Castile shooting, police violence, race, etc side discussion

[nicksaviking]

 

Yes, there was a march in Selma.  There was also a direct, purposeful reason for it.

 

They wanted to show how determined they were to vote by marching over 50 miles to demonstrate their commitment.  They did not lay in the road chanting to annoy people into changing.

 

Are the differences not stark?  That's the difference between a meaningful protest and one that basically has the same effect as a hashtag.

 

They aren't stark unless some people actually think the protests during the civil rights era were universally supported, which obviously they weren't or they wouldn't be protesting in the first place.

 

Do you not think that the people of Selma weren't "annoyed" for the inconvenience the protesters caused them?

[TheLeviathan]

 

In gerrymanded states, where systemic racism is real, that's going to change things? 

 

Who do you boycott, if the police are the issue? Are you suggesting they boycott helping the police? that's not working either. 

 

Gerrymandering can be undone if you work hard enough to make it happen.  Will it be hard?  Yes.  It will.  And that seems to be part of this - "what's the easiest thing I can do to help this?"  That's not a mentality for change.  

 

As for the boycotts you could put pressure on the city, who employs the police, by organizing boycotts that directly fund the city to put more pressure on them to change things.

 

Again - if you want the lazy way - go ahead and lay in the road.  I don't believe that's how anything changes, though.

[TheLeviathan]

 

They aren't stark unless some people actually think the protests during the civil rights era were universally supported, which obviously they weren't or they wouldn't be protesting in the first place.

 

Do you not think that the people of Selma weren't "annoyed" for the inconvenience the protesters caused them?

 

Yes, they are stark regardless of what people did in reaction.  What is stark is the intentions of the marchers.  The marchers in Selma wanted to communicate unity, dedication, and to represent their passion for this with a large movement of people.

 

What do these people want?  To make enough people late to work so they call their representative?  Join in on the next one?  

 

Again I ask - what is the purpose?  Others tell me awareness and then dodge the issue again when I point it out, so I'll point it out again: This isn't 1960 when something like this would actually cause people to be aware of something new.  Who is becoming newly aware of these issues by these protests?

[Mike Sixel]

If you think people that take hours or days out of their lives to walk and lay in the road are lazy, what do you think of hte other 99.9999% of the US that does nothing to change things? If you think the BLM leaders are lazy, well, I have no idea what to say to that, frankly.

 

I do agree on hashtags and FB profiles, that's pretty lazy.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yes, they are stark regardless of what people did in reaction.  What is stark is the intentions of the marchers.  The marchers in Selma wanted to communicate unity, dedication, and to represent their passion for this with a large movement of people.

 

What do these people want?  To make enough people late to work so they call their representative?  Join in on the next one?  

 

Again I ask - what is the purpose?  Others tell me awareness and then dodge the issue again when I point it out, so I'll point it out again: This isn't 1960 when something like this would actually cause people to be aware of something new.  Who is becoming newly aware of these issues by these protests?

 

I've already said it.....it's about discomfort. Until safe, suburban, mostly white people decide they care to help the poor and minority groups, not much is going to change. And, those people have no incentive to help them right now, other than the goodness of their hearts. I don't think we want to completely rely on charity right now. One way to incent them to care is to make them not so comfy in the status quo.

 

I'd venture that most of the people that are really pissed about this probably weren't going to go out of their way to support and help minorities with these issues before they got mad over being 10 minutes later getting home.

[TheLeviathan]

 

If you think people that take hours or days out of their lives to walk and lay in the road are lazy, what do you think of hte other 99.9999% of the US that does nothing to change things? If you think the BLM leaders are lazy, well, I have no idea what to say to that, frankly.

 

I do agree on hashtags and FB profiles, that's pretty lazy.

 

It's a lazy solution because it avoids the bigger, more difficult issues.  The very issues you brought up, by the way.  But, sorry, those issues still remain whether you laid in the street or not.  

 

What do these accomplish?  Do any of those 99.99999% get up and do anything different?  So I ask again...you shut down the highway....now what?  What did you accomplish?

