Warren Dew wrote:
Only because the Black Lives Matter movement has never had any legitimacy to begin with. The idea that lives of any one race are more important than lives of other races is repugnant in all its guises.

Their message is black lives 'also' matter. It is in response to the apathetic attitude towards the loss of black lives and black youth. They have never said 'only' black lives matter.

I wrote a lengthy post on Facebook about this, but the relevant bits is this:

I am all for equal rights and civil liberties and not giving people special privileges due to the colour of their skin. But we have to have equal rights first. When we sit and focus and sigh and yell in exasperation because we are seeing racial tensions build and when we rally behind Black Lives Matter because we are fighting for true equality of black lives and that turns around and is met by white privilege trying to tell us that instead of Black Lives Matter it should be All Lives Matter it misses the point by a mile.

The fact is institutional racism is a thing and like all problems step one is actually admitting it. It is not a pretty truth and it makes us white people uncomfortable. But just because black people are trying to better their lives and gain equality does not mean they are trying to gain special privileges because they are black. They are trying to gain the same rights and privileges we have enjoyed for so long.

Warren Dew wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:

felltoearth wrote:
Nothing that occurred in Dallas delegitimizes the BLM movement and what they stand for.

Only because the Black Lives Matter movement has never had any legitimacy to begin with. The idea that lives of any one race are more important than lives of other races is repugnant in all its guises.

Of course, that's true.

From where did you get the idea that this is the point of the BLM movement?

From the fact that they vigorously suppressed the competing "All Lives Matter".

So you think pointing to a group that doesn't have the remedial reading skills to understand BLM's stated purpose, or indeed the literal meaning of the title itself, makes your point for you? Keep riding the Fox News gravy train.

The_Metatron wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Even if that is the case, it doesn't take away from the reality they're two people out of what is an enormous movement.

Nothing that occurred in Dallas delegitimizes the BLM movement and what they stand for. One could argue this is the 2nd Amendment in action.

Yes, and the argument would be sound.

Police forces across the country have happily drawn this thin blue line, explicitly defining an us and them mentality.

The Dallas PD has this one best chance, right now, to erase that line. They will never again have the support and public sympathy they now have.

The smart leader will use that sympathy to make the police force and the citizens it serves one. One, united to end this violence.

Or, more likely, they'll ramp up the arms race and turn that line into a wall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's like you can see the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/news-dallas ... s-bullets/

Texas Lieutenant Governor Calls Protesters ‘Hypocrites’

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick of Texas on Friday called the protesters assembled in Dallas the night before “hypocrites” for expecting police protection from the sniper fire while they were protesting police violence.

“All those protesters last night, they ran the other way expecting the men and women in blue to turn around and protect them,” Mr. Patrick told Fox News. “What hypocrites!”

felltoearth wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Even if that is the case, it doesn't take away from the reality they're two people out of what is an enormous movement.

Nothing that occurred in Dallas delegitimizes the BLM movement and what they stand for. One could argue this is the 2nd Amendment in action.

Yes, and the argument would be sound.

Police forces across the country have happily drawn this thin blue line, explicitly defining an us and them mentality.

The Dallas PD has this one best chance, right now, to erase that line. They will never again have the support and public sympathy they now have.

The smart leader will use that sympathy to make the police force and the citizens it serves one. One, united to end this violence.

Or, more likely, they'll ramp up the arms race and turn that line into a wall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's like you can see the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/news-dallas ... s-bullets/

Texas Lieutenant Governor Calls Protesters ‘Hypocrites’

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick of Texas on Friday called the protesters assembled in Dallas the night before “hypocrites” for expecting police protection from the sniper fire while they were protesting police violence.

“All those protesters last night, they ran the other way expecting the men and women in blue to turn around and protect them,” Mr. Patrick told Fox News. “What hypocrites!”

It is a bit interesting if they ARE having these protests chanting things like 'death to pigs' and anti-police sentiments in general... then when shit hits the fan, at a place where police are generally accepting of their protest, they run and scream and cry while police are zooming toward the scene.

IDK if they actually chant stuff like that though.

Dan Patrick is painting with a rather wide brush, I believe that he is speaking about a small minority of demonstrators, but it's worth noting that there were those who ran toward the sound of gunfire at a BLM protest.

Acetone wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Nothing that occurred in Dallas delegitimizes the BLM movement and what they stand for. One could argue this is the 2nd Amendment in action.

