Black Opinions Don't Matter

[Angry Floof]

You do realize you have just described white fragility.

"White fragility" is a racist slur for every white person who challenges black racism against white people. It was coined by a so-called "social scientist" who thinks not only that blacks can't be racist but that all white people are racist. And everybody who disagrees is "fragile".

That's some next level nuclear bullshit!

 

[Derec]

*Unarmed black male killed by police*
*Blacks protest*
White people: Why are you protesting?
Black people: We are protesting the unjustified killing of unarmed blacks by police.
White people: But per percentage of crime, blacks aren't killed more by police than white people.
Black people: Those white dudes had guns!
White people: That is a matter of opinion.

Several things wrong with this:

- #BLMers protest (and riot, loot etc.) even when the black perp is armed - for example Patrick Kimmons who shot two people seconds before police shot him.
- "unarmed" does not mean that the perp is not a threat. A physical altercation can lead to perp taking the officer's gun. Example here.
- unarmed white people also get shot by police.

 

[Derec]

Blacks made a stupid assumption white people would understand the obvious context. Of course, white people also panicked over Beyonce's song Formation thinking it was about white people (because white people always think it is about them), so the Blacks should have known better.

Is that the one where she and her worker bees came dressed as Black Panthers (the Marxist-Maoist militant group, not the Marvel character) and where the video shows a police car being pushed into a lake or something? Or is it the one where she rewards a guy for good sex with Red Lobster of all things?

But... to be fair, had Blacks called it "Black lives matter too and we are protesting the unjust killings of unarmed blacks by police, not some radical socialist group intent on ending the suburbs", white people would have been all like... 'Sounds like they are hiding something'.

But #BLMers protest justified killings of armed black men as well. And they are led by Marxists.

 

[Derec]

The problem (one of them) is that you stop right there, and then argue against any and all proposed remedies that might slightly inconvenience white people.

Like what for example? What are some of your "proposed remedies" that are "inconveniencing white people"?

 

[Derec]

Why do you think that blacks have a higher crime rate than white people?

Derec believes that it is genetic. Do you agree?

I did not claim it was genetic, but I do not think we should a-priori reject the possibility either. We do know genes can affect behaviors and we also know that allele frequencies for many genes can vary widely by population. To reject, for ideological reasons, even a possibility that there could be population-level genetic basis for behavioral differences would be foolishness akin to Lysenkoism.

That said, even if there is found a genetic basis for behavioral difference, populations do not neatly correlate to the social construct of "race". African populations classified as "black" are very genetically diverse.
And of course, a possible genetic basis for behavioral difference should not be used as a basis for discriminating against any individuals. However, it could be used to explain population-level variations in behavior without claiming that any difference in outcome must be due to "racism".

However, I think culture plays the dominant role here. Very popular parts of black culture, specifically hip-hop, glorifies violence. It is also linked to violent black radicalism of 60s and 70s even sometimes by family descent. Cop-killer and BLA terrorist JoAnne Chesimard aka Assata Shakur is an aunt of rapper Tupac Shakur for example.

 

[ruby sparks]

Why do you think that blacks have a higher crime rate than white people?

Derec believes that it is genetic. Do you agree?

I did not claim it was genetic, but I do not think we should a-priori reject the possibility either. We do know genes can affect behaviors and we also know that allele frequencies for many genes can vary widely by population. To reject, for ideological reasons, even a possibility that there could be population-level genetic basis for behavioral differences would be foolishness akin to Lysenkoism.

That said, even if there is found a genetic basis for behavioral difference, populations do not neatly correlate to the social construct of "race". African populations classified as "black" are very genetically diverse.
And of course, a possible genetic basis for behavioral difference should not be used as a basis for discriminating against any individuals. However, it could be used to explain population-level variations in behavior without claiming that any difference in outcome must be due to "racism".

However, I think culture plays the dominant role here. Very popular parts of black culture, specifically hip-hop, glorifies violence. It is also linked to violent black radicalism of 60s and 70s even sometimes by family descent. Cop-killer and BLA terrorist JoAnne Chesimard aka Assata Shakur is an aunt of rapper Tupac Shakur for example.

I think you are putting too much emphasis on racism. There are other factors too.

 

[ruby sparks]

The problem (one of them) is that you stop right there, and then argue against any and all proposed remedies that might slightly inconvenience white people.