[TheLeviathan]

 

I've already said it.....it's about discomfort. Until safe, suburban, mostly white people decide they care to help the poor and minority groups, not much is going to change. And, those people have no incentive to help them right now, other than the goodness of their hearts. I don't think we want to completely rely on charity right now. One way to incent them to care is to make them not so comfy in the status quo.

 

I'd venture that most of the people that are really pissed about this probably weren't going to go out of their way to support and help minorities with these issues before they got mad over being 10 minutes later getting home.

 

Does this make them care to help people?  Making someone "uncomfortable' (which, by they way, is debatable.  I'd argue "angry" might be better...and not always focused the direction you want it) doesn't usually spur people to action.  

 

I'd argue, everyone that got chastised for being late for work that day probably didn't leave work saying "I can't wait to go out there an support BLM and the highway protesters!" either.  All you probably got them to say was "#^*#, I was late for work!'  or "I'm sitting here on a hot day burning gas!"

 

How does that further your cause?  You didn't get them angry about police brutality - you got them angry about dopes in the road.

[Mike Sixel]

You asked why I thought they were doing it besides awareness. I answered. I am not convinced it will work, but I'm also not convinced it won't. And, I'm not trying to convince you, I have zero chance of that.

 

None of what you are suggesting has worked, I think trying something else is a natural reaction. If people were rational, your idea of sitting around and talking would probably work, but they aren't. If people were wiling to wait 10-20+ years to fix gerrymandering, while watching their children die, that might work, sure. But they aren't willing to wait that long. I don't blame them for that.

 

Hell, there are people PISSED OFF that they have the gall to say the words "black lives matter" as if that says anything about other lives......you think calm, emotion free, discussions are going to work? No chance.

[nicksaviking]

Yes, they are stark regardless of what people did in reaction.  What is stark is the intentions of the marchers.  The marchers in Selma wanted to communicate unity, dedication, and to represent their passion for this with a large movement of people.

 

What do these people want?  To make enough people late to work so they call their representative?  Join in on the next one?  

 

Again I ask - what is the purpose?  Others tell me awareness and then dodge the issue again when I point it out, so I'll point it out again: This isn't 1960 when something like this would actually cause people to be aware of something new.  Who is becoming newly aware of these issues by these protests?

You're seriously trying to say southern folks in the 1960's didn't know about the problems with segregation because Twitter hasn't been invented yet? Come on.

 

People protest to voice their displeasure, no one listens if no one is inconvenienced. The only reason this is viewed differently is because we don't have the lens of history magnifying how wrong those against the protesters were and how right the protesters were.

[twinsnorth49]

 

Yes, they are stark regardless of what people did in reaction.  What is stark is the intentions of the marchers.  The marchers in Selma wanted to communicate unity, dedication, and to represent their passion for this with a large movement of people.

 

What do these people want?  To make enough people late to work so they call their representative?  Join in on the next one?  

 

Again I ask - what is the purpose?  Others tell me awareness and then dodge the issue again when I point it out, so I'll point it out again: This isn't 1960 when something like this would actually cause people to be aware of something new.  Who is becoming newly aware of these issues by these protests?

Did each civil rights protest in the '60's make new people aware that there were civil rights problems? I don't see much difference in the bolded to what the people ultimately did in Selma, which was the culmination of many smaller protests to begin with. It also probably annoyed the hell out of a lot of people back then as well.

 

Yes, blocking a highway seems trivial and maybe dumb but all it's intended to do is keep things at the forefront. The recent events certainly drew as much attention as anyone could want towards the issue but as has happened many times in the past, without consistent effort it fades from the public's memory. Just like the murdered 6 year old's faded from memory when it came to gun control. After the initial media fervor, it stops, and everybody goes back to their business again.

 

This could be better thought out, I'll concede that and yes hashtags are worthless, but I'll give these people props for trying to make this not disappear like everything else.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You asked why I thought they were doing it besides awareness. I answered. I am not convinced it will work, but I'm also not convinced it won't. And, I'm not trying to convince you, I have zero chance of that.

 

None of what you are suggesting has worked, I think trying something else is a natural reaction. If people were rational, your idea of sitting around and talking would probably work, but they aren't. If people were wiling to wait 10-20+ years to fix gerrymandering, while watching their children die, that might work, sure. But they aren't willing to wait that long. I don't blame them for that.

 

Hell, there are people PISSED OFF that they have the gall to say the words "black lives matter" as if that says anything about other lives......you think calm, emotion free, discussions are going to work? No chance.

 

Has any of what I've suggested actually been tried?  What systematic boycott efforts have I missed?  I hear some rhetoric about getting votes out, but that has a long history of being spotty.

 

Again you seem to be deferring to what feels easy and quick and emotional and not strategy.  If the best you can come up with for why these protests are a good idea is that they won't take a long time, then you're right....I'm not going to be convinced.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You're seriously trying to say southern folks in the 1960's didn't know about the problems with segregation because Twitter hasn't been invented yet? Come on.

People protest to voice their displeasure, no one listens if no one is inconvenienced. The only reason this is viewed differently is because we don't have the lens of history magnifying how wrong those against the protesters were and how right the protesters were.

 

Of course they knew about segragation, but did people in Idaho know about Rosa Parks?  Or did your average schmo in Minnesota know the nuances of it?  I doubt it.  It also was a way to galvanize awareness among supporters about what was trying to be accomplished and how.

 

Merely voicing your displeasure is not a strategy for change.  People care more about the message and the messenger than about how much they are inconvenienced.  You don't annoy people into listening, you annoy them into being annoyed.  And since 25-30 percent is already on your side, an equal number annoyed regardless, you have the other 30-40 percent you are trying to join your message....not be annoyed by its messengers.

 

You're basically arguing that you have to annoy people into being your galvanized supporters and I just think that's preposterous as a strategy.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

Has any of what I've suggested actually been tried?  What systematic boycott efforts have I missed?  I hear some rhetoric about getting votes out, but that has a long history of being spotty.

 

Again you seem to be deferring to what feels easy and quick and emotional and not strategy.  If the best you can come up with for why these protests are a good idea is that they won't take a long time, then you're right....I'm not going to be convinced.

 

you don't think people tried to get the vote out for Obama the last few years, and down ballots, you really think that? I don't even know what to say to that.

 

What city services should they boycott? I don't get this one at all.....

 

And, if you think I said "the best thing is they won't take a long time", well, we aren't communicating well, are we? I clearly said your alternatives would take too long, I never said anything about whether these protests would work (I even said I wasn't sure they would).

[formerly33]

At this point in the conversation I just want to remind people that BLM isn't just about lying down in highways.

 

 

What city services should they boycott? I don't get this one at all.....

Taxes.

[TheLeviathan]

 

you don't think people tried to get the vote out for Obama the last few years, and down ballots, you really think that? I don't even know what to say to that.

 

What city services should they boycott? I don't get this one at all.....

 

And, if you think I said "the best thing is they won't take a long time", well, we aren't communicating well, are we? I clearly said your alternatives would take too long, I never said anything about whether these protests would work (I even said I wasn't sure they would).

 

Well, if we both agree they don't work....why are we arguing it?  

 

As for the city services, I'm going to have to defer that to people who can run numbers on where most supporters of BLM are spending their money.  Maybe it's public transportation.  Maybe it's something else.  That would take some investigating, but where better to get someone to change something than by hitting their pocket book?

 

Not even gerrymandering will get in the way of influencing politicians that are seeing dollars go away.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

As I said earlier, when you're attempting to enact change a pissed off person nets the same result as an idle person.

 

This is essentially what I'm getting at in regards to the other discussion. 

[ashbury]

Uh, I think you mean "kitty corner" pal.

That would be for the two Tim Horton's.

[TheLeviathan]

 

And then this happens. 50+ dead.

https://www.rt.com/news/351086-panic-nice-france-crowd/

 

I feared this happening to BLM protesters, this sounds like a vile attack.