Yes, and the argument would be sound.

Police forces across the country have happily drawn this thin blue line, explicitly defining an us and them mentality.

The Dallas PD has this one best chance, right now, to erase that line. They will never again have the support and public sympathy they now have.

The smart leader will use that sympathy to make the police force and the citizens it serves one. One, united to end this violence.

Or, more likely, they'll ramp up the arms race and turn that line into a wall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's like you can see the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/news-dallas ... s-bullets/

Texas Lieutenant Governor Calls Protesters ‘Hypocrites’

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick of Texas on Friday called the protesters assembled in Dallas the night before “hypocrites” for expecting police protection from the sniper fire while they were protesting police violence.

“All those protesters last night, they ran the other way expecting the men and women in blue to turn around and protect them,” Mr. Patrick told Fox News. “What hypocrites!”

It is a bit interesting if they ARE having these protests chanting things like 'death to pigs' and anti-police sentiments in general... then when shit hits the fan, at a place where police are generally accepting of their protest, they run and scream and cry while police are zooming toward the scene.

IDK if they actually chant stuff like that though.

Expecting police to do their job, which includes not unnecessarily shooting one demographic at 5 or 21 times the rate they shoot whites, depending on the specific demographic, isn't hypocritical. People can expect protection from gunfire, and not be shot for no reason at the same time. It's the right wing nuts like the Bundys who are hypocritical.

felltoearth wrote:Yep. No race problem in America amongst authorities at all:

https://m.mic.com/articles/148139/dalla ... .EcSmvEC9f

"3 Dallas Cops killed, 7 wounded. This is now war. Watch out Obama. Watch out black lives matter punks. Real America is coming after you."

If a normal citizen tweeted this, they'd get a visit from the SS and maybe arrested for threatening POTUS

crank wrote:

felltoearth wrote:Yep. No race problem in America amongst authorities at all:

https://m.mic.com/articles/148139/dalla ... .EcSmvEC9f

"3 Dallas Cops killed, 7 wounded. This is now war. Watch out Obama. Watch out black lives matter punks. Real America is coming after you."

If a normal citizen tweeted this, they'd get a visit from the SS and maybe arrested for threatening POTUS

Weaver wrote:They apparently killed him with the charge on the robot usually intended to disarm bombs. To me, that is an entirely appropriate use of force, no different than sending in someone with a gun - once it became clear that no negotiations would gain anything further, and there was increased risk to officers and bystanders (remember, they couldn't clear the scene while he was still active - couldn't be sure there weren't more casualties bleeding out, like happened in Orlando ...) they needed to go in and neutralize the suspect. When guns are in play, that involves deadly force. It doesn't matter one lick to me whether the explosion which produces that is contained partially within a gun barrel or not.

Was just reading about this as its supposedly first use of robot to kill suspect in US history. Whether appropriate use of force or not, why they did not mount I dunno smoke and tranquillising grenades on it instead?

Willie71 wrote:

Acetone wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:
Yes, and the argument would be sound.

Police forces across the country have happily drawn this thin blue line, explicitly defining an us and them mentality.

The Dallas PD has this one best chance, right now, to erase that line. They will never again have the support and public sympathy they now have.

The smart leader will use that sympathy to make the police force and the citizens it serves one. One, united to end this violence.

Or, more likely, they'll ramp up the arms race and turn that line into a wall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's like you can see the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/news-dallas ... s-bullets/

Texas Lieutenant Governor Calls Protesters ‘Hypocrites’

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick of Texas on Friday called the protesters assembled in Dallas the night before “hypocrites” for expecting police protection from the sniper fire while they were protesting police violence.

“All those protesters last night, they ran the other way expecting the men and women in blue to turn around and protect them,” Mr. Patrick told Fox News. “What hypocrites!”

It is a bit interesting if they ARE having these protests chanting things like 'death to pigs' and anti-police sentiments in general... then when shit hits the fan, at a place where police are generally accepting of their protest, they run and scream and cry while police are zooming toward the scene.

IDK if they actually chant stuff like that though.

Expecting police to do their job, which includes not unnecessarily shooting one demographic at 5 or 21 times the rate they shoot whites, depending on the specific demographic, isn't hypocritical. People can expect protection from gunfire, and not be shot for no reason at the same time. It's the right wing nuts like the Bundys who are hypocritical.

How's it make it less interesting?

Willie71 wrote:
I'll take this on. It's fucking bullshit. When a group oppresses people, they either turn to learned helplessness, or they fight back. I don't agree with shooting anyone, or the second Ammendment. No individual deserves to be executed like this, but it's completely understandable psychologically as to why it happens. It's even predictable.

Very predictable when the "discourse" includes accusations of rampant murder and assassinations by the racist police, that's why I said I've been expecting something like this. Psychologically understandable? Maybe in a text book way, but as someone who's training and job involves diagnosing and determining the mental health needs of communities would you recommend listening to or participating in continual hate speech against another group as part of your therapy? And being that violent reactions are to be expected, even predictable, do you condone figureheads and "community" leaders using inflammatory rhetoric against an entire group of over a million people?

What psychological term might you use for someone calling for calm and peace while at the same time using terms such "racists" and "murderers" to cover millions of people that have nothing to do with isolated incidents of violence.

What psychological term might you use for someone that can't or simply refuses to discriminate between the case of a violent career criminal with a gun he's barred by law from owning being shot while resisting arrest and a generally law abiding genuinely nice guy apparently shot for no good reason?

Is there a psychological term for someone that, no matter what the circumstances, automatically and instantly begins shouting, "Murder," or "Assassination," or "Execution," and "Racism" solely based on the race of the person killed.

If someone were convicted of murder simply because they were black, people like Al Sharpton, Black Lives Matter, and you and Crank would scream your fucking heads off. But that doesn't stop them from automatically and instantly convicting, in the press or on the internet, a police officer that shoots a black man.

Willie71 wrote:
Pointing out problems does not cause the problems.

It does if the problem doesn't really exist or is a small problem with some individuals but is blown up to include a whole, over a million strong, group of people honestly trying to do a difficult job.

Willie71 wrote:
This is the belief of those raised in authoritarian environments where obedience is unquestioning, like in an alcoholic family. Shoot the messenger is the norm.

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you actually trying to say that unquestioning obedience is a defining characteristic of people in "alcoholic families" or people in the US? I'm so fucking glad that you weren't my family therapist when we really needed help.

Willie71 wrote:
Any reasonable person looking at the stats on police on black violence should see a problem glaring them in the face.

Yeah, a big problem but it aint with cops in general, it's a problem with the violent crime rate among young black men and the prevalence of carrying guns by young black men. Around one quarter of people killed by police are black while the black population is around 15%. Sounds like a problem until you look at statistics like this: 62 percent of robberies are committed by young men, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country are committed by young black men. By young black men I mean black men between the ages of 15 and 40.

The killings of young black men by police is a huge problem, but it is not a law enforcement problem. It's a social problem, it's an economic problem, a cultural problem maybe? Police deal with the end product of many social and economic problems that they have had little if any part in causing.

The psychological term I was looking for earlier is "dysfunctional". It's like the people in New York city being asked what their greatest fears are and them responding snakes and lions and tigers. Those are their greatest fears but they are not remotely likely to encounter those animals in the city. Their chances of being run over by a car while crossing the street dwarfs exponentially the probability of being bitten by a snake or eaten by a large predator.

It is dysfunctional for people to think that police are such a predominant threat to the lives of young black people (15 to 40) when the leading cause of death among young black people, overwhelmingly, is other young black people. Where is the same level of outrage within the "black community" and by Al Sharpton or you when a nine year old black girl is killed in a drive by shooting by other blacks?

Peggy Hubbard said it eloquently.

Willie71 wrote:
To blame the victims is racism, as it requires believing blacks are inherently more criminal and violent.

Just how did you come to that conclusion? First off to blame the victim they have to actually be a victim. Someone does not automatically become a victim because they are black. Someone fighting a police officer while going for a gun in his pocket is not a victim. They are perpetrators.

Secondly only uneducated bigoted assholes think that black people are inherently more violent or prone to crime, but it's delusional for educated assholes to think that the over representation of violence and crime in black communities isn't, at least in part, due to cultural influences existing in those communities.

Willie71 wrote:
Back it up one step and see the feedback loop where people are oppressed turning them to desperate circumstances, then blaming them for turning to those circumstances, a pattern seen throughout history.

So, you're giving a pass to the assassin/s of 5 Dallas police officers because "their people" have been oppressed by people other than those police officers?

Willie71 wrote:
OS insults others for not being as smart as him for not seeing the simplest propaganda that falls apart with little extra thinking.

No, I blame people that selectively use their smarts to justify their emotional reactions.

Willie71 wrote:
I'll say it, OS blaming blacks for their systemic plight is racism. That's what racist is.

And I'll say that Willie71 is making excuses for the murderer/s of five police officers in Dallas yesterday. It's the same kind of chickens coming home to roost rhetoric that Ward Churchill used in trying to place blame on the victims of 9/11 instead of the men that flew the planes into the Twin Towers.

tuco wrote:

Weaver wrote:They apparently killed him with the charge on the robot usually intended to disarm bombs. To me, that is an entirely appropriate use of force, no different than sending in someone with a gun - once it became clear that no negotiations would gain anything further, and there was increased risk to officers and bystanders (remember, they couldn't clear the scene while he was still active - couldn't be sure there weren't more casualties bleeding out, like happened in Orlando ...) they needed to go in and neutralize the suspect. When guns are in play, that involves deadly force. It doesn't matter one lick to me whether the explosion which produces that is contained partially within a gun barrel or not.

Was just reading about this as its supposedly first use of robot to kill suspect in US history. Whether appropriate use of force or not, why they did not mount I dunno smoke and tranquillising grenades on it instead?

Not an expert but I'm guessing bomb detonating robots typically don't come with tranq or smoke attachments.

Simple solution to the problem...

From now on, if police are called out to a crime or have to stop a vehicle for breaking some law, first they should ask "Is the suspect black?", and if they are, then the police should refuse to attend. That should save some black lives.

I'm sure the USA would be a crime free paradise within a fortnight....

I wonder if the "black lives matter" group has actually looked at crime statistics and seen who is the largest group responsible for black shooting deaths...here's a hint: it's not white cops.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Willie71 wrote:
I'll take this on. It's fucking bullshit. When a group oppresses people, they either turn to learned helplessness, or they fight back. I don't agree with shooting anyone, or the second Ammendment. No individual deserves to be executed like this, but it's completely understandable psychologically as to why it happens. It's even predictable.

Very predictable when the "discourse" includes accusations of rampant murder and assassinations by the racist police, that's why I said I've been expecting something like this. Psychologically understandable? Maybe in a text book way, but as someone who's training and job involves diagnosing and determining the mental health needs of communities would you recommend listening to or participating in continual hate speech against another group as part of your therapy? And being that violent reactions are to be expected, even predictable, do you condone figureheads and "community" leaders using inflammatory rhetoric against an entire group of over a million people?

What psychological term might you use for someone calling for calm and peace while at the same time using terms such "racists" and "murderers" to cover millions of people that have nothing to do with isolated incidents of violence.

What psychological term might you use for someone that can't or simply refuses to discriminate between the case of a violent career criminal with a gun he's barred by law from owning being shot while resisting arrest and a generally law abiding genuinely nice guy apparently shot for no good reason?

Is there a psychological term for someone that, no matter what the circumstances, automatically and instantly begins shouting, "Murder," or "Assassination," or "Execution," and "Racism" solely based on the race of the person killed.

If someone were convicted of murder simply because they were black, people like Al Sharpton, Black Lives Matter, and you and Crank would scream your fucking heads off. But that doesn't stop them from automatically and instantly convicting, in the press or on the internet, a police officer that shoots a black man.

Willie71 wrote:
Pointing out problems does not cause the problems.

It does if the problem doesn't really exist or is a small problem with some individuals but is blown up to include a whole, over a million strong, group of people honestly trying to do a difficult job.

Willie71 wrote:
This is the belief of those raised in authoritarian environments where obedience is unquestioning, like in an alcoholic family. Shoot the messenger is the norm.

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you actually trying to say that unquestioning obedience is a defining characteristic of people in "alcoholic families" or people in the US? I'm so fucking glad that you weren't my family therapist when we really needed help.

Willie71 wrote:
Any reasonable person looking at the stats on police on black violence should see a problem glaring them in the face.

Yeah, a big problem but it aint with cops in general, it's a problem with the violent crime rate among young black men and the prevalence of carrying guns by young black men. Around one quarter of people killed by police are black while the black population is around 15%. Sounds like a problem until you look at statistics like this: 62 percent of robberies are committed by young men, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country are committed by young black men. By young black men I mean black men between the ages of 15 and 40.

The killings of young black men by police is a huge problem, but it is not a law enforcement problem. It's a social problem, it's an economic problem, a cultural problem maybe? Police deal with the end product of many social and economic problems that they have had little if any part in causing.

The psychological term I was looking for earlier is "dysfunctional". It's like the people in New York city being asked what their greatest fears are and them responding snakes and lions and tigers. Those are their greatest fears but they are not remotely likely to encounter those animals in the city. Their chances of being run over by a car while crossing the street dwarfs exponentially the probability of being bitten by a snake or eaten by a large predator.

It is dysfunctional for people to think that police are such a predominant threat to the lives of young black people (15 to 40) when the leading cause of death among young black people, overwhelmingly, is other young black people. Where is the same level of outrage within the "black community" and by Al Sharpton or you when a nine year old black girl is killed in a drive by shooting by other blacks?

Peggy Hubbard said it eloquently.

Willie71 wrote:
To blame the victims is racism, as it requires believing blacks are inherently more criminal and violent.

Just how did you come to that conclusion? First off to blame the victim they have to actually be a victim. Someone does not automatically become a victim because they are black. Someone fighting a police officer while going for a gun in his pocket is not a victim. They are perpetrators.

Secondly only uneducated bigoted assholes think that black people are inherently more violent or prone to crime, but it's delusional for educated assholes to think that the over representation of violence and crime in black communities isn't, at least in part, due to cultural influences existing in those communities.

Willie71 wrote:
Back it up one step and see the feedback loop where people are oppressed turning them to desperate circumstances, then blaming them for turning to those circumstances, a pattern seen throughout history.

So, you're giving a pass to the assassin/s of 5 Dallas police officers because "their people" have been oppressed by people other than those police officers?

Willie71 wrote:
OS insults others for not being as smart as him for not seeing the simplest propaganda that falls apart with little extra thinking.

No, I blame people that selectively use their smarts to justify their emotional reactions.

Willie71 wrote:
I'll say it, OS blaming blacks for their systemic plight is racism. That's what racist is.

And I'll say that Willie71 is making excuses for the murderer/s of five police officers in Dallas yesterday. It's the same kind of chickens coming home to roost rhetoric that Ward Churchill used in trying to place blame on the victims of 9/11 instead of the men that flew the planes into the Twin Towers.

Did you not read sentence #3 and #4 in my post? I completely condemned the behaviour, while acknowledging what motivates the behaviour. Guess what, in forensic psychiatry, we understand why people commit crimes even though we think committing those crimes us wrong. I guess that's too hard for some people to understand.

I got called a white cis gender conforming racist male who doesn't know about "our experience".

By a rather wealthy (relative to me at least) black woman in my city. For making the points I've made in this thread on a video a friend of mine posted.

1st that's the first time I've ever been called racist I think.
2nd the fuck? How is it our experiences? This girl has Facebook photos of her travelling the world. Going on huge yaughts... Always smiling in really nice clothes... Spending time in trendy hipster areas of Toronto.

I mean shit. She gets to play equal victim to American black men on the basis of skin colour? That's fucking disgusting.

purplerat wrote:

tuco wrote:

Weaver wrote:They apparently killed him with the charge on the robot usually intended to disarm bombs. To me, that is an entirely appropriate use of force, no different than sending in someone with a gun - once it became clear that no negotiations would gain anything further, and there was increased risk to officers and bystanders (remember, they couldn't clear the scene while he was still active - couldn't be sure there weren't more casualties bleeding out, like happened in Orlando ...) they needed to go in and neutralize the suspect. When guns are in play, that involves deadly force. It doesn't matter one lick to me whether the explosion which produces that is contained partially within a gun barrel or not.

Was just reading about this as its supposedly first use of robot to kill suspect in US history. Whether appropriate use of force or not, why they did not mount I dunno smoke and tranquillising grenades on it instead?

Not an expert but I'm guessing bomb detonating robots typically don't come with tranq or smoke attachments.

Maybe it should if robots are to be used this way in future.

I think the issue is that smoke grenades and flashbangs wouldn't reliably actually stop someone detonating bombs they claim to have set.

Unless the idea of a tranq grenade is literal, in which case, it's a great idea, but first someone needs to invent one.

Tranquilizing grenades? What bad Hollywood movie did you get that bullshit from? There is no such thing as a tranquilizing grenade.

Various movies. Then I guess someone indeed needs to invent one because I do not understand what the problem is.