another example of him not bothering to engage with what people actually write, instead preferring to filter it through his own brain, and then respond to whatever comes out the other end.

 

[JPRouve]

Ah, so another example of him not bothering to engage with what people actually write, instead preferring to filter it through his own brain, and then respond to whatever comes out the other end.

Here you have my answer to his rebuttal and he didn't respond.

Yes we can say that nothing has changed, when people legitimately have the same major issues. People are still widely victim of police brutality, they are still denied basic amenities depending on the demographic of their community, they are still stigmatized. And Obama "the muslim", the US senator who was repeatadly asked to prove that he was american isn't exactly an example that I would use.

And I haven't addressed it before but acts of looting aren't part of the movement, you don't know who are the looters and for what its worth the other side as you call it has been part of it, Umbrella man being an iconic example.

 

[Sky1981]

I hardly recall when was the last time a peaceful protest actually works? Serious questions

They claim Gandhi Ahimsa works, but it only works because there's a few hundred millions of Indians and there's only a handful of Brits. If the Indians are the minorities in numbers I doubt peaceful protest works.

 

[Gehrman]

If we imagine this was the time of the Civil Rights Movement, do you see yourself 1) doing nothing at all, 2) arguing for or fighting for the CRM, or 3) arguing against the arson, looting, property damage or intimidation tactics even though you of course would support the CRM in principle though perhaps in a mixed way?

That's a very fair point and I have admit, I find it hard to answer. I would certainly support them and their cause but condemn destructive actions not specifically aimed at their opressors. I am also far more leaning towards MLK's colourblind ideal than say being told to read and subscribe to Robin DiAngelo's views laid out in her book "White Fragility" than is being pushed on BLM reddit.

 

[Mastadon]

I actually told him what has not changed and it's a fact that it hasn't, people in the US are still protesting about police brutality and economic inequalities toward minorities, decades of peaceful protests haven't changed that. I also told him that if he wants to extend the point to things like lynching and legal segregation then yes things have changed but it's not the topic of these protests, it's nothing else than whataboutism.

And my response is clear. If peaceful protests have failed then violent protests have failed as well.

 

[JPRouve]

And my response is clear. If peaceful protests have failed then violent protests have failed as well.

And no one told you otherwise, people told you that violent protests are the consequence of peaceful protests being ignored. What people told you is that even if they don't agree with violence they empathize for the reasons which was also expressed by MLK but you only cared about the first minute.

 

[Mastadon]

Ah, so another example of him not bothering to engage with what people actually write, instead preferring to filter it through his own brain, and then respond to whatever comes out the other end.

Just admit you were wrong when you said none of them made that point. I am happy enough to say that I was engaging with many people at the same time so if I confused very little with virtually nothing and nothing being said by a few different posters then sue me for making that mistake. Again I'm repeating it doesn't change the substance of what I'm saying.

 

[Mastadon]

And no one told you otherwise, people told you that violent protests are the consequence of peaceful protests being ignored. What people told you is that even if they don't agree with violence they empathize for the reasons which was also expressed by MLK but you only cared about the first minute.

And I said that I understand that the violence is caused by police brutality and social conditions.

Is there actually a point to this discussion anymore? Everyone seems to be saying the same thing yet we are arguing about misconceptions.

 

[Mastadon]

Here you have my answer to his rebuttal and he didn't respond.

If nothing has changed so what is affirmative action? How come a black kid with worse grades can get into university ahead of an asian kid with better grades? Its pure hyperbole to say things haven't changed and I'm sure you know it.

And again I'm going to state that I am not saying things are great or even very good just a lot better than the 60s.

 

[JPRouve]

And I said that I understand that the violence is caused by police brutality and social conditions.

Is there actually a point to this discussion anymore? Everyone seems to be saying the same thing yet we are arguing about misconceptions.

So you still don't understand? Seriously, have you read what I wrote or listened to what MLK said?

We have quoted that sentence multiple times, @villain and I posted the video of a part of his speech that only last two minutes and you still don't understand that sentence? "A riot is the language of the unheard."

 

[JPRouve]

If nothing has changed so what is affirmative action? How come a black kid with worse grades can get into university ahead of an asian kid with better grades? Its pure hyperbole to say things haven't changed and I'm sure you know it.

And again I'm going to state that I am not saying things are great or even very good just a lot better than the 60s.

So police brutality is not a widespread thing anymore and minorities in particular black minorities have the same level of amenities that the average american has?

 

[villain]

If nothing has changed so what is affirmative action? How come a black kid with worse grades can get into university ahead of an asian kid with better grades? Its pure hyperbole to say things haven't changed and I'm sure you know it.