 

Every few days.....ugh.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

"it happens to white people too" isn't actually a compelling argument in the face of facts and statistics that point out it happens at a MUCH HIGHER rate to non-whites than whites.

 

Are you actually arguing there is no systemic racism in the US?

 

I won't argue if you want to say there's latent racism.  The end results of the system certainly affect black in a more negative manner than it does white people, but that doesn't make the people in the system racist.  But if you want to talk rates, these issues happen at a MUCH HIGHER rate to people who are POOR or are for whatever reason in poor areas, and since blacks are found in disproportionate numbers in that category and in those areas, it's going to happen at much higher rates to them. 

 

Correlation does not equal causation.  It's true in baseball and it's true here too.  The assumption that because it happens in higher rates to black vs. whites means that it's racism is at best a conclusion based solely on correlation, and it's largely unprovable and very offensive.   

 

You're on dangerous ground when you start saying that a bunch of people you don't know are racist and assuming that since it happens in higher numbers to black that the end result must be racism.  Yeah, there are racists out there, but in my experience most of these types are well into their retirement years.  I'd note that I know a bunch of cops as well.  These aren't racist people, not in the sense you're implying... Jaded, yeah, there's probably a few there.  Unprofessional who demand they be treated with a certain level of respect?  Sure, plenty of those as well.  Again, we really need to get beyond the idea that the police force is made up of a bunch of KKK supporting white guys who decided they are going to get up and go kill a black guy.  It's not nearly that simplistic, and quite frankly it's offensive to 99.x percent of the men and women who put on a badge each day.  You're looking for a solution to this problem in all the wrong places.  You start dealing with police professionalism, and you solve Philandro Castile as well as Deven Guildford.

 

Oh, and that gets me back to my point, does Deven Guilford's life not matter?  I ask, because quite frankly, you just dismissed it. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

But people are passing aside black lives. Yes, "all lives matter" sounds wonderful - I don't disagree with that. But the phrase has antagonistic origins and insinuates that in this day in age, all lives are treated as if they do matter without a single exception to the rule. That simply isn't true.

 

You are right; it's stupid, pointless, and even harmful to assume all cops are racist. Racism, however, does exist, and the police force isn't immune. I've heard of enough cases of police brutality in which blatant racism played a key roll to know this. To me, it seems stupid, pointless, and harmful to assume it's not a problem.

 

It may be hurtful to a certain segment of the white population to hear the phrase "black lives matter." Guess what - it's hurtful to another segment of the population to hear that the only (ONLY) issue here is police brutality.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/09/you-really-can-get-pulled-over-for-driving-while-black-federal-statistics-show/

 

We all agree there is a problem. You can focus on police brutality. Or you can focus on police brutality directed towards black people. Or you can focus on lack of professionalism in the police force. Or you can focus on lack of professionalism in the police force directed towards people of different ethnic groups.

 

Now, we are a lot closer

 

But to be clear, no one is passing aside black lives.  Black lives matter sounds wonderful too, but if you think the ALM is antagonistic, how is it that you don't see the antagonism in BLM? 

 

Maybe I'm wrong about it, but I doubt Alton Sterling and Philandro Castile were shot because the officers firing the gun hated black people.  In Sterling's case, he was supposedly reaching for a gun (whether or not he needed to be subdued is a different story, but when the police are called to investigate a situation where someone is threatening someone with a gun, I think you need to recognize that they are going to be on high alert expecting to possibly see one).  These are not situations where everything is clear cut black and white Jim Crow racism.  You have a conflagration of items such as unconscious bias, bad training, a complete lack of professional approach that tends to escalate tensions rather than calm them, and a whole host of other things, and boiling it down to race ignores all of that.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

Taxes.

 

BINGO!!!!!

[ashbury]

 

I feared this happening to BLM protesters, this sounds like a vile attack.

 

Every few days.....ugh.

May I suggest shifting the discussion of the truck tragedy in France to the other thread I just started?

[nicksaviking]

Maybe I'm wrong about it, but I doubt Alton Sterling and Philandro Castile were shot because the officers firing the gun hated black people.  In Sterling's case, he was supposedly reaching for a gun (whether or not he needed to be subdued is a different story, but when the police are called to investigate a situation where someone is threatening someone with a gun, I think you need to recognize that they are going to be on high alert expecting to possibly see one).  These are not situations where everything is clear cut black and white Jim Crow racism.  You have a conflagration of items such as unconscious bias, bad training, a complete lack of professional approach that tends to escalate tensions rather than calm them, and a whole host of other things, and boiling it down to race ignores all of that.

I'd say the protesters WANT to make it black and white. What difference does it make if the police shoot these folks because they are racist or just scared? The reason or intention shouldn't matter, only the end result. The situation should be black and white in the sense that every police encounter should be the same no matter your race. When the "grey area" or "gut instinct" is in play, people end up getting profiled and people end up getting shot.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I'd say the protesters WANT to make it black and white. What difference does it make if the police shoot these folks because they are racist or just scared? The reason or intention shouldn't matter, only the end result. The situation should be black and white in the sense that every police encounter should be the same no matter your race. When the "grey area" or "gut instinct" is in play, people end up getting profiled and people end up getting shot.

 

I agree, we want to make it black or white.  Truth is, we want to boil just about every problem down to one thing when most problems are the combination of a number of things. 

 

But truthfully, it makes a huge difference.  If you treat 'just scared' with a 'it's racism solution', I can pretty much guarantee that you'll only make the problem worse. 

 

And yes, I tend to agree with your last point, but I suspect most police officers won't agree on that gut instinct thing.  Just about every cop in a major metropolitan area can point to said gut instinct keeping them alive.  They have a dangerous job.  Let's not forget that. 

[formerly33]

Now, we are a lot closer

Not sure what you're implying here. My views have not changed. Just your view on my views, perhaps?

 

You have a conflagration of items such as unconscious bias, bad training, a complete lack of professional approach that tends to escalate tensions rather than calm them, and a whole host of other things, and boiling it down to race ignores all of that.

No. Boiling it down to unprofessionalism in the police force ignores all of ... something else. No need to lay it out in English again. You know what I'm talking about.

 

Though I have to add, if all the people who say "all lives matter" are worried about is the antagonistic origin of BLM, why did they retort with something undeniably equally bad? Worse, imo. Why?

[ashbury]

What difference does it make if the police shoot these folks because they are racist or just scared?

While there is overlap, I'd say it matters quite it bit in how you go about reducing the temperature of the whole situation.

[Mike Sixel]

Who said institutional racism was about one thing? Who said it was even about individuals? That's not how institutional problems work. And, I tend to trust the police that have been brave enough to say there is racism, over any thing else.

 

And I never dismissed a white death. You are reading things I an am not saying. All deaths of innocent people are bad.

[Badsmerf]

This whole conversation wouldn't be happening to the degree it is without blm. Life I've said before my wife is mixed, she line the alm more.... Mostly imo because she sees the negative clips and reads her evangelical Facebook feed. She also doesn't feel racism in her life. She thinks all lives should be equal, and blm choose bad wording for the slogan.

 

I do think poverty plays a larger part in this than race by itself. A lot of positive changes can be put in place to help the situation. Let's be better. I hope this conversion evolves into a discussion on improving people lives in poverty past simple handouts. That doesn't help, it just keeps people alive. That shouldn't be the goal. A ****ty minimum wage job at a fast food place or big box store isn't a great consolation prize either. Again, let's be better (and not point fingers at those in those shirty situations).

[TheLeviathan]

Obama really shined in that town hall last night (as he usually does, he was born for that) - I highly recommend it.

[Shane Wahl]

When in doubt, turn to Rollins for clarity . . .

 

http://www.laweekly.com/music/henry-rollins-white-america-couldnt-handle-what-black-america-deals-with-every-day-7134994