ruby sparks
Contributor
That looked (before it was flagged for removal) like a not very good or fair source article, to say the least.
-
Features
BLM and a review of incidents
- Thread starter Loren Pechtel
- Start date
That looked (before it was flagged for removal) like a not very good or fair source article, to say the least.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Run Them Over on Facebook
Read the comments. Look at how many likes. Check the group name and membership.
Run Them Over on Facebook, part 2
Read the comments. Look at how many likes. Check the group name and membership.
Pro-Law Enforcement Group on Vandalism against BLM mural
Read the comments. Look at how many likes.
Look how often they are for breaking the law with vandalism and are willing to redefine the law because of their own biases.
Read the comments. Look at how many likes. Check the group name and membership.
Run Them Over on Facebook, part 2
Read the comments. Look at how many likes. Check the group name and membership.
Pro-Law Enforcement Group on Vandalism against BLM mural
Read the comments. Look at how many likes.
Look how often they are for breaking the law with vandalism and are willing to redefine the law because of their own biases.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Cuban community plans rally at NuLu restaurant in response to Black Lives Matter demands
BLM shows up at business, and makes demands:
Let's see, make a statement of faith and also tithing.
And of course, "nice restaurant you have here, it'd be a shame if something happened to it" flowerpot shattered.
BLM shows up at business, and makes demands:
- Adequately represent the Black population of Louisville by having a minimum of 23% Black staff;
- Purchase a minimum of 23% inventory from Black retailers or make a recurring monthly donation of 1.5% of net sales to a local Black nonprofit or organization;
- Require diversity and inclusion training for all staff members on a bi-annual basis;
- And display a visible sign that increases awareness and shows support for the reparations movement.
Let's see, make a statement of faith and also tithing.
And of course, "nice restaurant you have here, it'd be a shame if something happened to it" flowerpot shattered.
IIRC it was based (the post got zapped) on the WaPo database. It's just you believe BLM that there are a bunch of such shootings and aren't interested in the facts.
It was a list of the cases, you didn't even look to see what it said, just dismissed it as blasphemy.
I disagree. There used to be things done for the purpose of excluding blacks without appearing to do so--often requiring high school graduation for jobs where it didn't matter. They're mostly gone by now, though.
It was a copyright violation.
So far we have nobody on here attacking the actual data in it.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
No, that isn't what I wrote to you at all. I am not sure why you completely changed around what I wrote, but it's completely bizarro world stuff in your post. Nowhere did I say it contradicts a belief system. Nowhere was there a clue of religiosity, unlike in your post. What I wrote explicitly is that the description of systemic racism was incorrect and even poisonous. That tells me right there the author is not arguing in earnest. In fact, they presented a strawman. So there's no need to read the debunking of a strawman. It is unproductive. The only apparent religious thinking would be if the original author to the writing you referred to, actually believed that was a proper definition or even after being told that it is not, you still cling irrationally to such a held belief. So, it's definitely not me who is religious. It could possibly be you or your referenced author, but I don't think either one of you arguing in earnest but instead being political activists. Now that you understand what I wrote for sure, I expect you to not make this error again or clearly, it would be slanderous.
I said "faith", not "religion". I'm talking about the church of racism. And you're doing it again--you've decided it's blasphemy and therefore it's not worth even considering what it actually says.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
No, that isn't what I wrote. I did not write that it offends me. It actually does because stupidity offends me, but there's no church of racism or faith here. That is all you and your psychic beliefs about what is going on in my head. I explained to you that reading someone debunk a strawman is unproductive. Again, there cannot logically be a debunking of systemic racism because the author poisonously defines it as cops deliberately running around looking for black men to murder.
Let's review.
Let A = systemic racism
Let B = cops running around deliberately looking for black men to murder
A != B.
If you next say you have a paper that shows provable instances of B are very rare and therefore I have to read your paper because it shows A is invalid....
Well, first, yes you were blasphemous, but it was against the Church of Having a Brain and the Church of Reasoned, Polite Debate. Moreover, second, the idea that invalidating B invalidates A is false. So, if I read an alleged invalidation of B, it is a waste of time. Further, coming from an author who is not arguing in earnest, even the invalidation of B is not worth reading...because it is not trustworthy.
Now that I have clarified my views on the matter yet again, I suppose once again instead of addressing anything I wrote, you will accuse me of being a religionist again. All I can say is you have no rational basis at this point for saying so and therefore it is a reckless, unreasoned claim about me.
laughing dog
Contributor
From your link:
The poster cherry picks the data - another horseshit site: police are police whether they are on duty or not.
Your faith points you to sites that confirm your faith-based beliefs.
You're moving the goalposts.
My premise is that the number of shootings that should concern BLM is very low--I presented an article that talked about all of them, albeit not in a lot of detail. I don't believe anyone has actually looked at that part of the article yet.
You only count those types of cases if you're trying to inflate the numbers. The issue is police acting as police and shooting people. (And note that "unarmed" means only no knife or gun, it does not count other weapons even if they reach the point of lethal force. Say, a broken beer bottle.)
laughing dog
Contributor
WTF? Off duty police act like the police when they react to what they think is a crime. Your faith blinds your reason.
Your link is cherry-picking the data to deflate the numbers. And that does not even address the issue of what constitutes "justified" and "unjustified" shootings.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
I am not moving goalposts. You are writing in circles. I have stated over and over my position about the reliability of the source. I am not going to read a political hit piece of a strawman argument. It makes no sense and is unproductive.
Now as far as whatever your alleged position is...you could all along bring up your own point and your own data. No one has been stopping you. Instead you are citing an author who begins with a posionous strawman, one that you are now moving away from. So, if any poster here is shifting goalposts, it would be you. But again, all you have to do is state your position somewhere for people to read and what your data is. You don't need to attach your whole argument on something poisonous or try to keep defending it by attacking me. It makes absolutely no sense.
I have gone to your NEW link and looked at some of it, starting here:
Aside from obvious bias, conspiracy-minded nonsense, there are several flaws throughout this strawman that does not define systemic racism correctly.
1. "...Here’s The Truth The Media And BLM Are Hiding..." Uh, what? No one in the media is saying that unarmed black men are killed by the boatload every day. In fact, there is a large focus on the injustice of specific cases. Some of those specific cases involve armed persons, like Rayshard Brooks, for example. There's no "HIDING" going on.
2. "...only a very small number of unarmed black men are killed by police each year..." I think that this could indeed be a metric of systemic racism, but it is far too narrow to broadly measure racism. Also, it's so narrow that it doesn't reflect systemic racism. Many people may be armed with something--not urgently murderous like a screwdriver or a taser--and be killed. The statistics for that would most likely show that African Americans are more likely to be those who are killed by police in such situations because the incidence of those types of crimes (as opposed to say white collar crimes) are more likely among that demographic. And that demographic could possibly also be more likely perceived as dangerous, even when not. So, overall, it's a very selective statistic.
What else ought we rationally look at?
a. Unnecessary deaths by demographic.
b. Unnecessary violence by police divided by demographic of the recipient.
b. Unnecessary arrests by demographic.
c. Unnecessary fines by demographic.
b. Unnecessary violence by police divided by demographic of the recipient.
b. Unnecessary arrests by demographic.
c. Unnecessary fines by demographic.
3. "First, to put the statistics into perspective, it’s helpful to begin with the overall number of arrests. According to the DOJ, police make about 10 million arrests each year. As a rough average, 7 million of the arrested suspects are white and 3 million are black. Out of that number, last year, 25 unarmed white people were killed by police, compared to 14 unarmed black people, according to the Washington Post database of police shootings. That means about .0004 percent of all blacks arrested were killed while unarmed." -- uh, many of the people who were killed were never arrested and so they are not included in this narrow statistic. Examples: Trayvon Martin whose death was not treated with justice by the police or justice system; Breonna Taylor; the social worker who was shot while laying down next to his patient in the road where the patient had a toy truck. So what is the true number of unnecessary killings??
