Occupy the Interstate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-07-2016, 12:37 PM
RE: Occupy the Interstate
(13-07-2016 12:21 PM)Anjele Wrote:  There was some back and forth on Facebook yesterday that I saw because I am mutual friends with the people having the discussion.

The main two people involved in this discussion are black men living in South Carolina.

One made a point that I found interesting. They were discussing the hypocrisy of BLM based on the fact that they aren't also protesting black on black murder. Basically they were saying that you can't be publicly outraged by the killing of black men by white cops if you aren't at least equally publically outraged by the killing of black civilians by other black civilians. Made me pause a bit when I read their comments. Consider

Not a fair comparison. First off, BLM was outraged in Freddie Gray's death in Baltimore where black cops were involved. They're talking about the excessive of force used by police against the darkies regardless of the race of the officer. Second, Tupac and Biggie Smalls are orthogonal to their agenda. Citizen-on-citizen shootings are not part of their agenda.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
13-07-2016, 12:41 PM
RE: Occupy the Interstate
(13-07-2016 12:37 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(13-07-2016 12:21 PM)Anjele Wrote:  There was some back and forth on Facebook yesterday that I saw because I am mutual friends with the people having the discussion.

The main two people involved in this discussion are black men living in South Carolina.

One made a point that I found interesting. They were discussing the hypocrisy of BLM based on the fact that they aren't also protesting black on black murder. Basically they were saying that you can't be publicly outraged by the killing of black men by white cops if you aren't at least equally publically outraged by the killing of black civilians by other black civilians. Made me pause a bit when I read their comments. Consider

Not a fair comparison. First off, BLM was outraged in Freddie Gray's death in Baltimore where black cops were involved. They're talking about excessive police force regardless of the race of the officer. Second, Tupac and Biggie Smalls are orthogonal to their agenda. Citizen-on-citizen shootings are not part of their agenda.

If Black Lives Matter...shouldn't they matter to everyone? I think that was the point of the discussion I was following. It's okay if we kill each other but not okay if someone outside of our group does it. That was my take away. That was the way it was presented.

Just mentioning a conversation that was mostly between black men.

Anecdotal, just looking at things from a different perspective.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2016, 02:08 PM
RE: Occupy the Interstate
(13-07-2016 12:41 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(13-07-2016 12:37 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Not a fair comparison. First off, BLM was outraged in Freddie Gray's death in Baltimore where black cops were involved. They're talking about excessive police force regardless of the race of the officer. Second, Tupac and Biggie Smalls are orthogonal to their agenda. Citizen-on-citizen shootings are not part of their agenda.

If Black Lives Matter...shouldn't they matter to everyone? I think that was the point of the discussion I was following. It's okay if we kill each other but not okay if someone outside of our group does it. That was my take away. That was the way it was presented.

Just mentioning a conversation that was mostly between black men.

Anecdotal, just looking at things from a different perspective.

There's nothing wrong with that and black-on-black violence is a topic worth discussing but it is beyond the scope of BLM's charter.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
13-07-2016, 03:31 PM
RE: Occupy the Interstate
(13-07-2016 02:08 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  There's nothing wrong with that and black-on-black violence is a topic worth discussing but it is beyond the scope of BLM's charter.

Precisely. It's like saying I can't protest against US military/foreign policy until I stop all violent crime in my own neighborhood, or that I can't argue against our economic policies which permit businesses to pollute the land (for a fine that doesn't even cover the profit margin they're making by doing so) until I've gotten everyone to join recycling programs and cleared the landfills made by my own city.

Yes, they're all important issues... but one is a protest against the nation's policy and approach to an issue, while the other is a personal or social issue. They are not analogous, and it is not required that we solve one in order to have standing to argue about the other. It is a distraction, a red herring, to state otherwise, even if the issues are linked (as above).

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
13-07-2016, 03:37 PM
RE: Occupy the Interstate
(13-07-2016 03:31 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(13-07-2016 02:08 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  There's nothing wrong with that and black-on-black violence is a topic worth discussing but it is beyond the scope of BLM's charter.

Precisely. It's like saying I can't protest against US military/foreign policy until I stop all violent crime in my own neighborhood, or that I can't argue against our economic policies which permit businesses to pollute the land (for a fine that doesn't even cover the profit margin they're making by doing so) until I've gotten everyone to join recycling programs and cleared the landfills made by my own city.

