They are just protesting injustices.....
https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-...h-child-inside
Darryl
They are just protesting injustices.....
https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-...h-child-inside
Darryl
No big deal...nobody hurt and insurance will rebuild the house. Nothing here to see
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
As Libs say, the parents could always have more kids.Originally Posted by Doc
Darryl
The Richmond Chief of police seems to understand something else that some of you seem to be missing here...
'He then lashed out at the protesters, whom he accused of hijacking a "legitimate issue" for "unknown reasons."'
By completely trying to steer the conversation towards the horrible actions of a few as THE problem shows a complete disregard of the real problems that we face as a nation. As the protests continue to grow, worldwide, and are now nearly 100% peaceful besides a skirmish here and there, it WILL result in change.
When that change comes, I'll never understand the fear. It's not like white people are going to lose their privilege, we just want to get to a place where everyone is treated equally. We are collectively stronger united than we are divided. I certainly understand why that scares some people, but not for about 98% of us.
I have to ask? what exact change should we expect that implements "everyone being treated equally"?
(Oh, and bTW even Trump has drawn the distinction between peaceful protests, which he endorsed, and this criminal behavior, so no, absolutely no one is missing that point, not even the supposed centerpoint of all this evil.)
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
The first step is to acknowledge that systematic racism and white privilege is real. It is still being denied by too many. Until we get to that point, there is no debate about how to solve it, we'll just keep spinning our wheels watching the same crap happen year in and out.
Oh, and trump "endorsing" peaceful protests is a load of crap too. Remember his reaction to Kaepernick and others? How about just minutes after saying that he supports peaceful protests, he turned a military attack on them.
Just another lie.
OK, let's be hypothetical. Everyone agrees with you. What do we do?
B/c you know, otherwise you just dodged the question like the Underpants Gnomes.
Step 1: Everyone agrees with me racism is deep and real and white people have Privilege.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Utopia America
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
But, everybody doesn't agree, and it's not with me, it's reality. You don't leave me with much to assume that you are a denier of that reality.
I'ts an easy question. let's say we all agree with your reality. What happens? What policy do we enact? Or is just us all feeling that way enough?
What behavior would we have to alter to achieve your goal? What laws do we pass?
Your answer thus far is going to leave you with piles of underpants and nothing to do with them. Not to mention the humor of you accusing me of ducking questions.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
We enact the policies Obama - Biden proposed after Furguson, Travon Martin, Freddie Grey and Eric Garner.
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
You have absolutely ducked the question here, and that is do you believe that we have a fundamental issue of systematic racism and disproportionate justices against people of color?
It wasn't let's assume, it is do YOU believe.
If you don't, then it's a useless debate to have. If you do, I am willing to offer proposed solutions.
Answering that first question IS the first step. Problem solving 101, you have to identify the problem.
He did make a distinction in his words. I agreed him on that. BUT...prior to the legal curfew he ordered a peaceful crowd dispersed ahead of the curfew for a photo op.
Citizen you and others say pay attention to what Trump does and not his rhetoric. I disagree with this as a president's word are his actions (no one expected FDR to storm the Normandy beaches or Ike for that matter).
Now Trump has actually said a few good/right things early. But by having a peaceful crowd removed before curfew his violent actions raise concerns. Here his actions against at the time a peaceful protest undercut his words.
Now granted Trump will not make some of us happy regardless what he does (His initial comments on Floyd were good but his approach to dominate and his gut reaction to use the military concerns me) and this man has an incredible need to be liked--more than most politicians.
.oops... wrong thread
Last edited by Doc; 06-04-2020 at 11:30 AM.
Let’s start with terminating termination no knock warrants.
Let’s begin with mandatory body cameras
Let require officers on riot patrol wearing their number badge
Let’s grow the number of minority police
Let’s look at de-escalation. George Floyd allegedly passed a 20 counter fit bill.