And again I'm going to state that I am not saying things are great or even very good just a lot better than the 60s.

Do you have evidence of anything remotely similar to your first paragraph? Not just individual anecdotes but actual statistics that show percentages of worse performing applicants who are preferred to more talented applicants?

 

[Mastadon]

So you still don't understand? Seriously, have you read what I wrote or listened to what MLK said?

We have quoted that sentence multiple times, @villain and I posted the video of a part of his speech that only last two minutes and you still don't understand that sentence? "A riot is the language of the unheard."

I heard and I understand. Did you hear and understand the part where MLK condemned violent riots?

Whats wrong with me doing the same?

 

[Mastadon]

So police brutality is not a widespread thing anymore and minorities in particular black minorities have the same level of amenities that the average american has?

Police brutality is obviously still a big problem and blacks don't have the same level of amenities as whites but it is better than it was in the 60s. I'm not saying anything else apart from this.

 

[JPRouve]

I heard and I understand. Did you hear and understand the part where MLK condemned violent riots?

Whats wrong with me doing the same?

I already told you what was the problem with what you said yesterday. People have also told you today.

 

[afrocentricity]

If nothing has changed so what is affirmative action? How come a black kid with worse grades can get into university ahead of an asian kid with better grades? Its pure hyperbole to say things haven't changed and I'm sure you know it.

And again I'm going to state that I am not saying things are great or even very good just a lot better than the 60s.

Close to completing my bingo card here fella...

 

[JPRouve]

No it isn't but it is better than it was in the 60s.

Good then people should stop protesting against people being killed by the police, death is apparently better than it was in the 60s. They should also stop protesting against economic inequalities, hunger, homelessness and not being able to afford basic health services is better than in the 60s.

 

[Cascarino]

Just admit you were wrong when you said none of them made that point. I am happy enough to say that I was engaging with many people at the same time so if I confused very little with virtually nothing and nothing being said by a few different posters then sue me for making that mistake. Again I'm repeating it doesn't change the substance of what I'm saying.

You’re being really anal here dude. When posters say not much has changed, they’re clearly saying that things haven’t changed enough. That people are still fighting the same fundamental fight.

And again I'm going to state that I am not saying things are great or even very good just a lot better than the 60s.

but it is better than it was in the 60s. I'm not saying anything else apart from this.

Why do you keep making this point? It veers dangerously close to basically telling people to basically shut up and be grateful

 

[Halftrack]

Just admit you were wrong when you said none of them made that point. I am happy enough to say that I was engaging with many people at the same time so if I confused very little with virtually nothing and nothing being said by a few different posters then sue me for making that mistake. Again I'm repeating it doesn't change the substance of what I'm saying.

I was wrong with regards to none of them using the word 'nothing', I was completely correct with regards to none of them making the point you claimed they were making. The latter renders the point you were making completely invalid, which has been my point all along.

 

[Mastadon]

Close to completing my bingo card here fella...

Congratulations here is a one handed clap.

 

[Mastadon]

Good then people should stop protesting against people being killed by the police, death is apparently better than it was in the 60s. They should also stop protesting against economic inequalities, hunger, homelessness and not being able to afford basic health services is better than in the 60s.

If that is your opinion then you are entitled to it. I don't agree with that.

 

[Mastadon]

You’re being really anal here dude. When posters say not much has changed, they’re clearly saying that things haven’t changed enough. That people are still fighting the same fundamental fight.






Why do you keep making this point? It veers dangerously close to basically telling people to basically shut up and be grateful

I'm just replying to the exaggerated statements being made. I don't even know what the point is anymore the discussion has turned into a point scoring contest.

 

[Mastadon]

Alright boys its clearly impossible to continue having any sort of fruitful discussion and I don't have anything else to add. I've repeated myself enough times for my points to be clear so I'm out. Apologies to anyone who I haven't replied to although I think its clear that it wouldn't make any difference.

Peace.

 

[villain]

If nothing has changed so what is affirmative action? How come a black kid with worse grades can get into university ahead of an asian kid with better grades? Its pure hyperbole to say things haven't changed and I'm sure you know it.

Do you have evidence of anything remotely similar to your first paragraph? Not just individual anecdotes but actual statistics that show percentages of worse performing applicants who are preferred to more talented applicants?

Are you going to provide the evidence of this? @Mastadon

 

[sebsheep]

Are you going to provide the evidence of this? @Mastadon

In an odd way it's sort of funny that when I googled affirmative action one of the first articles was from the LA Times where a study of harvard admissions found that 43% of white students benefitted from the legacy, athletic and faculty systems they have in place, compared to 16% from the non-white students.
Obviously not all colleges will be exactly the same, not a great find though.