Yes, they're all important issues... but one is a protest against the nation's policy and approach to an issue, while the other is a personal or social issue. They are not analogous, and it is not required that we solve one in order to have standing to argue about the other. It is a distraction, a red herring, to state otherwise, even if the issues are linked (as above).

Just saying it was a conversation among black men that I was following. They weren't really supporting BLM, I found that interesting. Nowhere am I taking a stance on this.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
13-07-2016, 03:41 PM
RE: Occupy the Interstate
Sorry, Anjele... I did not mean to imply that you were.

However, when I hear "All Lives Matter" or "Black-on-Black Crime" arguments, all I'm hearing is a deflection or distraction from the issue actually being raised by the BLM people.

I am particularly fond of this analogy:

GeekAesthete Wrote:Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment -- indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any!
The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share", which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.
That's the situation of the "black lives matter" movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.
The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn't work the way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn't want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That's not made up out of whole cloth -- there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it's generally not considered "news", while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate -- young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don't treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don't pay as much attention to certain people's deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don't treat all lives as though they matter equally.
Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase "black lives matter" also has an implicit "too" at the end: it's saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying "all lives matter" is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It's a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means "only black lives matter," when that is obviously not the case. And so saying "all lives matter" as a direct response to "black lives matter" is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.
TL;DR: The phrase "Black lives matter" carries an implicit "too" at the end; it's saying that black lives should also matter. Saying "all lives matter" is dismissing the very problems that the phrase is trying to draw attention to.

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfi...eone_says/

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
13-07-2016, 07:19 PM
RE: Occupy the Interstate
Quote:Fair enough -- you're right that they're represented disproportionately (though the DoJ info I linked to above says 23% and not 30% for all crime).

No your source does specifically say it's violent crime. And besides, my source is the FBI government site. It doesn't matter anyway, I'm not here to argue validity of sources, the point is, and we both agree, black crime is disproportionate to black population.

Quote:Once again, I didn't say there is a "pandemic" of racist police officers.

Yea I know. I'm referring the the mass protests going on. With that level of 'outrage' you'd expect a 'pandemic' of police violence against blacks.

Quote:I'm not even saying that profiling is prima facie evidence of racism on the part of the officer, although it certainly could be. What I'm saying is that profiling is widespread, and it results in stops initiated upon blacks who are doing nothing at all wrong, which do occasionally go south.

I can somewhat relate to this because I do security at work as I'm basically paid to profile people as they come in and decide who to watch and who not to watch.
Because like 90% of shoplifting is done by Maori's, we do tend to favor watching suspicious Maori's over white people. That's not to say we don't watch white people though. (for example, we currently have an old (like, 80's) white lady on our watchlist because we suspect her of stealing makeup the cheeky bitch and the last 3 people we trespassed for shoplifting attempts were white kids)

I don't think it's racist, I think it's that we're a big retail store and we have 2 security personnel on at a time, of which only 1 is watching cameras at a given time. So you have 1 person watching the whole store, that 1 person can't watch EVERY single person. Especially how quick shoplifting can be. So you need to profile and pick who you're gonna be keeping an eye out for and who you can safely ignore.

Yea, we get it wrong all the time. Obviously not everyone that comes into the store is gonna shoplift, or that everyone we ignore doesn't shoplift. But it does work and it's the best way to go about it with resources given.

This is obviously a far less intrusive form of profiling compared to Police action, but I think the principle is the same. It's about minimizing who you're "policing" in order to greater your chances of catching the bad guy. So I don't think you can't rid Police of profiling all together, what you need to focus on is Police behavior when people are pulled over or you need to be looking into if certain Police officers are disproportionately stopping black people. That sort of thing.
Umm how to word this better? You can't, and probably shouldn't, stop it. But if it is causing this level of issue, than obviously you (the Police) need to go about it differently and with more sensitivity and awareness.

Quote:Black culture doesn't glorify violence. American culture does.

Yea, but I think black culture more so.

Quote:They want the same opportunity I have to get ahead in life. They largely don't have that, currently.

How so? They have the same rights as everyone else. They have access to education. What's holding them back (well, the poor ones anyway and this relates to all poor people not just black people but it is primarily black people), and I can speak from experience here being surrounded by poor people my whole life, is this attitude that they can't do better, very poor financial spending (though this is worse in the States because your guys minimum wage is so god awful), accepting that gangs are just apart of life, and that sitting on welfare is acceptable.

I truly think this is a big difference between middle class and poor class people.
Middle class people get an education, they're reasonable with money, they have a game plan. They wanna be a doctor? They get the education, they go to university and they become a doctor. Poor people on the other hand get a local job, spend all their money on Friday night drinks or cigarettes, might get knocked at a young age. They don't plan ahead, they don't set goals. It's like a sub-cultural thing. There's like a poor culture and a middle class culture. I don't think poor people truly understand middle class people and vise versa. Poor people no doubt have a far harder time of it, it may take them longer to get to where they dream of, but if they do get there they're far better people IMO than people who were born and raised middle class, because they understand both groups and have the best of both groups. But even though poor people have so alot more that stands in their way, they have this mindset that they're not willing to overcome those hurdles. They'd rather bitch and moan and expect the middle or rich classes to knock the hurdles down for them, but that's never gonna happen. That's the entitlement I'm talking.
I dunno, it's really hard to explain.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
13-07-2016, 11:38 PM (This post was last modified: 13-07-2016 11:43 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Occupy the Interstate
(13-07-2016 03:41 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Sorry, Anjele... I did not mean to imply that you were.

However, when I hear "All Lives Matter" or "Black-on-Black Crime" arguments, all I'm hearing is a deflection or distraction from the issue actually being raised by the BLM people.

It can be a deflection, but it isn't necessarily so. I think the policing attitudes towards blacks and the black-on-black crime statistics are intimately intertwined, insofar as some officers are comfortable not following up on justice due to the race of those involved ... and then vigilantism stepping in.

Or as another response, how many times do we see gangbangers refusing to throw rat on someone wearing the other colors? BoB crime, just as much as police killings of blacks, is complex. Raising the issue may or may not be a distraction. Sometimes your interlocutor wants to deflect attention from our country's power-structure; sometimes your interlocutor simply wants to save lives.

(13-07-2016 07:19 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  No your source does specifically say it's violent crime. And besides, my source is the FBI government site. It doesn't matter anyway, I'm not here to argue validity of sources, the point is, and we both agree, black crime is disproportionate to black population.

The DoJ is the parent department of the FBI; the FBI reports to them.

As for racial disproportionality in crime, I highly doubt skin color is the largest direct factor. How blacks are treated, on the other hand ... well, I think that's where you're going to hook the fish.

(13-07-2016 07:19 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I can somewhat relate to this because I do security at work as I'm basically paid to profile people as they come in and decide who to watch and who not to watch.
Because like 90% of shoplifting is done by Maori's, we do tend to favor watching suspicious Maori's over white people. That's not to say we don't watch white people though. (for example, we currently have an old (like, 80's) white lady on our watchlist because we suspect her of stealing makeup the cheeky bitch and the last 3 people we trespassed for shoplifting attempts were white kids)

I don't think it's racist, I think it's that we're a big retail store and we have 2 security personnel on at a time, of which only 1 is watching cameras at a given time. So you have 1 person watching the whole store, that 1 person can't watch EVERY single person. Especially how quick shoplifting can be. So you need to profile and pick who you're gonna be keeping an eye out for and who you can safely ignore.

Yea, we get it wrong all the time. Obviously not everyone that comes into the store is gonna shoplift, or that everyone we ignore doesn't shoplift. But it does work and it's the best way to go about it with resources given.

This is obviously a far less intrusive form of profiling compared to Police action, but I think the principle is the same. It's about minimizing who you're "policing" in order to greater your chances of catching the bad guy. So I don't think you can't rid Police of profiling all together, what you need to focus on is Police behavior when people are pulled over or you need to be looking into if certain Police officers are disproportionately stopping black people. That sort of thing.
Umm how to word this better? You can't, and probably shouldn't, stop it. But if it is causing this level of issue, than obviously you (the Police) need to go about it differently and with more sensitivity and awareness.

I get profiling on that level. As park staff at a nature preserve, patrolling to prevent rules-breakers from fucking up the habitat, I would "read" people -- and let's not gild the lily, that's simply another way of saying "profiling" -- in order to narrow my search-zone and maximize my efficiency. However, I didn't actually instigate an encounter until I observed a rule being broken, and I sure as Hell didn't instigate an encounter simply because this or that deomgraphic tended to have a higher proportion of unruliness.

I'm not arguing that all profiling is bad. I'm arguing that profiling on the basis of melanin content is bad, for society at large. It engenders mistrust in the judicial system.

(13-07-2016 07:19 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Black culture doesn't glorify violence. American culture does.

Yea, but I think black culture more so.

Hollywood was recently the subject of a boycott at its Academy Awards show due to no blacks being represented as contenders for the big awards -- yet that same source of American "culture" is regularly castigated for its violence.

(13-07-2016 07:19 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  How so? They have the same rights as everyone else. They have access to education. What's holding them back (well, the poor ones anyway and this relates to all poor people not just black people but it is primarily black people), and I can speak from experience here being surrounded by poor people my whole life, is this attitude that they can't do better, very poor financial spending (though this is worse in the States because your guys minimum wage is so god awful), accepting that gangs are just apart of life, and that sitting on welfare is acceptable.

There's a difference between de jure and de facto. Here in America, blacks are denied access to better housing (which, because of the way our school financing is structured, means that their children are denied access to better schools). Blacks are passed over for jobs for which they're qualified. Blacks have the same rights under the law, but that doesn't mean that those rights are actually honored, and because they often don't have the money to hire a lawyer, blacks often don't have any redress for those violations.

The real world doesn't bow to paper rights, sadly.

(13-07-2016 07:19 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I truly think this is a big difference between middle class and poor class people.
Middle class people get an education, they're reasonable with money, they have a game plan. They wanna be a doctor? They get the education, they go to university and they become a doctor. Poor people on the other hand get a local job, spend all their money on Friday night drinks or cigarettes, might get knocked at a young age. They don't plan ahead, they don't set goals. It's like a sub-cultural thing. There's like a poor culture and a middle class culture. I don't think poor people truly understand middle class people and vise versa. Poor people no doubt have a far harder time of it, it may take them longer to get to where they dream of, but if they do get there they're far better people IMO than people who were born and raised middle class, because they understand both groups and have the best of both groups. But even though poor people have so alot more that stands in their way, they have this mindset that they're not willing to overcome those hurdles. They'd rather bitch and moan and expect the middle or rich classes to knock the hurdles down for them, but that's never gonna happen. That's the entitlement I'm talking.
I dunno, it's really hard to explain.

I know what you're saying -- it's the "fuck it, I'm screwed, may as well enjoy the ride down" attitude. I've seen it myself in the shithole neighborhoods I've lived in over the years, with their drug corners and drive-bys and gang injunctions.

But my point is -- and remains -- the police in America come into contact with blacks more often not only because blacks have a disproportionately high crime rate, but because police here have a mentality that sees non-white folk as inherently more dangerous, and stop them for shit that wouldn't get the nod if it were a white person.

Your experience is different, and I cannot argue it; yours is a different country with a different history. The same is true with my experience in my country, with regards to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
14-07-2016, 09:23 AM
RE: Occupy the Interstate
To summarize how I understand Thumpalumpucus.

Profiling is fine. But it is a wrong outcome when you conflate most crimes are committed by demographicA with most of demographicA commits crimes. Instead of most crimes are committed by criminals. You can racially profile without being a racist.

Good profiling is how you end up with this kind of situation. This is how I perceive most cops on the basis of my own personal experience.





Next time the officer shows up to sort out a real problem

1) he is more likely to have support from the community
2) he is less likely to be in danger and thus fear for his life
3) he is more likely to have an uneventful day at the office

Contrast with other outcomes if he walks into the situation, weapon drawn. Hand on the trigger. Screaming like a drill sergeant. Backup sirens screaming in the neighborhood. That happens, only if you assume, merely belong to that demographic is enough probable cause.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like tomilay's post
14-07-2016, 11:24 AM
RE: Occupy the Interstate
Stop calling us up on the phone complaining about blocked roads.


It's not us....


Signed

The Bureau of Land Management
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: