Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Black Lives Matter protest in Dublin
Comments
-
-
-
Heard some chap on the radio yesterday called Lucky talking about the BLM protest in Dublin. He said we need to ensure that black people over here don't suffer the same fate here as black people in America do at the hands of the police. Deluded.
http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/The_Right_Hook/
It's the (currently) first podcast in the list (pic of Trump and May).
First interview is with Fintan O'Toole, then he talks with Anti-racism folk about the demonstration. (If you use the red bar as a metric, starts after the 'g' in 'offering'.)
Hook ain't too happy about having a surprise guest sprung on him! :pac:0 -
punisher5112 wrote: »Ah I get it.
So all bald lives matter and so on.
Yea, and fcuk the rest of us who have hair!0 -
Join Date:Posts: 18090
http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/The_Right_Hook/
It's the (currently) first podcast in the list (pic of Trump and May).
First interview is with Fintan O'Toole, then he talks with Anti-racism folk about the demonstration. (If you use the red bar as a metric, starts after the 'g' in 'offering'.)
Hook ain't too happy about having a surprise guest sprung on him! :pac:
Absolute car crash stuff from the two from the demonstration, absolutely no coherent point between them.
Hook is right to be annoyed about the surprise guest too.0 -
Advertisement
-
Black Lives Matter is at it's core an anti-white movement. There should be no tolerance for it.Well after a great many pages I can say this:
People want to protest about something that I personally don't think is of paramount importance in Irish society. But they seem to be doing no harm, and I think broadly speaking they mean well. Let them do what they want to do, I think.
I might think there's a danger of things being too "right on" for my liking, but I'd rather stand with them than with a lot of the anti BLM posters on this thread - who come across as ignorantly bigoted, sneering and ludicrously offended by all this.
Get a life.But what if they're... white AND Jewish!?
Right wing victim complex head explosion.
Jews aren't white. They are a distinct racial group apart from us.0 -
Black Lives Matter is at it's core an anti-white movement. There should be no tolerance for it.
Do you consider movements that promote conservation of particular species to be anti-human? Irish efforts to conserve the Red Squirrel to be anti-human? Or even anti-Grey Squirrel?
I sort of wish the movement had named themselves Black Lives Also Matter, but it's not at all catchy.Jews aren't white. They are a distinct racial group apart from us.
Race is kinda nonsense from a biological perspective. It's a neat shortcut for describing different kinds of people's appearances for some practical applications, but if you're going to cut is as fine as white versus Jewish it becomes pretty useless. And it wasn't that useful a concept in the first place.
Is it important to you that you not be in the same group as Jews?0 -
There are around 20mn Jews in the worldJews aren't white. They are a distinct racial group apart from us.
Ashkenazi Jews are widely considered to be white, and make up over 2/3rds of the worlds Jewish population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews0 -
Have any of these people thought for a minute that it is perfectly understandable for Police Officers to be more suspicious of black's in the USA as they committed 52.8% of the homicides in the USA from 1980 to 2008 a rate 8 times higher than whites.
And then with police officers in the USA knowing these figures is it not perfectly reasonable for them to them to be a little more jumpy around a black man and perhaps make a mistake or not take as much of a chance around a black man than a white man.
It's alright for people here to get judgmental about these cops and the shootings of black men in the USA but seeing as they don't work in a job themselves where they are under constant fear of being shot on a day to day basis they cannot properly understand what the cops in the USA go through and therefore they really shouldn't be so quick to get up on their high horse and judge them.
Racial profiling may not be nice but it is understandable even if these protesters can't bear to think of that being the case.
Seems like until people in the USA either do something about their gun laws these types of killings will always happen and there is **** all any protester in Ireland can do about it.0 -
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »Have any of these people thought for a minute that it is perfectly understandable for Police Officers to be more suspicious of black's in the USA as they committed 52.8% of the homicides in the USA from 1980 to 2008 a rate 8 times higher than whites.
No, because causation/correlation fallacy.
Unless having brown skin causes you to murder, then it is not fair (or useful) to use brown skin as a predictor of murderousness.
Not complicated really.0 -
Advertisement
-
AtomicHorror wrote: »No, because causation/correlation fallacy.
Unless having brown skin causes you to murder, then it is not fair (or useful) to use brown skin as a predictor of murderousness.
Not complicated really.
But people do believe in stereotypes (rightly or wrongly) and therefore the stats would have the ability to influence cops behaviour and make them more suspicious.