 

[Halftrack]

"It's impossible to have any kind of fruitful discussion" says the guy largely responsible for making it impossible.

 

[WI_Red]

"It's impossible to have any kind of fruitful discussion" says the guy largely responsible for making it impossible.

I will give @Mastadon credit for this: We may not agree, but at least they are attempting to argue their position, which is all to often a quality lacking from contrarian view posting members in the CE forum.

 

[villain]

In an odd way it's sort of funny that when I googled affirmative action one of the first articles was from the LA Times where a study of harvard admissions found that 43% of white students benefitted from the legacy, athletic and faculty systems they have in place, compared to 16% from the non-white students.
Obviously not all colleges will be exactly the same, not a great find though.

It's laughable right? To the best of my knowledge, the biggest group of benefactors of affirmative action as a policy is white women - so to suggest that there are black students getting in above smarter/more capable asian students is frankly absurd and shouldn't be tolerated, without evidence to back up such a claim.
Also as you quite rightly pointed out - legacy admissions, athletic scholarships & admissions for cash are all forms of affirmative action, but don't have any of the negative connotations associated with it.

 

[WI_Red]

It's laughable right? To the best of my knowledge, the biggest group of benefactors of affirmative action as a policy is white women - so to suggest that there are black students getting in above smarter/more capable asian students is frankly absurd and shouldn't be tolerated, without evidence to back up such a claim.
Also as you quite rightly pointed out - legacy admissions, athletic scholarships & admissions for cash are all forms of affirmative action, but don't have any of the negative connotations associated with it.

To my great shame I, for a VERY short time, held some pretty abhorrent views on college admission affirmative action when I was younger. I was lucky to go to private catholic high school as the local public school was pretty awful. I had a minority classmate who was extremely wealthy, drove a BMW to school, etc. We both applied to UCLA Pre-med and he was accepted, I was not. I had better grades, test scores, etc. I was pissed, for a very short time. Why a short time? Because I was lucky enough to have a great friend, also a minority, who did not get to go to that nice private school, but to the public one. I am lucky that I complained to him, and I am luckier still that he took the time to explain why I was an asshole.

He should not have had the burden to explain this to me, but he did it. That was a time of basically no internet and limited cable news. Those views were unacceptable then and a magnitude more unacceptable now that anyone can educate themselves on pretty much everything.

 

[villain]

To my great shame I, for a VERY short time, held some pretty abhorrent views on college admission affirmative action when I was younger. I was lucky to go to private catholic high school as the local public school was pretty awful. I had a minority classmate who was extremely wealthy, drove a BMW to school, etc. We both applied to UCLA Pre-med and he was accepted, I was not. I had better grades, test scores, etc. I was pissed, for a very short time. Why a short time? Because I was lucky enough to have a great friend, also a minority, who did not get to go to that nice private school, but to the public one. I am lucky that I complained to him, and I am luckier still that he took the time to explain why I was an asshole.

He should not have had the burden to explain this to me, but he did it. That was a time of basically no internet and limited cable news. Those views were unacceptable then and a magnitude more unacceptable now that anyone can educate themselves on pretty much everything.

Honestly, it's not that surprising to me for you, or anyone else to hold such views - we are influenced so much by our environment & the media, that it's incredibly difficult to hold objective views on anything, especially these days.
For me, because so much surface level information can be debunked in seconds, having to read blatant lies being peddled is beyond frustrating. I don't expect anyone to be an expert on racism, or to have context/history/knowledge on specific things relating to healthcare, police brutality, affirmative action etc (i'm not expert, far from it) but it's important to not let lies run unchallenged.
I'm glad your friend was able to explain to you in detail, and i'm glad that you took in what he said too - a lot of times it's human nature to get defensive in situations like that. In my opinion a lot of racism is rooted in ignorance, and you can't possibly know what you don't know - that's how it continues to still be an issue, and why it's important for everyone who sees themselves as not racist - to challenge & educate those around them.

 

[Mastadon]

It's laughable right? To the best of my knowledge, the biggest group of benefactors of affirmative action as a policy is white women - so to suggest that there are black students getting in above smarter/more capable asian students is frankly absurd and shouldn't be tolerated, without evidence to back up such a claim.
Also as you quite rightly pointed out - legacy admissions, athletic scholarships & admissions for cash are all forms of affirmative action, but don't have any of the negative connotations associated with it.

