#BLM find themselves another dindu: Mario Woods, 26, gangbanger

[Malintent]

No one is as anything as they sound.

The things you say or in this case, write, are the only things by which we can judge your apparent racism. No one here can read your mind, and written communications are necessarily more deliberative than spoken communications, so it is difficult to claim a 'heat of the moment' defense (not that you are doing so here) for them. So, if you wish to not be viewed as a racist on this forum, then you should avoid writing inflammatory racist comments here.

Kids these days that grew up with fully established internet-based social networks (probably as you have) have such a hot-button approach to discourse. It's so... sophomoric.

Not even my kids grew up with fully established internet-based social networks. My grandkids, on the other hand, are currently doing just that.

Anyhoo.. people be actin like niggers get put down like niggers. When confronted by cops, don't act like a nigger. Act like a responsible, helpful citizen. If this is a blow to your culture, then your culture is too ganster for civilized consideration and you are going to be treated like a nigger. this applies to people with any degree of melanin in their skin. As a security professional, I have 'put down' just as many white niggers as black niggers... actually, mostly Hispanic niggers, due to the location.

Right... what was that you were saying about sophomoric approaches to communication?

If I cared about being viewed as a racist, I wouldn't be talking to you people. when words become racist words because someone else assumed you mean to apply the word to only one race, you lose the ability to not be racist. See, if I used the word 'Thug', you would claim that I only meant 'black thugs', and therefore 'thug' is a racist term against black people.

I can only assume you are a black person... I have never seen such coy racism from any other culture of people. 'nigger is a racist word that only racist people say, unless they are black, in which case they are neither racist nor is the word racist'.. and THATS not racist itself? oh please.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

when words become racist words because someone else assumed you mean to apply the word to only one race, you lose the ability to not be racist.

Or you could have chosen a different word to better clarify your meaning. But you insist on "thug" as if that word that describes a certain kind of person with very specific traits. People who put out arguments similar to yours use "thug" to denote any black man or woman. They might have a different score on a mental "thug scale", but they are all thugs or the potential to be thugs.

I can only assume you are a black person... I have never seen such coy racism from any other culture of people.

^And this is a racist statement.

'nigger is a racist word that only racist people say, unless they are black, in which case they are neither racist nor is the word racist'.. and THATS not racist itself? oh please.

It's It's called slang. It's an ingroup thing.

 

[Malintent]

Or you could have chosen a different word to better clarify your meaning. But you insist on "thug" as if that word that describes a certain kind of person with very specific traits. People who put out arguments similar to yours use "thug" to denote any black man or woman. They might have a different score on a mental "thug scale", but they are all thugs or the potential to be thugs.

I can only assume you are a black person... I have never seen such coy racism from any other culture of people.

^And this is a racist statement.

'nigger is a racist word that only racist people say, unless they are black, in which case they are neither racist nor is the word racist'.. and THATS not racist itself? oh please.

It's It's called slang. It's an ingroup thing.

Yes, exactly.. it is slang. when one race of people claims another race of people may not do the things that their own race of people do, based entirely on race.. is.. wait for it... FUCKING RACIST!!!

When I equally apply the word thug, or nigger, (because apparently, they are like the same exact word <rolleyes>) to all people that behave in a particular way, completely separate from race, I am not being racist. When YOU claim that my intention is to be racist when I refer to one person that fits the behavioral criteria for a word BECAUSE THAT ONE PERSON IS OF A PARTICULAR RACE, then it is YOU that is being racist.

It's like if I say that someone is 'being negative'... If that someone is black, then "being negative" is a racist thing to say. This is the message I am getting from this discussion.. .and that is what I am calling a racist thing.

How does this apply to the topic at hand? BLM is a bunch of racist thugs because it is their assertion that if a person is shot by a cop, it is racist automatically if the cop was white and the perp was black. Nothing else about the situation matters.