People aren't perfect.0 -
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »Have any of these people thought for a minute that it is perfectly understandable for Police Officers to be more suspicious of black's in the USA as they committed 52.8% of the homicides in the USA from 1980 to 2008 a rate 8 times higher than whites.
And then with police officers in the USA knowing these figures is it not perfectly reasonable for them to them to be a little more jumpy around a black man and perhaps make a mistake or not take as much of a chance around a black man than a white man.
It's alright for people here to get judgmental about these cops and the shootings of black men in the USA but seeing as they don't work in a job themselves where they are under constant fear of being shot on a day to day basis they cannot properly understand what the cops in the USA go through and therefore they really shouldn't be so quick to get up on their high horse and judge them.
Racial profiling may not be nice but it is understandable even if these protesters can't bear to think of that being the case.
Seems like until people in the USA either do something about their gun laws these types of killings will always happen and there is **** all any protester in Ireland can do about it.
i'm afraid none of that is good enough, or an excuse for incompetents. if someone is incompetent, then they will be judged and people are entitled to judge them. Racial profiling is racist and isn't understandable, it's only supported by questionable types as far as i'm concerned. protesters in ireland won't be able to change things abroad but they can show solidarity and hi-light issues. if people have a problem with a particular protest then ignore it. the blm protesters aren't doing you or me or anyone else any harm.I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »i'm afraid none of that is good enough, or an excuse for incompetents. if someone is incompetent, then they will be judged and people are entitled to judge them. Racial profiling is racist and isn't understandable, it's only supported by questionable types as far as i'm concerned. protesters in ireland won't be able to change things abroad but they can show solidarity and hi-light issues. if people have a problem with a particular protest then ignore it. the blm protesters aren't doing you or me or anyone else any harm.
I'm sorry but stereotyping is perfectly understandable whether people want to admit it or not.Stereotyping comes from an essential truth in the background.Irish people have been stereotyped as drunks for years and with good reason.
If there was a terrorist attack in the morning in Western Europe and people were asked what race/religion did they think the perpetrators were most people I assume would answer they were Muslim/Arab and that would be perfectly understandable.0 -
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »But people do believe in stereotypes (rightly or wrongly) and therefore the stats would have the ability to influence cops behaviour and make them more suspicious.
Which is irrational. Therefore there's a need to counterbalance that tendency by reminding them of the value of the lives of the people who they are starting, in their fear, to view as statistics instead of people.
And I have to point out, that when the behaviour of people is predicted based on an inapplicable, non-causal generalisation like this, that is called prejudice. When that prejudice uses racial traits as the predictor, that prejudice is called racism.Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »People aren't perfect.
So should we give up on hoping they can become better than they are?
The responses are not judgemental- they're outraged, because what you're describing is in fact a major part of the problem and that's a horrible reality.
Gun control is surely a part of the solution, but it's tangled up with extreme economic inequality and the vicious cycle of the aforementioned racism.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »Which is irrational. Therefore there's a need to counterbalance that tendency by reminding them of the value of the lives of the people who they are starting, in their fear, to view as statistics instead of people.
And I have to point out, that when the behaviour of people is predicted based on an inapplicable, non-causal generalisation like this, that is called prejudice. When that prejudice uses racial traits as the predictor, that prejudice is called racism.
So should we give up on hoping they can become better than they are?
The responses are not judgemental- they're outraged, because what you're describing is in fact a major part of the problem and that's a horrible reality.
Gun control is surely a part of the solution, but it's tangled up with extreme economic inequality and the vicious cycle of the aforementioned racism.
The problem is that I don't think the people are fully taking into account how dangerous being a cop is and that being on greater alert for certain subsections of people they deal with based on their job experience may actually help them on a day to day basis and keep them out of trouble regardless of whether or not it's right to be more suspicious of some people.0 -
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »I'm sorry but stereotyping is perfectly understandable whether people want to admit it or not.Stereotyping comes from an essential truth in the background.Irish people have been stereotyped as drunks for years and with good reason.
You keep using the word "understandable" as if it means "acceptable". Yes stereotyping is not only understandable, but also understood. It is understood as an irrational tendency of humans, and it is understood to be something we can override.Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »If there was a terrorist attack in the morning in Western Europe and people were asked what race/religion did they think the perpetrators were most people I assume would answer they were Muslim/Arab and that would be perfectly understandable.
So what? Why does it matter that this response would be "understandable"? What is the relevance of that statement?Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »The problem is that I don't think the people are fully taking into account how dangerous being a cop is and that being on greater alert for certain subsections of people they deal with based on their job experience may actually help them on a day to day basis and keep them out of trouble regardless of whether or not it's right to be more suspicious of some people.