A coalition of 64 Asian-American groups has filed a complaint against Harvard for discriminating against Asian-American kids in admissions. They’re right to assume there is a quota system at work. But they’re wrong that it is targeting Asian Americans. In fact, it is discriminating in favor of Blacks and Hispanics.
The complaint, filed with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, alleges that for Asian-American students to gain admission, they have to have SAT scores 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanic students and 450 points higher than African-American students.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecohen/2015/07/06/the-secret-quotas-in-college-admissions/amp/

In this article, we examine the roles played by preferences for athletes and children of alumni. Based on complete data for three applicant cohorts to three of the most academically selective research universities, we show that admission bonuses for athletes and legacies rival, and sometimes even exceed, the size of preferences for underrepresented mi- nority applicants. Being African American instead of white is worth an average of 230 additional SAT points on a 1600-point scale, but recruited athletes reap an advantage equivalent to 200 SAT points. Other things equal, His- panic applicants gain the equivalent of 185 points, which is only slightly more than the legacy advantage, which is worth 160 points. Coming from an Asian background, however, is comparable to the loss of 50 SAT points.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...es_espenshade_chung_walling_dec_2004_full.pdf

 

[Cheimoon]

I know you said you're done here, but on the off-chance that you're not:

I think the video of George Floyds murder and the reaction from the general public would have done the same. Im not sure how burning and looting innocent businesses has helped apart from alienate supporters. Do you have any data or evidence to support the idea that violent protests bring about change better than peaceful protests in the US?

I'm not going to repeat discussions you and others have had in the meantime, but on this point: after very little and slow reforms in policing, there has been enormous attention to the subject in the past two months with already a lot of noticeable changes in different US cities. Do you think that would have happened also without the violent part of the protests? If so, why now, why not previously?

This is simply not true. I have stated repeatedly that I am able to differentiate between BLM protestors who are mostly peaceful and the people who are out to loot and rob. Like I said said just because I choose to focus on what happened in the 50th minute of a football match doesn't mean I'm unaware of what happened in the other 89 minutes. The topic of the discussion for me is the 50th minute why criticize me for not talking about the 30th or 60th minute?

Because, first, you do not much make that distinction and in your text give the impression that most of this match is violent. And second, because I and many on here feel that the violence is understandable in this case, and ultimately contributing to there finally being some more movement on police reform in the US. (And also elsewhere: it's now being discussed here in Canada as well, and changes are likely in, for example, Ottawa and Toronto, from what I have seen.)

The funny thing is people keep saying on one hand don't equate the violent looters with BLM while acting like condemning the violent looters means you are against BLM.

The way you are writing this, you seem to say that there are two kinds of protests: peaceful ones, and violents ones that include looting. That's not true; protests can turn violent in various ways without looting, such as by vandalizing government property. I have also said many times now that I can understand violence and I can see the practical purpose it serves, but that I do not support the looting, especially of unrelated business. So, your turn: where do you stand on violent protests that focus their violence against elements representing the state and society as a whole?

That is not my point. My point is that those who are so quick to say sacrifices have to be made should experience those sacrifices before volunteering other unwilling parties to be sacrificed and suffer.

So people on here, for example, that say they understand the looting? If I got it right this time: but what if they live in another state or country and can't ask to loot their business or house first?

If nothing has changed so what is affirmative action? How come a black kid with worse grades can get into university ahead of an asian kid with better grades? Its pure hyperbole to say things haven't changed and I'm sure you know it.

I think this is another case where you might want to check your sources of information. Affirmative action in the US does no such thing; it doesn't catapult people with inferior objective credentials into success. Its point is to undo a situation where, if people have similar objective credentials (like grades), the White person is getting the position, job, or whatever, because they are scored better on subjective things (like how professional their appearance is). I'm probably not capturing it right entirely, but check the relevant Wikipedia page, for example.

Edit: looks like I should read more on this first as well, giving the example provided by Mastadon (also included on the Wikipedia page). Would love to hear about this from others.

And again I'm going to state that I am not saying things are great or even very good just a lot better than the 60s.

I think everyone agrees that things are better than they used to be, but that 'better' is still very far removed from 'good', or even just 'acceptable'. That's the point here. If you're concerned about being deliberately misunderstood, then I feel you might be returning the favour here.

 

[Halftrack]

I will give @Mastadon credit for this: We may not agree, but at least they are attempting to argue their position, which is all to often a quality lacking from contrarian view posting members in the CE forum.

Sure, I can agree to that. It's a hell of a lot better than the people who respond with or declare you an idiot for having a differing opinion.

That being said, the refusal to engage with the arguments other posters put forth, combined with the general "well things have improved some, can't you just be happy with that?" and the laser focus on RIOTING and LOOTING meant there was no fruitful discussion to be had.