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh, malintent, I don't think the word thug is racist any more than nigger, spick, or wop. It is the CONTEXT of your use, the model of belittling someone as a person combined with your preferential use of it to dehumanize people, it is that which makes me find your statements repugnant. Similarly, we live in a cultural context where the use of thug and nigger words are themselves assumed to mean 'black people', and whose most common usage is seen within the cultural context to say that it is because they are black that they are a nigger, and that they are a nigger because they are black. It doesn't make any one person a racist to hear words and have commonly used sentiments bleed into the ideas we hear in them.

Even if your particular intent doesn't include a desire to communicate those ideas, saying that word in this world to the people here still delivers that sentiment, and accepting your use of it will internalize those feelings, again independent of your intent. Continuing to use the word nigger as you do either means your usage is irresponsible and ignorant, OR that you are a racist and want to communicate those ideas *even given your token attempts to 'clarify' your 'intended' usage*. Either you are using it in an ignorant way, or you are using it in a racist way. There is no third option.

 

[KeepTalking]

The things you say or in this case, write, are the only things by which we can judge your apparent racism. No one here can read your mind, and written communications are necessarily more deliberative than spoken communications, so it is difficult to claim a 'heat of the moment' defense (not that you are doing so here) for them. So, if you wish to not be viewed as a racist on this forum, then you should avoid writing inflammatory racist comments here.

Kids these days that grew up with fully established internet-based social networks (probably as you have) have such a hot-button approach to discourse. It's so... sophomoric.

Not even my kids grew up with fully established internet-based social networks. My grandkids, on the other hand, are currently doing just that.

Anyhoo.. people be actin like niggers get put down like niggers. When confronted by cops, don't act like a nigger. Act like a responsible, helpful citizen. If this is a blow to your culture, then your culture is too ganster for civilized consideration and you are going to be treated like a nigger. this applies to people with any degree of melanin in their skin. As a security professional, I have 'put down' just as many white niggers as black niggers... actually, mostly Hispanic niggers, due to the location.

Right... what was that you were saying about sophomoric approaches to communication?

If I cared about being viewed as a racist, I wouldn't be talking to you people.

What do you mean "you people"? j/k

I would think that if you didn't care about being viewed as a racist by other members of this forum, you would not be so quick to defend against those who are telling you that your words make you seem like a racist.

when words become racist words because someone else assumed you mean to apply the word to only one race, you lose the ability to not be racist.

When negative words are only applied to one race by a person, and that person continually uses such words to describe members of that race, and only that race, it is apparent that they are being racist when using those words.

See, if I used the word 'Thug', you would claim that I only meant 'black thugs', and therefore 'thug' is a racist term against black people.

Not necessarily. It would depend on what I know about you. If I know nothing about you, I am likely to give you a pass the first few times you use the term. Once it becomes apparent that you use it only to refer to black people, I would call you on it. Then, if you felt you were being unfairly called out, it would be up to you to change your language to avoid giving other people the perception that you are racist.

Similarly, we can examine your repeated use of the word "nigger" in this thread. You are obviously using it in an attempt to shock the reader, and get a reaction from them, which is why I generally ignore your usage of that word. On the other hand, it is a word that is primarily used in a racist fashion. I don't buy that you call white thugs "niggers" in your personal life, as I have never met anyone who does that, so I do think that it represents a very racist attitude despite your apologetic.

I can only assume you are a black person...

That is the second assumption about me that you have made, which is entirely wrong. I am a white male. You might want to stop making assumptions about me at this point, you are not very good at it.

I have never seen such coy racism from any other culture of people.

Please note that the above is a racist statement. You are attributing a negative quality to an entire race of people.

With that out of the way, please explain how you came to the conclusion that I was exhibiting coy racism.

'nigger is a racist word that only racist people say, unless they are black, in which case they are neither racist nor is the word racist'.. and THATS not racist itself? oh please.

This post is the first time I have typed the word "nigger" in this discussion, so I'm not sure what you are on about here. For the record, I don't think black people should refer to one another with that word, if they do not like others using the word when referring to them. But it isn't racist when they use it, because they are using it in a non-racist context. It seems odd, I know, but that does not keep it from being true. Racist words can be used in a non-racist context, just as non-racist words can be used in a racist context.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Or you could have chosen a different word to better clarify your meaning. But you insist on "thug" as if that word that describes a certain kind of person with very specific traits. People who put out arguments similar to yours use "thug" to denote any black man or woman. They might have a different score on a mental "thug scale", but they are all thugs or the potential to be thugs.


^And this is a racist statement.

'nigger is a racist word that only racist people say, unless they are black, in which case they are neither racist nor is the word racist'.. and THATS not racist itself? oh please.

It's It's called slang. It's an ingroup thing.

Yes, exactly.. it is slang. when one race of people claims another race of people may not do the things that their own race of people do, based entirely on race.. is.. wait for it... FUCKING RACIST!!!

I suspect it is racist to call a black man a "nigger" to his face when his friends can use the same word and not have receive the "racist" label. I'm sure this is very painful to you. Much like calling the member of the lesbian ingroup "dyke". I want to feel your oppression, but I have more important things to do with my empathy.

When I equally apply the word thug, or nigger, (because apparently, they are like the same exact word <rolleyes>) to all people that behave in a particular way, completely separate from race, I am not being racist. When YOU claim that my intention is to be racist when I refer to one person that fits the behavioral criteria for a word BECAUSE THAT ONE PERSON IS OF A PARTICULAR RACE, then it is YOU that is being racist.

Please give me the definition of "thug" you are using and explain why it is applied to all races, and show previous posts where you used the term for non-African Americans.

It's like if I say that someone is 'being negative'... If that someone is black, then "being negative" is a racist thing to say. This is the message I am getting from this discussion.. .and that is what I am calling a racist thing.

You are free to speak your mind, but when racially charged words such as "dindu" and "thug" are used, you can expect people to react.

How does this apply to the topic at hand? BLM is a bunch of racist thugs because it is their assertion that if a person is shot by a cop, it is racist automatically if the cop was white and the perp was black. Nothing else about the situation matters.

While the unbolded of your statement may be true, the bolded is racially charged.

Here is a non-racially charged re-write:

BLMs knee-jerk reactions are also racist in nature, because this is their usual assertion that if a black person is shot by a cop, it was racially motivated, especially if the cop was white. They seem to consider no other factors about the situation.​

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm not as racist as I sound... I call 'nigger behavior' when I see it, and that behavior is displayed by both black and white people all the time. White people are just as capable of acting like a nigger as anyone else.

That's the typical racist explanation of the vocabulary so it doesn't really help your allegation that your speech isn't racist.

 

[Malintent]

Oh, malintent, I don't think the word thug is racist any more than nigger, spick, or wop. It is the CONTEXT of your use, the model of belittling someone as a person combined with your preferential use of it to dehumanize people, it is that which makes me find your statements repugnant. Similarly, we live in a cultural context where the use of thug and nigger words are themselves assumed to mean 'black people', and whose most common usage is seen within the cultural context to say that it is because they are black that they are a nigger, and that they are a nigger because they are black. It doesn't make any one person a racist to hear words and have commonly used sentiments bleed into the ideas we hear in them.

Even if your particular intent doesn't include a desire to communicate those ideas, saying that word in this world to the people here still delivers that sentiment, and accepting your use of it will internalize those feelings, again independent of your intent. Continuing to use the word nigger as you do either means your usage is irresponsible and ignorant, OR that you are a racist and want to communicate those ideas *even given your token attempts to 'clarify' your 'intended' usage*. Either you are using it in an ignorant way, or you are using it in a racist way. There is no third option.

I appreciate what you are saying... I am rallying against it, though. the third way (not racist, not ignorant) is 'demonstrative'.

I fully reject the term 'Thug' EVER had racist use. Nigger? sure. of course. But as you said, and I agree, it is the intent. My clear and obvious intent has always been (and this is documented in this and several other threads) that the word alone is not racist, and the use of the word is not necessarily racist, if applied across races equally. which I have and do.

I have never directed a racist sentiment to any individual. I have been the target of countless racist attacks, growing up a minority in my community when I was young... Middle / High School age. So, I am a self-proclaimed expert in this area. I know what racism is, I have been a victim thousands of times. In my direct observation, the group that engages in the most overtly racist activities, are black people. It's like an extended affirmative action for the racism black people encountered over a century ago. And that is the core of BLM.

 

[thebeave]

Looks like President Obama, Derec and Malintent have something in common:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2015/04/29/obama-white-house-baltimore-stephanie-rawlings-blake/26585143/

President Obama doesn't regret using the term "thug" in describing the violent rioters in Baltimore this week, spokesman Josh Earnest said Wednesday.

"Whether it's arson or, you know, the looting of a liquor store ... those were thuggish acts," Earnest said.

In discussing the riots Tuesday, Obama assailed the "criminals and thugs who tore up the place," and described them as a distraction from the real issues of police brutality.

Some critics ascribe racial connotations to the word "thug" -- Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake walked back the term earlier this week -- but Obama doesn't agree, officials said.

 

[KeepTalking]

Looks like President Obama, Derec and Malintent have something in common:

Not really, but go ahead, keep trying. I mean we wouldn't want to try to change the minds and behavior of those who routinely use outright racism and/or racist dog whistles in their written communication on this forum, or anything.

 

[Malintent]

Looks like President Obama, Derec and Malintent have something in common:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2015/04/29/obama-white-house-baltimore-stephanie-rawlings-blake/26585143/

President Obama doesn't regret using the term "thug" in describing the violent rioters in Baltimore this week, spokesman Josh Earnest said Wednesday.

"Whether it's arson or, you know, the looting of a liquor store ... those were thuggish acts," Earnest said.

In discussing the riots Tuesday, Obama assailed the "criminals and thugs who tore up the place," and described them as a distraction from the real issues of police brutality.

Some critics ascribe racial connotations to the word "thug" -- Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake walked back the term earlier this week -- but Obama doesn't agree, officials said.

Because the word thug is not racist.
words used by racist people do not suddenly become racist words (hint: do not give racists that much power)
words used to describe a behavior that any person can engage in, if directed at a person that has a race (think: who does not have a race?), does not make the term racist against that race.
There is this woman I work with that is very snotty. She is a white, culturally jewish person. therefore, "snotty" is racist against white jews? don't be so deeply stupid.

This is all very easy, basic shit. the social justice warriors have defeated your ability to think critically if you disagree with these very basic, logical assessments of language.

 

[Valjean]

My first thought was that someone was being called a turkey.
Dinde/dindon is turkey in French.

 

[Arctish]

For the sake of clarity, and to keep the nested quotes manageable, I'm posting this part of our conversation as though it's from a separate post:

Those white thugs were not needlessly shot and killed by the cops, so it's not a direct comparison.

Well they turned themselves in, just like countless other suspects (many of them black) who turn themselves in and are not shot by police.
Also, Mario Woods was not needlessly shot either.

Please point out the moment that shooting Woods became necessary, not merely convenient or expeditious.

The video is not very clear but I would say at the point he walks toward the officer on the left.

I see the moment you are pointing out, but I don't see what made it necessary for the cops to shoot Woods right then.

I can see that shooting him was expedient. I can see that it was convenient. I can even see that the step or two in the cop's direction was an indication of non-compliance, perhaps even belligerence, and therefore could be an indication of an impending danger. But what, exactly, made shooting Woods necessary at the moment the cops opened fire? There is nothing that can be seen that indicates a need to resort to lethal force.

This is the crux of the matter. If the cops shoot a person needlessly, that's a problem. If higher-ups in the police force react to the shooting as though the life of the person doesn't matter, that's an even bigger problem. If there is no justice for the needless killing of a person by the police, that's a huge problem that must be addressed by society at large; otherwise, we are allowing a situation to develop in which anyone can be killed by the cops, whether it was necessary or not, and we citizens have no recourse at all.

 

[Derec]

But what, exactly, made shooting Woods necessary at the moment the cops opened fire? There is nothing that can be seen that indicates a need to resort to lethal force.

A person armed with a knife can cover the distance between him and the cop in a very short time. That makes him very dangerous. When he started walking toward the cop he made the decision inevitable. And no it doesn't matter if he "only wanted to get away" or that the cop purposely got in his way, because there is no way an armed and dangerous perp would be allowed to just get away.

This is the crux of the matter. If the cops shoot a person needlessly, that's a problem. If higher-ups in the police force react to the shooting as though the life of the person doesn't matter, that's an even bigger problem.

Yes it would be, had the cops shot him needlessly. And even if they did, that would warrant prosecution and would not mean he deserves a day be named after him.

If there is no justice for the needless killing of a person by the police, that's a huge problem that must be addressed by society at large; otherwise, we are allowing a situation to develop in which anyone can be killed by the cops, whether it was necessary or not, and we citizens have no recourse at all.

Shootings by police should be investigated, and if appropriate, prosecuted. However, this decision should be made based on facts, not on shootee's skin color or the willingness of his supporters to commit crimes on his behalf.

 

[Arctish]

A person armed with a knife can cover the distance between him and the cop in a very short time. That makes him very dangerous. When he started walking toward the cop he made the decision inevitable. And no it doesn't matter if he "only wanted to get away" or that the cop purposely got in his way, because there is no way an armed and dangerous perp would be allowed to just get away.

You just explained why shooting Woods was expedient. You did not point out a need to shoot him.

The cops could have continued to keep him surrounded. They could have continued to maintain a clear area between themselves and him. They could have decided that they weren't going to be baited into taking needless action, and then stuck to that decision for hours on end until Woods accepted the inevitability of his arrest. Instead, the cops opened fire and shot him 20 times despite the fact no one other than Woods himself was in any actual danger. It was a needless killing, and that's why people are protesting.

This is the crux of the matter. If the cops shoot a person needlessly, that's a problem. If higher-ups in the police force react to the shooting as though the life of the person doesn't matter, that's an even bigger problem.

Yes it would be, had the cops shot him needlessly. And even if they did, that would warrant prosecution and would not mean he deserves a day be named after him.

If there is no justice for the needless killing of a person by the police, that's a huge problem that must be addressed by society at large; otherwise, we are allowing a situation to develop in which anyone can be killed by the cops, whether it was necessary or not, and we citizens have no recourse at all.

Shootings by police should be investigated, and if appropriate, prosecuted. However, this decision should be made based on facts, not on shootee's skin color or the willingness of his supporters to commit crimes on his behalf.

I agree shootings by the police should be investigated and if appropriate, prosecuted. I also agree this decision should be made based on facts, and that skin color or the willingness of supporters to commit crimes should not factor into it. But people have a right to protest and make their opinions known. If, in their opinion, there will be no justice unless they raise a ruckus, then they should raise a ruckus.

 

[Derec]

You just explained why shooting Woods was expedient. You did not point out a need to shoot him.

We might be arguing semantics at this point.

The cops could have continued to keep him surrounded. They could have continued to maintain a clear area between themselves and him.

Once he started walking that was no longer an option.

They could have decided that they weren't going to be baited into taking needless action, and then stuck to that decision for hours on end until Woods accepted the inevitability of his arrest.

Again, he started walking. At that point you either force confrontation (and if he continues advancing you shoot, which is what happened) or you let him go, which was never going to happen.

Instead, the cops opened fire and shot him 20 times despite the fact no one other than Woods himself was in any actual danger.

The cops were in danger if they tried physically subduing him.

It was a needless killing, and that's why people are protesting.

I disagree.

I agree shootings by the police should be investigated and if appropriate, prosecuted. I also agree this decision should be made based on facts, and that skin color or the willingness of supporters to commit crimes should not factor into it.

But people have a right to protest and make their opinions known.

We agree again.

If, in their opinion, there will be no justice unless they raise a ruckus, then they should raise a ruckus.

Depends on your definition of "ruckus".

They certainly should not be allowed to block traffic, be it rail or an interstate highway or something else.

 

[Arctish]

We might be arguing semantics at this point.

I don't think so. I think we both use the same definition of the words 'need' and 'necessary'. We both understand that an unnecessary killing is a killing that didn't need to happen.

We both agree that killing a person who posed an immediate threat to the life of another is justifiable if it's necessary in order to protect that life (excluding abortions maybe, but we can leave that discussion for another thread). But if there is no immediate threat to the life of another, or there are other options to mitigate the danger besides the use of lethal force, then there is no need to kill.

That's what's missing here. There was no immediate threat, and there were other options besides opening fire. The situation was being successfully handled by isolating the guy and no allowing him to simply leave the area. The cops could have stuck with that strategy until Woods finally gave up. There was no need for the use of lethal force, and all the reasons being offered for explaining why it happened all boil down to expediency. It was simpler to just kill him and be done with it, but that's not acceptable. Not in a society where we supposedly have civil rights.

The cops could have continued to keep him surrounded. They could have continued to maintain a clear area between themselves and him.

Once he started walking that was no longer an option.

Not true.

Those cops have feet and legs that work. I saw them move in the video. They could have moved in the same direction and at the same sped as Woods, thereby maintaining a safe distance while not allowing Woods to simply walk away. And they could have used police vehicles, the surrounding infrastructure, and barricades to block Woods' path.

Once a suspect starts walking it might be allowable under the law for the police to shoot him, but that doesn't mean they need to shoot him.

They could have decided that they weren't going to be baited into taking needless action, and then stuck to that decision for hours on end until Woods accepted the inevitability of his arrest.

Again, he started walking. At that point you either force confrontation (and if he continues advancing you shoot, which is what happened) or you let him go, which was never going to happen.

Or you shift your position and maintain the separation between you and him while you maneuver him into a place that favors you, such as an alcove or up against a barrier formed by parking police vehicles on the sidewalk. If you have time, and you will if all he's doing is walking, you can have one of your buddies bring some riot gear so you have helmets, shields, and batons when you move in.

Of course, this takes a little bit of effort. It might be hot that day and you don't want to be standing around outside, or it might be lunchtime and you're hungry. It's much simpler to just shoot the guy so I can understand why that would be tempting, especially if you think the guy's life doesn't matter. But the citizens expect it of you, and you should at least try to resolve the confrontation peaceably.

Instead, the cops opened fire and shot him 20 times despite the fact no one other than Woods himself was in any actual danger.

The cops were in danger if they tried physically subduing him.

It was a needless killing, and that's why people are protesting.

I disagree.

I agree shootings by the police should be investigated and if appropriate, prosecuted. I also agree this decision should be made based on facts, and that skin color or the willingness of supporters to commit crimes should not factor into it.

But people have a right to protest and make their opinions known.

We agree again.

If, in their opinion, there will be no justice unless they raise a ruckus, then they should raise a ruckus.

Depends on your definition of "ruckus".

No, not him.



And not ^ him either.

They certainly should not be allowed to block traffic, be it rail or an interstate highway or something else.

Oh, I agree they should get ticketed and have to pay a fine, maybe even spend a night in jail. I don't think acts of civil disobedience should be cost free. But I don't agree citizens should remain silent and passive if they believe cops are killing people needlessly.

 

[Derec]

#BLM creeps pushed SF police chief Greg Suhr out.
San Francisco Forces Out Police Chief After Officer Kills Black Woman
There was this hunger strike and then yesterday a car thief got herself shot by police.
By all accounts he was a good police chief. Shame what happened on account of a few worthless thugs.