What are you basing that assumption on? The fact that they're outraged that the people supposed to protect them are succumbing to fear and killing them instead? You seem to think "understandable" is a good excuse for behaviour, I'd call that outrage "understandable" too. Now what?0 -
Here's an article, it says that more whites where killed by police but percentage wise to population black are killed at higher ratio. So since there are more white people in America this means the police are racist or higher percentage of black people find themselves in criminal situations.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/31/the-counted-police-killings-2015-young-black-men0 -
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »I'm sorry but stereotyping is perfectly understandable whether people want to admit it or not.Stereotyping comes from an essential truth in the background.Irish people have been stereotyped as drunks for years and with good reason.
If there was a terrorist attack in the morning in Western Europe and people were asked what race/religion did they think the perpetrators were most people I assume would answer they were Muslim/Arab and that would be perfectly understandable.
i'm not sorry but stereotyping is not perfectly understandable, it's something for certain types to use to pick on those they perceive to be lower then them. you can't admit to something being understandable or exceptable when it isn't. your statements do not make what you want to be a reality, a reality. if you expect low standards and you except low standards, then low standards is what you will get.I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.
0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »You keep using the word "understandable" as if it means "acceptable". Yes stereotyping is not only understandable, but also understood. It is understood as an irrational tendency of humans, and it is understood to be something we can override.
So what? Why does it matter that this response would be "understandable"? What is the relevance of that statement?
What are you basing that assumption on? The fact that they're outraged that the people supposed to protect them are succumbing to fear and killing them instead? You seem to think "understandable" is a good excuse for behaviour, I'd call that outrage "understandable" too. Now what?
Understandable is a good explanation for behaviour as we react on the basis of our life experiences and our understanding of the world around us, if you are in an environment where you know a black man is more likely to committ a violent crime it's perfectly understandable why cops are more jumpy around them.
Until you're in the situation faced with those cops in America you can't really judge them as you're life is not on the line like it is for police officers in the USA.
These protests won't change anything as they cannot change the human impulses cops in America have.0 -
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »But people do believe in stereotypes (rightly or wrongly) and therefore the stats would have the ability to influence cops behaviour and make them more suspicious.
People aren't perfect.
Yeah but to be fair, there is a word for when you stereotype someone based solely on the colour of their skin.0 -
Advertisement
-
end of the road wrote: »i'm not sorry but stereotyping is not perfectly understandable, it's something for certain types to use to pick on those they perceive to be lower then them. you can't admit to something being understandable or exceptable when it isn't. your statements do not make what you want to be a reality, a reality. if you expect low standards and you except low standards, then low standards is what you will get.
Stereotyping comes from an essential truth in the background, whether people want to admit it or not.
If your life is potentially on the line how you can't really think 100% rationally about a situation and it will be difficult to change the behaviours of cops who put there lives on the line and care first an foremost about themselves (like all people do).0 -
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »Understandable is a good explanation for behaviour as we react on the basis of our life experiences and our understanding of the world around us, if you are in an environment where you know a black man is more likely to committ a violent crime it's perfectly understandable why cops are more jumpy around them.
If it's perfectly understandable, all that means is that we can and should take steps to change the outcome. It's an otherwise meaningless argument that you seem weirdly attached to.Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »Until you're in the situation faced with those cops in America you can't really judge them as you're life is not on the line like it is for police officers in the USA.
On the contrary, as you've pointed out multiple times, these situations arise due to the irrationality brought on by the immediate circumstances, "the situation" they face. Distance from it, and a rational response, is precisely what is needed. We absolutely can judge in that light. All actions done in the heat of a moment should be judged in that way- that's even how the legal system of separating law enforcement and trials has been designed. That's how science works too.Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »These protests won't change anything as they cannot change the human impulses cops in America have.
Nonsense. That same argument could have been directed against all previous civil rights movements. Those movements sought to effect both structural change in the system and a change in people. The abolitionist movement, desegregation, they all took steps like these and they succeeded. That does not mean BLM will succeed, but it sure shows the fatalism up for what it is.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »You keep using the word "understandable" as if it means "acceptable". Yes stereotyping is not only understandable, but also understood. It is understood as an irrational tendency of humans, and it is understood to be something we can override.
?
Of course stereotyping not irrational !!
how do you thing stereotyping starts ?
Tell me this your walking down the street and you see two people one a old lady in a cardigan using a walker and the other young male with baggy pants hanging down eye FcuKing every one he passes walking with his hands down his pants
Which one is more likely to have a illegal substance on them ? on the balance of probabilities realistically ?0 -
Maybe you have a point but it is just not fair to law abiding african americans. Honestly could you say you'd be okay with constantly being watched when you walk into shops or being frisked for no reason other than your skin colour if say for instance Irish people committed higher rates of crime in Britain and you were an Irish person living there. ( Lets say for the sake of argument that irish people are physically distinguishable from other white people.) And then the police officer said he was just doing his duty by racially profiling you, and innocent person, because of your skin colour. Its just not okayDirty Dingus McGee wrote: »Have any of these people thought for a minute that it is perfectly understandable for Police Officers to be more suspicious of black's in the USA as they committed 52.8% of the homicides in the USA from 1980 to 2008 a rate 8 times higher than whites.
And then with police officers in the USA knowing these figures is it not perfectly reasonable for them to them to be a little more jumpy around a black man and perhaps make a mistake or not take as much of a chance around a black man than a white man.
It's alright for people here to get judgmental about these cops and the shootings of black men in the USA but seeing as they don't work in a job themselves where they are under constant fear of being shot on a day to day basis they cannot properly understand what the cops in the USA go through and therefore they really shouldn't be so quick to get up on their high horse and judge them.
Racial profiling may not be nice but it is understandable even if these protesters can't bear to think of that being the case.
Seems like until people in the USA either do something about their gun laws these types of killings will always happen and there is **** all any protester in Ireland can do about it.0 -
mynamejeff wrote: »Of course stereotyping not irrational !!
Yes it is.mynamejeff wrote: »how do you thing stereotyping starts ?
From incomplete observation and mental shortcuts.mynamejeff wrote: »Tell me this your walking down the street and you see two people one a old lady in a cardigan using a walker and the other young male with baggy pants hanging down eye FcuKing every one he passes walking with his hands down his pants
Which one is more likely to have a illegal substance on them ? on the balance of probabilities realistically ?
Baggy pants can be more easily used to conceal items. Aggressive stance suggests something to hide. Hands down pants suggests concealed items. In the real world, I ignore both people. If the question is posed "who is more likely to be concealing an illegal substance" and it must be answered (why though?), then in this scenario we can name the young male on the balance of probabilities (very little information on the old lady though- and cardigan and walker are not relevant to the assessment).
That's not stereotyping or any kind of prejudice, because we've established various cause and effect connections and we haven't actually "judged" but instead stated the balance of probabilities which still leaves a lot of room to assume innocence. We haven't taken a meaningful action in response to the (very forced) assessment.
This stark choice scenario you've presented isn't at all analogous to judgement and action on the basis of race/crime stats. Not even vaguely.0 -
Yeah but to be fair, there is a word for when you stereotype someone based solely on the colour of their skin.
Isn't Black people being afraid of being killed by cops just as irrational as white Americans being afraid of being killed/violent crime from black Americans.
They are both behaviors drawn from the negative actions of a very very small minority of the corresponding populations (African-Americans and Police).
Both groups suffer violence at a rate thats higher than what should be expected.
If your going to say that a black person being afraid of being shot by police is a understandable response you can't say that white people being afraid of being shot by black men is repugnant because they both draw on the same type of thinking and have about equal amounts of data to back those world views up.
Both views aren't very sensible IMO
Edit: Haven't pulled the stats but AFAIK the Black on White murder rate is twice what it should be and the police killings of black people is about twice what it should be.0 -
Maybe you have a point but it is just not fair to law abiding african americans. Honestly could you say you'd be okay with constantly being watched when you walk into shops or being frisked for no reason other than your skin colour if say for instance Irish people committed higher rates of crime in Britain and you were an Irish person living there. ( Lets say for the sake of argument that irish people are physically distinguishable from other white people.) And then the police officer said he was just doing his duty by racially profiling you, and innocent person, because of your skin colour. Its just not okay
It's certainly not fair but I don't think enough people are taking it into account.
I could perfectly understand if people in the UK back when the IRA were involved in their bombing campaign were more suspicious of Irish people.
It certainly isn't fair but life unfortunately isn't fair and people are often judged by things they cannot control.0 -
RDM_83 again wrote: »If your going to say that a black person being afraid of being shot by police is a understandable response you can't say that white people being afraid of being shot by black men is repugnant because they both draw on the same type of thinking and have about equal amounts of data to back those world views up.
Setting aside the evidence, the logic doesn't really hold up. If a black person observes that, in a given jurisdiction, 1) there is a higher than normal rate of police killing black people in error than killing other races in error and 2) the police are all rigorously trained and conditioned in the same way and 3) the police follow the same regulations, then it is a fair inference to assume that there is a risk to that black person from the police.
Even, if there's a parallel for assumption 1 in the case of black people against white people, there's no such parallel for assumptions 2 and 3. So the inference is weaker, or even invalid.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »Setting aside the evidence, the logic doesn't really hold up. If a black person observes that, in a given jurisdiction, 1) there is a higher than normal rate of police killing black people in error than killing other races in error and 2) the police are all rigorously trained and conditioned in the same way and 3) the police follow the same regulations, then it is a fair inference to assume that there is a risk to that black person from the police.
Even, if there's a parallel for assumption 1 in the case of black people against white people, there's no such parallel for assumptions 2 and 3. So the inference is weaker, or even invalid.
I'm not sure how that invalidates the comparison to be honest you've just justified why a black person might be afraid of police without adressing the white person being afraid of black people.
Its not like the police don't kill lots of white people in the states (or that most murders committed by black americans are against black americans)
Its that in an encounter between the two groups they both (right or wrong) perceive themselves at greater risk because of the disproportionate violence occurring.
As I said personally I think both views are aren't smart, but only one has been legitimized.0 -
Advertisement
-
AtomicHorror wrote: »
Nonsense. That same argument could have been directed against all previous civil rights movements. Those movements sought to effect both structural change in the system and a change in people. The abolitionist movement, desegregation, they all took steps like these and they succeeded. That does not mean BLM will succeed, but it sure shows the fatalism up for what it is.
It's difficult to change spur of the moment decisions though.
No amount of protesting can change someones fear for their life.0 -
RDM_83 again wrote: »I'm not sure how that invalidates the comparison to be honest you've just justified why a black person might be afraid of police without adressing the white person being afraid of black people.
Its not like the police don't kill lots of white people in the states (or that most murders committed by black americans are against black americans)
Its that in an encounter between the two groups they both (right or wrong) perceive themselves at greater risk because of the disproportionate violence occurring.
As I said personally I think both views are aren't smart, but only one has been legitimized.
Read my reply again. The two groups aren't comparable, which is why the logic used for one doesn't follow for the other.
A police force is a body designed from the ground-up to be as culturally uniform as possible- so that its members react in ways that are as uniform and predictable as is possible for a group of imperfect humans. When a proportion of that group start to behave in an undesirable way, it's perfectly rational to worry about what a given random member of that group might do. In this case, using the common factor (the person being a policeman) is a fair predictor that there's a risk.
By contrast, black people are just a bunch of people who have same coloured skin.
Non-uniform culture, highly variable behaviours and individually non-predictable responses. When a proportion of that group start to behave in an undesirable way, we can't really draw any useful conclusions about individual members of the group. Using the only common factor- skin colour- as a predictor of undesirable behaviour is neither fair nor actually useful.0 -
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »It's difficult to change spur of the moment decisions though.
No amount of protesting can change someones fear for their life.
Training can- in fact that's one major purpose of training. To change how people innately react when they don't have time to think. Protest can be used to bring political pressure to bear which can then be used to promote structural changes to processes such as training.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »Training can- in fact that's one major purpose of training. To change how people innately react when they don't have time to think. Protest can be used to bring political pressure to bear which can then be used to promote structural changes to processes such as training.
But we all know these protest aren't about changing how American Cops are trained.
Only people in law enforcement in america can have any influence on that.
There is a complete lack of understanding on behalf of these protesters as they've never been in situations like these cops are in and so don't have any understanding of how they would react in a similar situation.0 -
Yeah but to be fair, there is a word for when you stereotype someone based solely on the colour of their skin.
How would you react in a similar situation.Truth is unless you've been a police officer you don't know and if all your knowledge as a police officer tells you that one section of the people your policing are more likely to be troublesome for you you are going to have a different reaction to them than another section of society.I'm pretty sure police would deal with women differently than men, I'm pretty sure they would deal with people in their 20,s and 30's different to people in their 60's etc.0 -
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »How would you react in a similar situation.Truth is unless you've been a police officer you don't know and if all your knowledge as a police officer tells you that one section of the people your policing are more likely to be troublesome for you you are going to have a different reaction to them than another section of society.I'm pretty sure police would deal with women differently than men, I'm pretty sure they would deal with people in their 20,s and 30's different to people in their 60's etc.