He might not have known it is a Fake $20. He might have even been scammed by the store. He wasn’t killed for the 20 he was killed for showing a lack of respect it seems.
We need manners and folks need to show police respect but that goes both ways.
That's an interesting quote you made. Are you describing the police with respect to the apprehension and treatment of minorities, or are you describing the protestors?
I'm really not sure how all of this works. You have condoned if not supported the looting and riots. So now it is justifiable for those who have been very much against the looting and violence to take to the streets because they are so damn mad at the injustice?
Like I said, if I don't agree then in your world we can't even have a discussion. And you think Trump is being divisive and not unifying?
Just curious, but do you own a mirror?
Oh, and I'm not ducking a question. This is the first time you've asked it. You are however ducking mine, for the third time. I don't think I'll let you off that easy just yet. I' can easily answer yours, with far more nuance than your simple worldview, but I think I'll let this percolate a while waiting for you to offer actual changes based on my hypothetical.
And sadly, there is no "Problem Solving 101" in college, and if there were I'm sure it would be taught by an idiot. there are however rules of logic and of policy analysis, and so far you're failing at inherency, causality and solvency.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
I'm not against any of that History, but I have serious doubts any of it is meaningful in making this situation better, even though I agree it's all good.
First, much of it is already in place. Ask a lot of these activists and they'll tell you they aren't any more in love with the black cops than the white ones. Why? b/c the problem is one of authority and the fact that policing often selects for people who like to throw their weight around. That's just true, it's the psychology of the job.
De-esclation in this case is a no brainer, but New York reduced crime by 50% or more when Guiliani was mayor by NOT ignoring all the little offenses and actually enforcing laws. there is a price to being seen as lax in law enforcement, and while I can't say I see the logic of it it is empirically supported.
Growing the number of minority police is a good idea, but many of these cities with riots have minority Chiefs of police. Many of these cities are not really underrepresented on the force. Some are for sure, but not all.
Let's look at DC for example. A majority of their officers are black, only 36% are white, and here they are rioting and looting in your town. Chicago is about 50% white, 25%/25% Hispanic/Black. Los Angelese? Total minority police is almost 2/3rds of the force.
There are already lots of minority officers, esp. in these hotbeds of anger and protest. So will more make LA riot less? I doubt it.
Body cams are a no brainer IMO, but most forces are going to that without anyone having to pass a law. It protects them as well legally.
I'm not in these neighborhoods to know the "truth" of why there is this deep "us v. them" attitude, and I don't pretend to have that answer, but so far I see a lot of calls for "change" and "action" but very few things put on the table to substantively change things. In the end you have to have a policy to implement,not just a demand for change or justice.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
That is a false statement.
To answer your questions, in that statement, I am specifically referring to the opportunists that have used the protests for their own agendas to loot, riot, damage, etc. Unfortunately it is a casualty of mass protest and there are implications that it's one sided, which couldn't be further from the truth. I in no way condone or support that, I am squarely behind the peaceful protesting and doing what I can to support change.
Those are all not only very reasonable, but should be put into place.
They’ve been fed a steady diet of us vs them since Johnson’s great society movement in the 1960s.
Considering I'm being graded by someone with a minimal ability to comprehend, I'll take that as a sign that I'm on the right path.
I never said because we don't agree, we can't have a conversation. I'm saying that what is the point in having a conversation about something that is so important if you can't agree on the basic entry criteria for the conversation?
It wasn't the first time that I asked the question, and it wasn't the only question you ducked, so you're wrong again, much like your misunderstanding and characterization of my POV, which you still stubbornly refuse to admit that you got wrong.
You also mock my "simple worldview" and that's a real shame because identifying the problem really is very simple. It doesn't need to be difficult and nuanced.
You tell me that I should look in the mirror and see a divisive person. That's quite a claim. I dedicate my life to being empathetic, understanding, listen to people that are not like me, understand their struggles and fears and fight for their causes. I swim in the waters here as a ideological minority because I appreciate other people's perspectives and try to share my experiences to find commonalities. If rattling cages of old southern conservative white men qualifies me as divisive, that's something I can live with.
