Police Accidentally Tweet Screenshot Showing That They Monitor Anti-Racism and Anti-Police Brutality Groups

[Loren Pechtel]

They claim to be about police shootings of harmless black men. Their behavior says otherwise.

Yeah, they've also protested police shootings of harmless white men, as well as women and children of every race. And they also run community service programs and charities, including disaster relief. The horror!

(also, they started after a black teenager was murdered by a racist lunatic who has gone on to a number of other violent encounters, so there's that too...)

The problem is they protest shootings of blacks if there's any way to make them look innocent.

 

[Mumbles]

They claim to be about police shootings of harmless black men. Their behavior says otherwise.

Yeah, they've also protested police shootings of harmless white men, as well as women and children of every race. And they also run community service programs and charities, including disaster relief. The horror!

(also, they started after a black teenager was murdered by a racist lunatic who has gone on to a number of other violent encounters, so there's that too...)

The problem is they protest shootings of blacks if there's any way to make them look innocent.

An appropriate response if police refuse to even attempt to build trust with the local community. They wanted distrust, and they got it, so...good work on their part.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is they protest shootings of blacks if there's any way to make them look innocent.

An appropriate response if police refuse to even attempt to build trust with the local community. They wanted distrust, and they got it, so...good work on their part.

Trust will not exist so long as race agitators keep preaching hate.

And it's not a proper response anyway. If the problem is a lack of trust then say so, don't blame them for things that aren't wrongdoing. When you blame the wrong thing you just make yourself look stupid.

 

[laughing dog]

The problem is they protest shootings of blacks if there's any way to make them look innocent.

An appropriate response if police refuse to even attempt to build trust with the local community. They wanted distrust, and they got it, so...good work on their part.

Trust will not exist so long as race agitators keep preaching hate.

Trust was lost long before there were "race agigators". And it is literally a cop out to blame the lack of trust on the community,

When you blame the wrong thing you just make yourself look stupid.

Truly ironic.

 

[Mumbles]

The problem is they protest shootings of blacks if there's any way to make them look innocent.

An appropriate response if police refuse to even attempt to build trust with the local community. They wanted distrust, and they got it, so...good work on their part.

Trust will not exist so long as race agitators keep preaching hate.

You assume that state authorities are not, themselves, "race agitators who preach hate."

That sound you just heard that was the trap snapping shut.

The notable problem here is that we have a great deal of evidence that, in many cases, state authorities freely and happily preach hate. One need look no further than the current US president for evidence of that. And just in terms of law enforcement, even Ferguson has examples like Ofr. GoFuckYourself, who ended up being the only officer there to be fired for misconduct - sadly, given the DoJ report, numerous federal court findings, and video evidence of the police attacking protestors and journalists.

ANd, of course, looking back through history, we have Jesse Helms, Sen Ben "Pitchfork" Tillman, every single politician behind the Confederacy, Woodrow Wilson, Michael Bloomberg, the various Nazi fetishists and Holocaust deniers currently running for office, Rep. Steve King, Sen. Ted Cruz...this could go on for a very, *very* long time.

I'd consider all of the above vastly more hateful than anyone legitimately connected to Black Lives Matter (as opposed to some who simply grab the mantle on occasion, or who are actually rejected by every such group).

And this is where we get down to the matter. By your own reasoning, the people who are currently seen monitoring anti-police violence groups, are themselves the very "race agitators" that you claim that BLM is. And while you may consider BLM to be a cause for a decline in trust, the simple fact is that this trust has never been established to begin with, and given the extensive history of police as the violent enforcers of segregation throughout the country, they have in fact earned substantial mistrust - one that "mistakes" like those in the OP only serve to reinforce. And so, when we look to many cases of police violence, we find that BLM is entirely correct when they state that the police are working to exonerate murderers - including Freddie Grey, Trayvon Martin (and he was killed by a random lunatic instead of an actual officer), Eric Garner, John Crawford III, and Aiyana Stanley-Jones, as a few of many such examples.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Trust will not exist so long as race agitators keep preaching hate.

You assume that state authorities are not, themselves, "race agitators who preach hate."

That sound you just heard that was the trap snapping shut.

The notable problem here is that we have a great deal of evidence that, in many cases, state authorities freely and happily preach hate. One need look no further than the current US president for evidence of that. And just in terms of law enforcement, even Ferguson has examples like Ofr. GoFuckYourself, who ended up being the only officer there to be fired for misconduct - sadly, given the DoJ report, numerous federal court findings, and video evidence of the police attacking protestors and journalists.

While I agree that His Flatulence is a problem the issue long predates him.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How about just "religious extremists"? Seems appropriate to not single them out among al the other religious extremists. Or we could just start being honest about all the other kinds of extremists, like Christian extremists, and White Identity Extremists.

I take issue with the term "extremist". To be extremely religious doesn't necessarily mean to be violent or intolerant. Same with being extremely white. I think we could say "hostile" or "volatile" or "violent".

 

[bilby]

How about just "religious extremists"? Seems appropriate to not single them out among al the other religious extremists. Or we could just start being honest about all the other kinds of extremists, like Christian extremists, and White Identity Extremists.

I take issue with the term "extremist". To be extremely religious doesn't necessarily mean to be violent or intolerant. Same with being extremely white. I think we could say "hostile" or "volatile" or "violent".

To be extremely religious does mean to be intolerant to the point of at least condoning violence, and probably also perpetrating it.

Religion depends upon othering, and the extremely religious will create enemies if none present themselves. That's why the term 'witch hunt' has become a part of our language.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

[
Religion depends upon othering, and the extremely religious will create enemies if none present themselves. That's why the term 'witch hunt' has become a part of our language.

As has been noted above, that depends on the religion. Many lean in this direction, but not all.

 

[Jarhyn]

[
Religion depends upon othering, and the extremely religious will create enemies if none present themselves. That's why the term 'witch hunt' has become a part of our language.

As has been noted above, that depends on the religion. Many lean in this direction, but not all.

Dude, people have committed religious violence following BUDDHISM. Your argument is invalid.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Dude, people have committed religious violence following BUDDHISM. Your argument is invalid.

It entirely depends on what their take on the religion is and in what way they go extreme with it. It could mean extreme violence or extreme pacifism.

 

[Jarhyn]

Dude, people have committed religious violence following BUDDHISM. Your argument is invalid.

It entirely depends on what their take on the religion is and in what way they go extreme with it. It could mean extreme violence or extreme pacifism.

Your argument was that some religions don't have violent extremists; even the most passivistic religion on earth has violent extremists, ergo you are incorrect in stating that some religions don't have "extremists". Extremism in this context is well understood to be a resolution to engage in violence.