There is an awful video doing the rounds of a black guy who was shot dead in his car as he was looking for his license.I think he was on his way to work. There is no excuse for that. None whatsoever. It is clear that a lot is wrong with police procedure in the US. The first thing they should do is stop employing veterans of recent wars. Jumpy and trigger happy. A lot of them will inevitably still have a war zone mentality.0 -
Advertisement
-
If it were really a movement that valued Black Lives and was dedicated to preserving them they would focus their efforts on reducing the violent crime and murders perpetrated by blacks on other black people. More than 60 shot in Chicago alone for July 4th weekend.AtomicHorror wrote: »Do you consider movements that promote conservation of particular species to be anti-human? Irish efforts to conserve the Red Squirrel to be anti-human? Or even anti-Grey Squirrel?
I sort of wish the movement had named themselves Black Lives Also Matter, but it's not at all catchy.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/07/05/more-than-60-shot-chicago-over-july-4th-weekend/86707218/
Not a peep from them about that. That would require self reflection and looking at who the problem really is.
However they prefer to concentrate on law enforcement dealing with violent thugs because they really don't care about black lives. Their goal is to attack white society, attack law & order and extract wealth with their absurd list of demands.
I strongly disagree.Race is kinda nonsense from a biological perspective.
It's what the reality is. Jews self identify as a distinct group with a very strong ingroup preference. Also, yes my identity as Irish is important and has meaning to me.Is it important to you that you not be in the same group as Jews?0 -
Jimmy Garlic wrote: »There is an awful video doing the rounds of a black guy who was shot dead in his car as he was looking for his license.I think he was on his way to work. There is no excuse for that. None whatsoever. It is clear that a lot is wrong with police procedure in the US. The first thing they should do is stop employing veterans of recent wars. Jumpy and trigger happy. A lot of them will inevitably still have a war zone mentality.
Just watched the video. According to the officer he pulls them over because Philando Castile fit the description for an armed robbery. He lets the officer know he has a weapon and a license for it He reaches for his ID, officer commands him to stop and he gets shot. This isn't recorded so I can only speculate he didn't listen to the order and carried on regardless. Officer is audibly upset over the shooting.
According to this he was pulled over many times
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3679678/Man-shooting-death-hand-cop-streamed-live-pulled-31-times-charged-63-times-officers-near-home.html
Now perhaps he became completely casual about the whole interaction with police at traffic stops and didn't treat the situation with the seriousness it required.0 -
Imnotthehulk wrote: »That's not true though. You can say anything you want about a black, jewish, whatever person and not be racist/anti-semitic/etc.
If you want to say that Barack Obama is a terrible president, nobody's gonna consider you racist. If you want to suggest that Woody Allen might be a pervert for hooking up with the step daughter of his decade long partner, then nobody's gonna start thinking your an anti-semite.
It's generally when you mock, attack, or confront someone because of their ethnicity that you are considered racist, etc.
If you're worried that political correctness is curtailing anything you have to say about a black person, it might just be because what you have to say is actually racist.
I don't think so.
I myself have been in a situation where I've been accused of being a racist, in the work place.
Went to HR etc many moons ago.
I was dishing out work to my team. I had 2 indian guys and a nigerian guy on the team.
I gave a big project (that everyone wanted to work on) to the most experienced guy which was one of the Indians. I was then accused by the nigerian guy of being a racist. Becuase "I never gave him good jobs to do". The fact is though, that any work I gave him to do was always half done or done incorrectly.
Serious pain in the hole, destroyed any chance I had of moving up a bit in the organisation that year.
Similarly, A guy I worked with was accused of being Racist because he gave a Nigerian guy a low score in his yearly review. Again, went to HR etc. He got the low review becuase he wasn't doing his job. The review affects your bonus, so clearly your man wasn't happy about the low score so decided to play the "Racist Card" <- That's a disgusting term by the way, I apologise for using it.
That same guy accused the CEO of the organisation (An organisation of 80,000+ employee's) of being racist because he said Nigeria was a Crazy/Dangerous place.
In the end the CEO apologised so as not to make a scene.
It's that kinda crap that I'm talking about.
Ya put one foot out of line and you have to deal with the above.
Niether of the 3 things above were racist but all had to be investigated / dealt with.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »You keep using the word "understandable" as if it means "acceptable". Yes stereotyping is not only understandable, but also understood. It is understood as an irrational tendency of humans, and it is understood to be something we can override.
So what? Why does it matter that this response would be "understandable"? What is the relevance of that statement?
What are you basing that assumption on? The fact that they're outraged that the people supposed to protect them are succumbing to fear and killing them instead? You seem to think "understandable" is a good excuse for behaviour, I'd call that outrage "understandable" too. Now what?