Like what for example? What are some of your "proposed remedies" that are "inconveniencing white people"?

It seems to me that almost any remedy (as in something which does something for African Americans specifically) will be seen as being unfair to white people. I think that's what he means. Are there any such remedies at all that you would support?

 

[laughing dog]

You do realize you have just described white fragility.

"White fragility" is a racist slur for every white person who challenges black racism against white people. It was coined by a so-called "social scientist" who thinks not only that blacks can't be racist but that all white people are racist. And everybody who disagrees is "fragile".

I am sure the irony of your white fragility bullshit is lost on you.

And, the irony of your "racist" response is truly fascinating.

 

[KeepTalking]

Cultural--you see a different dynamic in the rural poor.

So, you are saying that you see a difference in crime rates when poor people are densely packed together in areas relatively close to the extremely wealthy, as opposed to poor people who are spread out in communities with much smaller wealth disparities? And you think that is something that should not be expected?

It's not the wealth disparities, it's the density. Those in the inner city have far more targets available and far more ability to slip away, of course this means more crime and it makes for a culture where living on crime is far more practical.

I think it is a bit of both. As you mention they have far more targets available, what you fail to mention is that many of those targets are symbols of the great wealth disparity they see around them. But I don't think we are that far apart in what we are trying to say, I simply misunderstood your point.

It's not the color of their skin, it's the situation.

I apologize, I thought you were taking the opposite position. After reviewing the response chain, I see that I was incorrect.

 

[KeepTalking]

Example: What happens after BLM succeeds in taking down the police in the big metro areas. The private property owners will rightfully have no choice but to arm and defend themselves. A whole lot of people being shot to death is not going to help race relations at all.

Your example is incorrect in assuming that BLM wants to "take down the police". That is not what defunding the police means, the first thing you should do at this point is to find out what they actually mean when they say "defund the police" After you research that, you will also need to come to the realization that, for the most part, BLM is not even going to see that ideal put into practice. A few municipalities may make some minor changes to policing, some very few may even take it all the way, but chances are that nothing will change here in St. Louis. Just take a look at the message Gov. Parsons is putting out. He won't listen to anything that isn't about making the police a stronger force to be reckoned with.

Unfortunately, it's one of those terms that says the wrong thing.

It is sloganeering. It is just much easier to say than "Reallocate some of the funding that is currently going to the police department to other community-based services that can better serve the needs of the people."

 

[KeepTalking]

They definitely do!

BLACK LIVES MATTER LEADER OUTLINES FIVE-YEAR PLAN TO ELIMINATE POLICE

Black Lives Matter Activist: Abolishing The Police '100%' Means Just That
View attachment 28729

That is not what defunding the police means, the first thing you should do at this point is to find out what they actually mean when they say "defund the police"

View attachment 28730

Thank you Mr. Pedant, but I will accept what Brookings has to say about it, as they seem a much more credible source:
What does ‘defund the police’ mean and does it have merit?

“Defund the police” means reallocating or redirecting funding away from the police department to other government agencies funded by the local municipality. That’s it. It’s that simple. Defund does not mean abolish policing. And, even some who say abolish, do not necessarily mean to do away with law enforcement altogether. Rather, they want to see the rotten trees of policing chopped down and fresh roots replanted anew. Camden, New Jersey, is a good example. Nearly a decade ago, Camden disbanded (abolished) its police force and dissolved the local police union. This approach seems to be what Minneapolis will do in some form, though the nuances are important.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Thank you Mr. Pedant, but I will accept what Brookings has to say about it, as they seem a much more credible source:
What does ‘defund the police’ mean and does it have merit?

“Defund the police” means reallocating or redirecting funding away from the police department to other government agencies funded by the local municipality. That’s it. It’s that simple. Defund does not mean abolish policing. And, even some who say abolish, do not necessarily mean to do away with law enforcement altogether. Rather, they want to see the rotten trees of policing chopped down and fresh roots replanted anew. Camden, New Jersey, is a good example. Nearly a decade ago, Camden disbanded (abolished) its police force and dissolved the local police union. This approach seems to be what Minneapolis will do in some form, though the nuances are important.

<sigh> The right has such an incredible language advantage over the left. I just don't understand why the left gives advantage over advantage over advantage to the right. Just when the polls were really turning from Trump, we pull more dumb shit out of our pockets to bring the right wing back up. It's no wonder why the left loses election after election despite having about 6 or 7% more voters. Sorry. I'm off my rant...