You want answers? Well, it's above my pay grade and not an easy thing to solve, but here are a few things that we can focus on.
Law Enforcement:
- a more stringent application process that increases the ability to identify racial tendencies
- more diversification
- enforcing accountability for those that commit infractions
Leadership:
- a national emphasis on embracing cultures that are not your own
- local leaders encouraging people to interact with other races, religions through community events
Education:
- additional teaching of our nations greatest sins and history and culture of minorities (not just people of color)
- more focus on sensitivity training in schools - mandatory programs like the Jane Elliot experiment
Workplace:
- If you see something, say something
- Repetitive implicit bias training (I took my first training for this when I was 42 and it opened my eyes)
- More openness in the workplace for people to talk (and listen) about issues that impact them (and people actually attend)
Personal:
- acknowledge that we are all part of the problem and we all need to be part of the solution
- step outside of your personal comfort zone/bubble and listen to those that have suffered
- teach your children to love and respect no matter of race, religion, gender
My general belief is that we are not going to change the minds of the old white people that don't want their minds changed. The focus has to be on younger people, but they do a pretty good job of moving past our sins and accepting one another.
You're diverse and empathetic, unless someone disagrees with the assumptions that underlie your views in which case it's pointless to reason with them. A problem that has plagued this nation for centuries and the world since man walked it is "simple". We can't have a conversation without a criteria that requires that I accept you are right from the outset.
We're supposed to "embrace cultures that are not our own", except probably "old southern white conservative men" I'm guessing. Say, is there a group of pigs living in a farmer's house in your story coming up? You know, some are more equal than others so everyone can be equal, kinda?
Oh, and most of what you listed has been implemented for years if not decades. Obama "embraced cultures that were not your own" for 8 years, racial tensions are worse than when he took office and were during his tenure.
I'm fascinated by the mental hoops it takes to think you're embracing diversity, just so long as everyone is doing it the way you deem correct, and otherwise they are to be cast out.
So what if I take a Libertarian view of diversity? That we shut down all these rules and regulations and interventions and let everyone compete on their own merits? Without the elites that are absolutely "privileged" pulling all the strings? Is that notion of diversity and equality to be dismissed too?
Oh, and last question. Have you been to Appalachia and seen the suffering of those "privileged" white folks down that way? Or are they just "old white people" who can't see the truth?
OK, last last question. Do you think I or others on here don't "accept one another" simply b/c we may not agree with your take on political economy? are you implying those who might disagree with your assessment are just being racist?
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
And the almost all have been.
The only thing on there that's tough is "no knock warrants". I get that for a general arrest, but if I'm a cop and we're busting a meth lab do you really want to be the guy to knock on that door? Is that practical? when you KNOW they have guns and are going to shoot through the door?
Is that safe for others in the area even, to invite them to open fire before you can subdue them with force?
IMO there is a clear need for times when you don't politely walk up and knock and ask to see someone. there are people out there far too dangerous for that approach.
The question is why has it moved from those cases where you are so sure to cases where you don't even have the right address?
A judge is supposed to issue that warrant and vet it. clearly the judicial standard is way too low.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Stu seems very racist; he hates white people.
Darryl
Seriously? Is that how low you have to sink?
I don't hate anyone because of the color of their skin. I only dislike people based upon their words and actions.
I do hate white privilege.
What, you don't like the tactic of calling those who disagree as racist? Its on page 3 of the left/peogressive handbook. Conservatives have to put up with that daily. It sucks, huh
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
Nope, can't do that as not 5 out of 1,000 people actually know what it is and you would spend days trying to explain.So what if I take a Libertarian view of diversity? That we shut down all these rules and regulations and interventions and let everyone compete on their own merits? Without the elites that are absolutely "privileged" pulling all the strings? Is that notion of diversity and equality to be dismissed too?
seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks