BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

Tell me how

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Stop pretending I think BLM and the Nazis are something equivalent.

My point was your logic is it's fine to support an insane organisation as long as you ignore their bad points.

That's a horrid position to take.

Why do you think the BLM movement deserves to be identified as an insane organisation?

Can you name a similar movement in terms of public support, widespread agreement with their ideals which you would not see as an insane organisation?

Foxtrol

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Stop pretending I think BLM and the Nazis are something equivalent.

My point was your logic is it's fine to support an insane organisation as long as you ignore their bad points.

That's a horrid position to take.

If you don't think they're equivalent then WTF are you doing bringing them into a discussion?

A horrid position to take is to fall into Godwin's law and drag Nazi's into the conversation, when it is completely inappropriate and makes your point seem ridiculous.

OMM 0000

Foxtrol wrote: »

If you don't think they're equivalent then WTF are you doing bringing them into a discussion?

You'll say anything to avoid admitting you're wrong or learning something.

Let me use a different organisation so.

It's OK to support ISIS as long as you ignore their bad points.

Do you see how stupid your logic is?

Just come out and admit you think it's OK to lie, threaten and use violence to gain money and power.

Foxtrol

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You'll say anything to avoid admitting you're wrong or learning something.

Let me use a different organisation so.

It's OK to support ISIS as long as you ignore their bad points.

Do you see how stupid your logic is?

Just come out and admit you think it's OK to lie, threaten and use violence to gain money and power.

So we've moved on from comparing BLM to Nazi's to comparing them to ISIS... :rolleyes:

You better hide in that bunker before the big bad BLM come to get you...

AbusesToilets

Foxtrol wrote: »

So you agree, people pointed that was an issue impacting black people and you asked 'what about white people'.

Well no, the point was that I don't agree with the idea that law enforcement is systemically racist against black people. Something you seemingly missed, repeatedly.

A quick google will show you're talking nonsense.

99% of officers are never charged with a crime and even when they are a tiny fraction are convicted. All cops have to do is say they were feeling threatened and unless there is videotape proving otherwise they get off. For the Floyd death, all the cops lied about the situation initially and without the tape there is no chance they'd have been charged

Taking civil cases is then nearly impossible due to qualified immunity. If you feel officers can be held accountable with qualified immunity in place, do you want to roll it out to the rest of the public?

Perhaps that's because no crime was found to have committed. Is that not within the bounds of an acceptable outcome. Overlooking your obviously spurious statistic there, how many of the 1000 or so fatal police shootings are you expecting to be murder? From the tenor of your posts, it comes across as you feel that it happens frequently.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-its-still-so-rare-for-police-officers-to-face-legal-consequences-for-misconduct/

The article goes into some of the details surrounding the issue.

From the article

Updating this data is difficult and time-consuming, but Stinson was able to send us more recent data for prosecutions resulting from on-duty police shootings, since those are rarer and easier to track. That doesn’t include police killings that aren’t shootings, but Stinson told us that prosecutions for deaths like Floyd’s are especially rare. In fact, Stinson has found only 110 law enforcement officers nationwide1 have been charged with murder or manslaughter in an on-duty shooting — despite the fact that around around 1,000 people are fatally shot by police annually, according to a database maintained by The Washington Post. Furthermore, only 42 officers were convicted. Fifty were not and 18 cases are still pending. And as the table below shows, many of these convictions ended up being for a lesser offense — only five of these officers were convicted of murder (and did not have that conviction overturned).

...

Why are police prosecutions still so rare? In the last few years, many cities have pledged to reform their police departments, and progressive prosecutors have even won on promises to hold police accountable for misconduct. But Kate Levine, a professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law who studies police prosecutions, told us that not all misconduct — including use of excessive or even fatal force — is illegal. “If a civilian is displaying a weapon, it’s very hard to charge [the police officer] with murder for taking action against that civilian,” she said. “And even if a civilian doesn’t have a weapon, it’s hard to charge a police officer if [the officer] can credibly say they feared for their life.”

Don't support or give money to the organization then.

Again, there are hundreds or thousands of groups that use the term BLM. They seem to be calling for the same thing you want. Rather than allying yourself with them to get the goals you want you'd rather not achieve them because you don't like them.

Again, not at all an accurate reflection of what I stated. Why do you see them as the only vector for achieving reform? To use your previous analogy of the North during the Troubles, would you find fault with someone who desired the goal of social reforms but didn't support the IRA or Sinn Fein? Which, before you strawman that statement, isn't an allusion to my feeling BLM are an equivalent terrorist organisation to the Provos.

Mr. Karate

You know people are sick of your **** when the notorious gang The Crips are kicking your ass

https://redrightdaily.com/watch-even-street-gangs-are-fed-up-crips-gang-members-kick-antifa-out-of-long-beach/

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Well no, the point was that I don't agree with the idea that law enforcement is systemically racist against black people. Something you seemingly missed, repeatedly.

But how you communicated it was through saying 'what about white people'.

Perhaps that's because no crime was found to have committed. Is that not within the bounds of an acceptable outcome. Overlooking your obviously spurious statistic there, how many of the 1000 or so fatal police shootings are you expecting to be murder? From the tenor of your posts, it comes across as you feel that it happens frequently.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-its-still-so-rare-for-police-officers-to-face-legal-consequences-for-misconduct/

The article goes into some of the details surrounding the issue.

That article makes my point for me. The way the laws are currently written means that it is nearly impossible to hold police officers accountable once they can claim they were in fear for their life. They don't have to prove they tried to deescalate the situation, they don't have to prove there was imminent danger to their life, only that they feared it.

That is the kind of rule that lets a cop, who lied about why he was fired by another police force, drive up and within 2 seconds of arrival kill a 12 year old boy because he was playing with a toy gun in a park.

Again, not at all an accurate reflection of what I stated. Why do you see them as the only vector for achieving reform? To use your previous analogy of the North during the Troubles, would you find fault with someone who desired the goal of social reforms but didn't support the IRA or Sinn Fein? Which, before you strawman that statement, isn't an allusion to my feeling BLM are an equivalent terrorist organisation to the Provos.

What you're doing is claiming you're supporting social reforms but spending your whole time attacking SF/IRA and claiming their perspective on the problems is wrong. You'd be sitting there rejecting the social benefits of the Good Friday Agreement because SF/IRA were involved in the development.

briany

There's a lot of chat going on here about how BLM is this or that, be it black supremacist, or marxist, or in it for the money or whatever else criticism you want to level at them.

Leaving aside the case that BLM was a slogan and a sentiment before it was any one organisation, or leaving aside the case that it could be comprised of any number of groups of individuals who have different motives and agendas, I'd just like to ask if there are any organisations ye think should be given the spotlight in this period of renewed debate on the standing of black people in American society or even, indeed, western society at large. Because if one is to say that BLM are a load of charlatans without offering any alternative to them, then the opinion seems to be that there's really no validity to the current protest movement in general, and that black people really have no cause for qualm. And I'm not saying that is an opinion not allowed to be held as this should be a forum of debate as long as it's civil, but I don't think it should be couched entirely in the statement that BLM are crooks, because you could have black people themselves who feel there's some injustice going on but don't like how BLM, as an organisation and evolving movement, operates. Saying something is wrong and offering an alternative is more constructive.

JL555

briany wrote: »

Saying something is wrong and offering an alternative is more constructive.

How about starting with stop being a victim? I could elaborate quite extensively, but suffice it to say the moment you can truly ask yourself why? and honestly answer is the moment when you realise you no longer need to be imprisoned in fear.

Richard Hillman

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1278427150518009858?s=19

BBC have dropped them. They were still giving it the large one on Sky Sports earlier. Although it does seem to be getting a bit of backlash from presenters.

Quantum Erasure

It's hard to know with this virtue signalling, what should be banned, and what should be mandatory

The BBC has told its presenters and guests not to wear Black Lives Matter badges as the campaign was accused of “hijacking” George Floyd’s death for political reasons.

Bosses at the corporation have decided not to allow “visual symbols of support” for Black Lives Matter to be worn on screen, senior sources told The Telegraph.

The BBC’s stance is at odds with other broadcasters including Sky who have displayed BLM hashtags between programmes and encouraged presenters to wear badges of support....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/01/exclusive-bbc-bans-black-lives-matters-badges-air/

begbysback

MLM - My Life Matters

Tell me how

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

It's hard to know with this virtue signalling, what should be banned, and what should be mandatory

Can you explain how you view anyone advocating for rights on behalf of someone else is virtue signalling?

Do you ever do a selfless task?

OMM 0000

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you explain how you view anyone advocating for rights on behalf of someone else is virtue signalling?

Do you ever do a selfless task?

Stop baiting him. You're turning the conversation toxic.

Richard Hillman

https://www.skygroup.sky/en-gb/article/sky-sports-statement

Now Sky have dropped them. Not that they would admit it but it would be interesting to see if they donated money to the group.

AbusesToilets

Foxtrol wrote: »

But how you communicated it was through saying 'what about white people'.

Yes, and? Is mentioning white somehow akin to saying Voldemorts name? You, for the umpteenth time, have deflected with this nonsense.

That article makes my point for me. The way the laws are currently written means that it is nearly impossible to hold police officers accountable once they can claim they were in fear for their life. They don't have to prove they tried to deescalate the situation, they don't have to prove there was imminent danger to their life, only that they feared it.

That is the kind of rule that lets a cop, who lied about why he was fired by another police force, drive up and within 2 seconds of arrival kill a 12 year old boy because he was playing with a toy gun in a park.

That's not an accurate reflection of the article imo. It speaks about aspects like qualified immunity, which I agree is wrong and should be removed. It also speaks to the reality of police officers being put in life or death situations constantly.

As was mentioned in the Sam Harris piece from pages back, the vast majority of the 1000~ fatal shootings per year are justified. The fact you see the lack of prosecutions as evidence of a corrupt system versus the police being in the right to me shows your bias on the matter.

What you're doing is claiming you're supporting social reforms but spending your whole time attacking SF/IRA and claiming their perspective on the problems is wrong. You'd be sitting there rejecting the social benefits of the Good Friday Agreement because SF/IRA were involved in the development.

You're really reaching with this one. What brought about the GFA, was it perhaps the IRAs renouncement of violence? The very thing that lead many to reject them. It was John Hume and David Trimble, leaders of peaceful political parties, who received recognition and plaudits, not Gerry Adams.

Quantum Erasure

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you explain how you view anyone advocating for rights on behalf of someone else is virtue signalling?

Do you ever do a selfless task?

It's the making things mandatory, or outright banning of any show of support, that is virtue signalling. I'm amused by the whole thing

Mr. Karate

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you explain how you view anyone advocating for rights on behalf of someone else is virtue signalling?

Do you ever do a selfless task?

What rights do we have that Blacks and other "people of color" don't?

puppieperson1

Access to money, mortgages, our own homes, education, jobs and less time in prison for the same crimes= better lawyers too. More than likely to play golf with judges barristers doctors surgeons...... we have loads of privileges and i am loathe to give them up.
We live in a white country so we are used to these goodies and we dont really want to share them that is the crux of the issue we are greedy little whites and i make no apology as i worked hard and studied hard for my little perks.

Mr. Karate

puppieperson1 wrote: »

Access to money, mortgages, our own homes, education, jobs.

They have access to that too. Education and jobs is down how much do they really want them.

WrenBoy

puppieperson1 wrote: »

More than likely to play golf with judges barristers doctors surgeons.....

uh huh...

Tell me how

Mr. Karate wrote: »

They have access to that too. Education and jobs is down how much do they really want them.

Wrong

'By the time I finally landed my first job after graduation, it was only part-time and didn’t require a college education. That surely will have a lasting impact on my career in terms of salary and promotion if I had continued to pursue a career path with my degree.'

...........................

A 2014 report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that 55.9 % of employed black recent college graduates were working in an occupation that did not require a four-year college degree compared with 45% of all recent college graduates. Black graduates are also more likely to be underemployed than all graduates across all age levels and across most fields.

Mr. Karate

Tell me how wrote: »

Wrong

I noticed she didn't mention what her degree was in. You can't get a bull**** Liberal Arts, Gender Studies, Women Studies, etc and expect to land an office job in a major company.

Now if you'll excuse I have to break out my sweater vest. Its time for a round of golf with my BFF Biff. He's picking me up in his limo.

That Biff. He's such a character.

puppieperson1

Degree in engineering

Mic 1972

Foxtrol wrote: »

But how you communicated it was through saying 'what about white people'.

That article makes my point for me. The way the laws are currently written means that it is nearly impossible to hold police officers accountable once they can claim they were in fear for their life. They don't have to prove they tried to deescalate the situation, they don't have to prove there was imminent danger to their life, only that they feared it.

The way the law is written is that citizens are supposed to behave according to the law and they are expected to collaborate with the police in case they get stopped or arrested.

For some reason this part of the law is often overlooked

Mr. Karate

Mic 1972 wrote: »

The way the law is written is that citizens are supposed to behave according to the law and they are expected to collaborate with the police in case they get stopped or arrested.

For some reason this part of the law is often overlooked

And as Chris Rock would say. "In other words. Just use common sense."

Tell me how

Mr. Karate wrote: »

I noticed she didn't mention what her degree was in. You can't get a bull**** Liberal Arts, Gender Studies, Women Studies, etc and expect to land an office job in a major company.

Now if you'll excuse I have to break out my sweater vest. Its time for a round of golf with my BFF Biff. He's picking me up in his limo.

That Biff. He's such a character.

Sigh, if only these people had your brains and nous.

What simple mistake have these people working in STEM fields made would you say?

Roughly six-in-ten black STEM workers (62%) say they have experienced any of eight specific forms of racial or ethnic discrimination at work, from earning less than a coworker who performed the same job to experiencing repeated, small slights at work. That compares with 44% of Asians, 42% of Hispanics and just 13% of whites in STEM jobs, according to the survey, which was conducted in the summer of 2017.

Looking forward to your flippant dismissal of their experiences.

Mr. Karate

Tell me how wrote: »

Sigh, if only these people had your brains and nous.

What simple mistake have these people working in STEM fields made would you say?



Looking forward to your flippant dismissal of their experiences.

STEM is the field of true equality. Either you can do the work or you can't. Plus only the best will be hired. They don't care about your race, gender either you can do it or not.

Tell me how

Mr. Karate wrote: »

STEM is the field of true equality. Either you can do the work or you can't. Plus only the best will be hired. They don't care about your race, gender either you can do it or not.

So, if a higher percentage from a particular demographic struggle to get work, I guess that would imply a bias in the hiring process of some sort, or that that particular demographic is implicitly less qualified/demographic.

Care to say which you think it is?

Mr. Karate

Tell me how wrote: »

So, if a higher percentage from a particular demographic struggle to get work, I guess that would imply a bias in the hiring process of some sort, or that that particular demographic is implicitly less qualified/demographic.

Care to say which you think it is?

You can try to spin this as much as you want. It shows that you know nothing about STEM. As I said you either can do the work or you can't. This is a competitive field. The best ones will always get hired.

Someone better than her applied for the same position and company as her and was hired. That's life. It happens. You can't cry victim for everything. The Real World doesn't give 2 ****s about your race, gender, etc. They only care if you can do the job to a high standard or not.