Besides this, again, this number of persons during arrest is a very narrow metric. How about the number out of those arrests that were a violation of constitutional rights? or were unnecessary or comparatively treated differently according to demographics? How about any kind of outcome, besides deaths, such as violence or planting evidence?
4. "In total, 1,000 people were shot and killed by police in 2019, the vast majority of whom were armed." -- Well, again, these numbers are coming from arrests and apprehensions for arrest not other incidents of killing. BUT I am extremely skeptical this number is complete. Back in 2016, only 16 states participated in one database and this was compared to other databases which were even more incomplete.
These numbers you are getting are from a source not linked which is probably one of these sources, if even valid in the first place. Who knows.
Let's look at something peer-reviewed instead which would be more reliable:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4985110/
Highlight: police homicide varied 8-fold by race/ethnicity.
------------------
Conclusion: Based on looking further into the numbers, there isn't much there that reliably disproves my prediction from the first poisonous strawman. The author continues to narrowly only look at something far less common of a metric than systemic racism to try to invalidate racism and "police brutality" even those things are both broader than police homicides. The specific numbers used also do not seem reliable from this random Internet meme of numbers. Actual peer-reviewed analysis, even with this very narrow metric, has historically shown a racial difference.
It makes even less sense for me to look at Loren's "but ReAD ThhisSSS!!!!1111" link.
Last edited:
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Further developments in the case of La Bodeguita de Mima in the NuLu neighbourhood vs. BLM. Apparently the Cuban population held a rally in support of NuLu. The statements by both sides are pretty interesting.
Cuban Community Rallies Behind NuLu Restaurant After Controversy Over BLM Demands
He'd probably know, he's Cuban, he's seen real actual socialism. Then again, he has forgotten that Hispanics are not as highly ranked in the oppression olympics.
Showing up and demanding that the restaurant tithe to BLM is mature, but protesting against it is childish. Still, she makes an interesting point - if you feel threatened by mob enforcers then you should ask to speak to their Don.
That's actually a pretty key quote. Refusal to bend the knee is considered a belief in your own superiority. Only by prostrating yourself can you show you don't think you are superior.
Remember, these BLM enforcers aren't trying to shake down white people, they're going after other minorities. It makes the whole situation even more bizarre.
You can see the actual list of demands here. The very same demands that the BLM enforcers wanted the restaurant to display to avoid any "problems".
Cuban Community Rallies Behind NuLu Restaurant After Controversy Over BLM Demands
He'd probably know, he's Cuban, he's seen real actual socialism. Then again, he has forgotten that Hispanics are not as highly ranked in the oppression olympics.
Showing up and demanding that the restaurant tithe to BLM is mature, but protesting against it is childish. Still, she makes an interesting point - if you feel threatened by mob enforcers then you should ask to speak to their Don.
That's actually a pretty key quote. Refusal to bend the knee is considered a belief in your own superiority. Only by prostrating yourself can you show you don't think you are superior.
Remember, these BLM enforcers aren't trying to shake down white people, they're going after other minorities. It makes the whole situation even more bizarre.
You can see the actual list of demands here. The very same demands that the BLM enforcers wanted the restaurant to display to avoid any "problems".
Gospel
Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 7,709
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Ghetto Black Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic Atheist
If that article about BLM activists trying to extort a Cuban restaurant is true that is really screwed up man. I totally support the restaurant owner in that case. I wholeheartedly hope everything works out for them & those extortionists should not only be held accountable but also be righteously ashamed of themselves for using a platform meant for improving things to instead make the situation worse.
repoman
Contributor
Cubans do not auffer fools lightly.
They cost Al Gore the election. What the hell was Clinton thinking?
They cost Al Gore the election. What the hell was Clinton thinking?
If they choose to intervene in a situation they're acting as police. If they're defending themselves they aren't.