 

[KeepTalking]

Thank you Mr. Pedant, but I will accept what Brookings has to say about it, as they seem a much more credible source:
What does ‘defund the police’ mean and does it have merit?

“Defund the police” means reallocating or redirecting funding away from the police department to other government agencies funded by the local municipality. That’s it. It’s that simple. Defund does not mean abolish policing. And, even some who say abolish, do not necessarily mean to do away with law enforcement altogether. Rather, they want to see the rotten trees of policing chopped down and fresh roots replanted anew. Camden, New Jersey, is a good example. Nearly a decade ago, Camden disbanded (abolished) its police force and dissolved the local police union. This approach seems to be what Minneapolis will do in some form, though the nuances are important.

<sigh> The right has such an incredible language advantage over the left. I just don't understand why the left gives advantage over advantage over advantage to the right. Just when the polls were really turning from Trump, we pull more dumb shit out of our pockets to bring the right wing back up. It's no wonder why the left loses election after election despite having about 6 or 7% more voters. Sorry. I'm off my rant...

The right has the best words!

Simple sounding solutions for simple minded people, I would say. Understanding that issues like this are complex, and deciding that you are not going to discount the perspective of an entire group of people over the meaning of a single word takes a bit more thought. I think the advantage lies in a well thought out position, and willingness to engage in dialogue regarding the issue. I will not give the advantage to the side that insist that playing gotcha with semantics is the only thing that matters.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Thank you Mr. Pedant, but I will accept what Brookings has to say about it, as they seem a much more credible source:
What does ‘defund the police’ mean and does it have merit?

“Defund the police” means reallocating or redirecting funding away from the police department to other government agencies funded by the local municipality. That’s it. It’s that simple. Defund does not mean abolish policing. And, even some who say abolish, do not necessarily mean to do away with law enforcement altogether. Rather, they want to see the rotten trees of policing chopped down and fresh roots replanted anew. Camden, New Jersey, is a good example. Nearly a decade ago, Camden disbanded (abolished) its police force and dissolved the local police union. This approach seems to be what Minneapolis will do in some form, though the nuances are important.

<sigh> The right has such an incredible language advantage over the left. I just don't understand why the left gives advantage over advantage over advantage to the right. Just when the polls were really turning from Trump, we pull more dumb shit out of our pockets to bring the right wing back up. It's no wonder why the left loses election after election despite having about 6 or 7% more voters. Sorry. I'm off my rant...

"Defund the police" can carry certain connoations, and the Right-Wing will do anything to take stuff out of context. But let's be fair to the protesters here. Sarah Palin invents "death panels" from thin air. "Erase the suburbs"? Right-wing invented that out of thin air. While the Right-Wing will take advantage of obliterating nuanced positions, that isn't the only thing they do when it comes to discussing these things.

 

[SimpleDon]

For the record... No minority (even when it's not a numerical minority, even when it's half the damned population) has opinions that matter until they convince a reasonable portion of the majority that their opinions have merit. It's not nice, it's not "fair", but it's how the spread of ideas works.

The question that we are discussing in this thread and in most of the threads in recent memory is how do we change the minds of people who resist change of the value of minorities and of women? How do we convince them that the economy and our society are not zero-sum games? That gains by blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, and women doesn't mean that they have to lose.

I certainly don't know how to do these things. I have been talking and arguing about this for more than fifty years, with little success. My father was as politically conservative as he could be but he wasn't a bigot. He was raised in San Francisco and my grandfather was in a partnership with Chinese-Americans in the China trade.

Now if American conservatives aren't bigots and misogynists themselves, they have to tolerate and not to challenge bigotry and misogyny. They have to embrace capitalism but as an unobtainable abstraction of self-regulating free markets, not as it really is after evolving and adapting over thousands of years. They have to advocate for more law and order in society while denying the need for the government to prevent bad behavior in the economy and to manage externalities.

 

[SimpleDon]

It is really your inability to understand obvious context of the "hording of opportunity in society" now taking place on steroids. Becoming miss-interpreted as a racial problem. It should be a fight about the groups that are on the top versus the groups of everyone that are on the bottom. But somehow you fall for this into villains who are descended from a different tribe or race of people instead of rent seekers. The villains are the rent seekers who are shielding their children from other children from their rightful opportunity. And your inability to see this only adds to the problem.

This is a PR move.

You are a sheep, Jimmy.

I agree with repoman.

Racism is just one way that the rich and powerful use to divide the workers against themselves. The rich and powerful would applaud you for projecting black superiority as a goal of BLM. This is exactly what they want you to do. Blacks have suffered from racism for hundreds of years. There is no way that they would subject anyone to the pain from something as irrational as racism.

My Senator, Kelly Loeffler, is one of the rich and powerful. She labeled BLM as a political organization. When asked why do you think that, she said that Act Blue was raising money for BLM proving that BLM is a political organization. Act Blue generally raises money for Democratic party candidates but they also raise money for well known civil rights organizations like the NAACP and obsure ones like the Black Mothers Forum and other social justice-focused organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center. This is what they are doing for the BLM organization. This hardly makes BLM a political organization.

Do you think that the Black Mother's Forum is a black superiority supporting organization? That they want to oppress white mothers?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Racism is just one way that the rich and powerful use to divide the workers against themselves. The rich and powerful would applaud you for projecting black superiority as a goal of BLM. This is exactly what they want you to do. Blacks have suffered from racism for hundreds of years. There is no way that they would subject anyone to the pain from something as irrational as racism.

It's also used as a route to power by those who aren't rich.

Keep preaching that "your" people are victims of racism and you'll do something about it and you get support. The reality of the situation is irrelevant to this.

 

[Derec]

Thank you Mr. Pedant, but I will accept what Brookings has to say about it, as they seem a much more credible source:
What does ‘defund the police’ mean and does it have merit?

“Defund the police” means reallocating or redirecting funding away from the police department to other government agencies funded by the local municipality. That’s it. It’s that simple. Defund does not mean abolish policing. And, even some who say abolish, do not necessarily mean to do away with law enforcement altogether. Rather, they want to see the rotten trees of policing chopped down and fresh roots replanted anew. Camden, New Jersey, is a good example. Nearly a decade ago, Camden disbanded (abolished) its police force and dissolved the local police union. This approach seems to be what Minneapolis will do in some form, though the nuances are important.

It's not pedantic to point out what a word actually means. Meaning of words is important.

In any case, defunders have a wide range of demands, and most are certainly not benign. This Rashawn Ray is full of shit in his apologetics.
Take AOC. She thinks the already deep cuts to NYPD do not go too far enough [apologies to Futurama].
Ocasio-Cortez dismisses proposed $1B cut: 'Defunding police means defunding police'

Ocasio-Cortez said that cutting the police budget is not effective if it does not result in the reduced presence of law enforcement.

“It does not mean counting overtime cuts as cuts, even as NYPD ignores every attempt by City Council to curb overtime spending and overspends on overtime anyways,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “If these reports are accurate, then these proposed ‘cuts’ to the NYPD budget are a disingenuous illusion. This is not a victory. The fight to defund policing continues.”

But it gets even worse.
Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police

People like me who want to abolish prisons and police, however, have a vision of a different society, built on cooperation instead of individualism, on mutual aid instead of self-preservation. What would the country look like if it had billions of extra dollars to spend on housing, food and education for all? This change in society wouldn’t happen immediately, but the protests show that many people are ready to embrace a different vision of safety and justice.

It's completely unrealistic, of course, and would lead to chaos, but activists like Mariame Kaba really want to eliminate police and prisons and believe investing in housing etc. and a collectivist society will magically make crime disappear.

 

[thebeave]

Well, yes, black opinions don't seem too matter much, apparently. At least to the far left loonies in charge of big cities who want to defund the police to, uh, support black people...or something? :


https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx

These results correspond with Gallup's previously reported findings showing that only 22% of Black Americans favor abolishing police departments. However, the vast majority believe reform is needed, with upward of 90% favoring specific reforms aimed at improving police relations with the communities they serve and preventing or punishing abusive police behavior.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Well, yes, black opinions don't seem too matter much, apparently. At least to the far left loonies in charge of big cities who want to defund the police to, uh, support black people...or something? :


https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx

These results correspond with Gallup's previously reported findings showing that only 22% of Black Americans favor abolishing police departments. However, the vast majority believe reform is needed, with upward of 90% favoring specific reforms aimed at improving police relations with the communities they serve and preventing or punishing abusive police behavior.

Make a poll with dishonest framing and get the results you expect. Who woulda thought that?

Have you stopped beating your wife?