So stereotyping is bad. But BLM blaming (stereotyping) all white cops for shooting blacks is grand?? Because that's exactly what they are doing.0 -
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »But we all know these protest aren't about changing how American Cops are trained.
What is their goal then?
I think it's clear that the protests are about bringing pressure to bear to trigger change. Thought leaders in the community can inform the direction of that change and it will be the responsibility of policymakers, lawmakers etc. to consider that leadership and action it.Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »Only people in law enforcement in america can have any influence on that.
Where are these ideas coming from? America is a democracy, albeit an imperfect one. Laws are changed by the people via many different avenues, peaceful protest and civil disobedience being established, proven methods.Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »There is a complete lack of understanding on behalf of these protesters as they've never been in situations like these cops are in and so don't have any understanding of how they would react in a similar situation.
How do you know the protesters don't understand? Are you inferring that from their refusal to accept it? Once again, understanding something is not the same thing as accepting it. Racism is understandable but unacceptable. This argument you are unable to let go of is completely without merit.0 -
Advertisement
-
weldoninhio wrote: »So stereotyping is bad. But BLM blaming (stereotyping) all white cops for shooting blacks is grand?? Because that's exactly what they are doing.
Firstly, I haven't seen such claims made, so perhaps you could show me some quotes where the leadership of BLM blame all white police?
Second, generalising about a group of people unified only by skin colour and who have no particular unified function is very different to generalising about a group of people unified by a common training regimen and rigid set of guidelines for behaviour who have the intentional function of using force- sometimes lethal- against people outside of their group.
I'm sorry but BLM cannot be accused of hypocrisy on this point and even if they could, it would not make their claims about racism in the police (be they ultimately founded or not) any less valid.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »What is their goal then?
I think it's clear that the protests are about bringing pressure to bear to trigger change. Thought leaders in the community can inform the direction of that change and it will be the responsibility of policymakers, lawmakers etc. to consider that leadership and action it.
Where are these ideas coming from? America is a democracy, albeit an imperfect one. Laws are changed by the people via many different avenues, peaceful protest and civil disobedience being established, proven methods.
How do you know the protesters don't understand? Are you inferring that from their refusal to accept it? Once again, understanding something is not the same thing as accepting it. Racism is understandable but unacceptable. This argument you are unable to let go of is completely without merit.
A group of people in Ireland protesting is not going to change anything in America.They don't give a sh1te what any other country thinks of them.
The protesters are refusing to accept that mistakes unfortunately can happen and until they are in the situation these cops are put in constantly then they can't fully understand how a person would react in a dangerous situation like being a cop is.0 -
If it were really a movement that valued Black Lives and was dedicated to preserving them they would focus their efforts on reducing the violent crime and murders perpetrated by blacks on other black people.
More than 60 shot in Chicago alone for July 4th weekend.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/07/05/more-than-60-shot-chicago-over-july-4th-weekend/86707218/
Not a peep from them about that. That would require self reflection and looking at who the problem really is.
Could it not equally be said that BLM should concern themselves with preventable disease deaths, poverty and inter-tribal violence, in continental Africa? Or the actions of LRA, Boko Haram etc. Because they chose the name "Black Lives Matter", are they obliged to concern themselves with every black life at risk from every possible threat?
How many more important goals must they address before they have your permission to address the apparently lesser matter of police violence against their community?
Just because the movement called themselves Black Lives Matter doesn't mean their remit is open to external interpretation. They're still entitled to set their own agenda themselves, and I don't think it could be said they've been unclear about that agenda.
The only fragment of an argument you can salvage here is that BLM needs a more specific name that reduces misinterpretation, but even there I think there's been rampant wilful misinterpretation of that phrase "black lives matter".
Will we ask Aware to rename themselves as they don't promote arbitrary kinds of awareness that we demand of them? Will we attack the Migrant Rights Centre in Ireland for failing to discuss migration between the west of Ireland and Dublin or East Asian migration into Australia?
All of these groups set themselves well-defined remits and tend to stick to them in order to avoid losing focus. That's their right, and it is very sensible.However they prefer to concentrate on law enforcement dealing with violent thugs because they really don't care about black lives. Their goal is to attack white society, attack law & order and extract wealth with their absurd list of demands.
You got all of that from their reluctance to move outside of the remit they were founded to address? You reveal your own motives.I strongly disagree.
As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. I speak as a biologist when I say that "race" has no useful meaning in the biology of humans. It is not used to differentiate between groups of humans in the literature because it has no clear definition and allows us to make no useful predictions about biology, psychology or indeed anything at all.
It's an occasionally useful social construct, though even that is questionable.It's what the reality is. Jews self identify as a distinct group with a very strong ingroup preference.
"Group" is not the same as race, neither is culture or cultural identity.Also, yes my identity as Irish is important and has meaning to me.
Irish and Jewish and not mutually exclusive identities and neither are Irish and black mutually exclusive. Or indeed all three.0 -
-
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »A group of people in Ireland protesting is not going to change anything in America.They don't give a sh1te what any other country thinks of them.
Let's see now, how many times have you shifted the goalposts?- The protesters don't understand the causes of police actions
- The protests aren't aimed at actioning useful changes
- Protests don't lead to useful changes
- Solidarity protests in other countries don't lead to useful changes
Solidarity protests in other countries work to action changes in at least 3 ways I can think of off the top of my head:
First, if in the target country (e.g. USA) there's an expat community (e.g. Irish Americans) originating from the solidarity country (e.g. Ireland), solidarity protest may act to engage the expat community and encourage them to exert political pressure in the target country.
Second, the native movement in the target country (e.g. BLM) may also be encouraged by the show of support and will gain a morale boost and a sense of greater legitmacy, allowing them to gain membership and exert stronger political influence themselves.
Finally, the solidarity movement will exert political influence on the solidarity country's government (e.g. the Irish government), encouraging government-to-government political pressure.
To this, you can revert to your general argument that nothing works and nothing changes and nobody cares, but history says otherwise. And, while activism is not guaranteed to be effective, your attitude is guaranteed to be ineffective, and most people would agree that trying and failing is better than not trying.Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »The protesters are refusing to accept that mistakes unfortunately can happen and until they are in the situation these cops are put in constantly then they can't fully understand how a person would react in a dangerous situation like being a cop is.
Again, how are they refusing to accept that? By obstinately refusing to accept that things cannot change? How dare they.0 -
-
AtomicHorror wrote: »Let's see now, how many times have you shifted the goalposts?
- The protesters don't understand the causes of police actions
- The protests aren't aimed at actioning useful changes
- Protests don't lead to useful changes
- Solidarity protests in other countries don't lead to useful changes
Solidarity protests in other countries work to action changes in at least 3 ways I can think of off the top of my head:
First, if in the target country (e.g. USA) there's an expat community (e.g. Irish Americans) originating from the solidarity country (e.g. Ireland), solidarity protest may act to engage the expat community and encourage them to exert political pressure in the target country.
Second, the native movement in the target country (e.g. BLM) may also be encouraged by the show of support and will gain a morale boost and a sense of greater legitmacy, allowing them to gain membership and exert stronger political influence themselves.
Finally, the solidarity movement will exert political influence on the solidarity country's government (e.g. the Irish government), encouraging government-to-government political pressure.
To this, you can revert to your general argument that nothing works and nothing changes and nobody cares, but history says otherwise. And, while activism is not guaranteed to be effective, your attitude is guaranteed to be ineffective, and most people would agree that trying and failing is better than not trying.
Again, how are they refusing to accept that? By obstinately refusing to accept that things cannot change? How dare they.
A protest by people in Ireland will make no difference to anything in the USA.The USA don't give 2 ****s about anything that happens in this country.
Your suggestion that the Irish government can somehow put pressure on the US government is hilarious.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »That canard has been addressed so many times at this stage that your misunderstanding of it can only be deliberate.
Care to explain..0 -
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »A protest by people in Ireland will make no difference to anything in the USA.The USA don't give 2 ****s about anything that happens in this country.
You already said that, I gave reasons why that isn't true and you're not offering anything new here.Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »Your suggestion that the Irish government can somehow put pressure on the US government is hilarious.
So, your counter argument is just a flat, unqualified denial?
The Irish government and people are influential over the Irish-American community. A group of about 30 million voters. We can argue over the extent of our influence over that group, but it's absolutely not zero. We can argue over the value of that voter group to American politicians, but it's also not zero.
It is obvious to me that the Irish government exerts some political influence over the US government, however small. Tapping that influence to promote another cause has value.
Repeatedly stating that this is not true without giving some rationale or evidence is not going to convince me.0 -
Care to explain..
Not really. If you can't be bothered to know your subject before commenting, I have no motive to make the effort to counter.
Do your own legwork:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/23/all-lives-matter-racist-trump-weekend-campaign-rally-proved-it
http://blacklivesmatter.com/11-major-misconceptions-about-the-black-lives-matter-movement/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bedrick/whats-the-matter-with-all-lives-matter_b_7922482.html (see particularly point 3)0 -
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement