The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Dr David Thork on June 20, 2020, 08:35:11 PM

Title: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 20, 2020, 08:35:11 PM
... presumably ... to someone.

I have to wonder where this movement is going, how effective it is and what it wants? Usually, activists demand something. What BLM want is anyone's guess.

There have been a lot of narcissistic celebs trying to make it all about them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53120390

The lady here claims she was told she couldn't have black skin or have braids. Presumably she has never heard of Beyonce or Tina Turner. Ooooooooorrrrrrr, she's a liar.

Perpetual race-baiter Raheem Sterling has been calling for equality.
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11679/12008283/black-lives-matter-raheem-sterling-leads-powerful-new-anti-racism-campaign-on-social-media

I'd like equality with Raheem Sterling. He earns around £15.6m per year, plays football for a living, is invited to exclusive events and parties that I could never get into, has a garage full of luxury cars, a huge mansion, pays next to zero tax and can spend his money anywhere he likes and no one ever refuses to provide services and goods to him as that would be illegal. But somehow, Raheem is oppressed.  :'(

When I see people from other cultures ripping down statues and monuments from my culture whilst demanding their's is sacrosanct, it doesn't make me like them more. its not healing any racial divide. When they demand I kneel before them, or that their lives matter and seemingly mine doesn't, it doesn't make me think 'yeah, black people are having a rough time'. When I see them martyr a total piece of shit like George Floyd who is a serial offender and held a gun to a pregnant woman ... not really winning me over.

Black Lives Matter doesn't make me want to listen to the 'reasonable demands' of the black community. It makes me realise how many black people hate white people, resent everything about them, believe whites are born with the original sins of colonialism and slave ownership and that they are the problem and the world would be better off with out them. Black people are allowed to be openly racist and yet I don't have equality. I can't say those kinds of things. I don't have black privilege. And then I look at the absolute crap hole that is Africa and realise black people are full of shit.

Black people have every opportunity. No door is closed to them. They are given preferred treatment for jobs as companies desperately try to hire black people into senior positions, often positions they have no business occupying from a qualification/experience standpoint. Grade barriers are lowered to given them extra opportunities in education, at the expense of more talented white people who must miss out on a place to make room.

And yet they demand more. Their's, a community that commits more crime than any other community, then complains it has the highest incarceration rates. Complaining on one hand it has too much knife crime and demands action, and then complains bitterly about racism when that action is searching black people for knives. A community that outside of professional sports, rarely takes any exercise or eats properly, scream racism when it finds itself more susceptible to a global pandemic. Everything is always a white man's fault, and yet they love living in all the countries white people inhabit. They've no intention of going to Africa to live amongst other wonderful black people.

BLM doesn't make white people less racist. It shows us all the worst traits in blacks.

*clears throat in a glorious attempt to prove how unracist I am*
I have spoken to a few of my black friends about BLM. They say its embarrassing. Black people always playing the victim. And they also agreed black people should "leave white people's shit alone unless they want white people banning all the things black people like such as fried chicken and rap music" ... (my black friends have a sense of humour unlike the c*nts from BLM).

So there you have it. Black Lives Matter ... more than yours does. So spaketh the black community.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Lord Dave on June 20, 2020, 09:53:04 PM
Thork: know how we all think you're terrible?
Well, you have all the same rights as anyone else here.  We just smack your ass down faster than others because everyone knows your terrible. 

Thats what it means to be black in America.  Legally you're equal.  Doesn't mean we gotta treat you equally.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 20, 2020, 10:31:49 PM
Everyone in America knows black people are terrible and that's why they get treated worse.

Thank you, resident nutter. Any sane people with a view?
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: ChrisTP on June 20, 2020, 11:29:52 PM
I've said it before in another thread in a more long winded way but of course everyone has all the same rights but what allows people to move ahead and get far in life or not is how everyone else treats you. It's not about rights, it's about how people are treated based on something that can't be changed. It's sad that people have prejudgement suspicions and fears toward black people. That's the problem. I mean come on, the US had a black president so we know black people can still reach that height but when black people get the police called on them for doing nothing there's a problem.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 20, 2020, 11:42:38 PM
but when black people get the police called on them for doing nothing there's a problem.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTpevozY-OVAkSj5qAB4Hk_pn51VPilglj7eReyfpy_5epSHR8g&usqp=CAU)

Cool story, bro.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Roundy on June 21, 2020, 12:31:34 AM
Why do so many people on the Right take the absolute worst examples of something and prop them up as evidence that their side is correct? I mean, the intent is so transparent only the nitwits already on their side ever fall for it.

Ok, so some privileged celebrities have been trying to capitalize on the publicity. That means the whole movement must be a sham, case closed.  ::)
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: ChrisTP on June 21, 2020, 12:31:47 AM
but when black people get the police called on them for doing nothing there's a problem.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTpevozY-OVAkSj5qAB4Hk_pn51VPilglj7eReyfpy_5epSHR8g&usqp=CAU)

Cool story, bro.
I'm not talking about criminals getting stopped, I'm talking about people being stopped for 'being black while doing this mundane thing' which sadly happens.

EDIT: example;

https://youtu.be/X_etCAqyNyk
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Roundy on June 21, 2020, 12:47:39 AM
You don't even have to be a cop, really. Trayvon Martin was armed with nothing but a bag of Skittles and look what happened to him.

The guy who got away with murdering him meanwhile is making money now by signing bags of Skittles at Klan and skinhead rallies. Kind of undercuts the whole argument that race had nothing to do with it, but a man's gotta eat and I imagine being a notorious racist murderer might make life difficult for a person who refuses to lean into it.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: honk on June 21, 2020, 05:07:46 AM
The lady here claims she was told she couldn't have black skin or have braids. Presumably she has never heard of Beyonce or Tina Turner. Ooooooooorrrrrrr, she's a liar.

Beyonce and Tina Turner had afros and beads, therefore no black singer could ever have been discouraged from having an afro and beads by the music industry? To put it another way, your argument is essentially that she claims to have been told something illogical, therefore she couldn't have been told it.

Quote
When I see people from other cultures ripping down statues and monuments from my culture

What are you talking about? The Confederate statues in America? They're not part of your culture. Given how those statues were all practically rolled out alongside Jim Crow laws, I question if they're genuinely part of anyone's culture.

Quote
When they demand I kneel before them

Who is demanding that white people kneel before them? Yeah, there are a couple of videos of white people kneeling in front of black people. They're ridiculous, but you're going to see some ridiculous people in every group of movement. I haven't seen anything suggesting that it's particularly widespread (as opposed to simply kneeling in protest, which I hope you'll agree is different), nor that black people are calling for white people to kneel to them.

Quote
or that their lives matter and seemingly mine doesn't

Who is saying that your life doesn't matter? ??? Where did that even come from?

Quote
When I see them martyr a total piece of shit like George Floyd who is a serial offender and held a gun to a pregnant woman

You don't have to have a positive opinion of Floyd to be outraged by what happened to him and demand better from the police. Who cares if people are making him out to be a martyr, anyway? He's not going to stand trial. He's not going to be back on the streets to take advantage of an unfairly earned good reputation or anything.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 21, 2020, 09:39:36 AM
Why do so many people on the Right take the absolute worst examples of something and prop them up as evidence that their side is correct? I mean, the intent is so transparent only the nitwits already on their side ever fall for it.
I mean, that's hardly exclusive to one side. If a movement has a loud side that's easy to demonise, its opponents will try to make everyone in the movement guilty by association.

BLM? Whoa, rioters, looters, shit's on fire! Oh, and they think only black people deserve to live. How callous!
Gamergate? Bunch of misogynists carefully plotting how to eliminate women from the media.
Flat Earthers? All Trump supporters/ultra-socialists, every one of them, and some of them even hate Jews/are sponsored by the Jews!

Given how often this happens, and given the fact that people keep falling for it, I don't think you're right in dismissing it as something that only tricks nitwits.

Bonus points when you're given so much ammunition.


http://v.omgomg.eu/alllivesdontmatta.mp4
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Roundy on June 21, 2020, 10:22:23 AM
Why do so many people on the Right take the absolute worst examples of something and prop them up as evidence that their side is correct? I mean, the intent is so transparent only the nitwits already on their side ever fall for it.
I mean, that's hardly exclusive to one side. If a movement has a loud side that's easy to demonise, its opponents will try to make everyone in the movement guilty by association.

BLM? Whoa, rioters, looters, shit's on fire! Oh, and they think only black people deserve to live. How callous!
Gamergate? Bunch of misogynists carefully plotting how to eliminate women from the media.
Flat Earthers? All Trump supporters/ultra-socialists, every one of them, and some of them even hate Jews/are sponsored by the Jews!

Given how often this happens, and given the fact that people keep falling for it, I don't think you're right in dismissing it as something that only tricks nitwits.

Bonus points when you're given so much ammunition.


http://v.omgomg.eu/alllivesdontmatta.mp4


Nah. Liberals are always right so they don't need to do it. This is definitely something you only see from conservatives.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Roundy on June 21, 2020, 10:46:27 AM
Ok, snarkiness aside, this really does seem like a tactic employed more often by the Right (I would never be so foolish as to argue that there aren't bad faith actors on both sides). This is what people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Laura Ingraham (not to mention our own resident Toddler) build their entire public existence around. Hannity often starts his show with some soundbite that encapsulates the worst the Left has to offer and amplifies it into something his viewers need to fear as an imminent threat. The NRA amplifies the voice of the severe minority on the Left that really does want to repeal the 2nd amendment and have their members shout about how the Democrats are trying to take away their guns anytime someone tries to pass reasonable legislation.

Do people on the Left do it too? I don't doubt it. But I don't think it's so prevalent on the Left. Feel free to provide lots of examples in trying to prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 21, 2020, 10:49:26 AM
I'm gonna take the lazy route. I don't really want to go watching through a bunch of The Young Turks to pick out specific examples.

I think you're right when you say it's employed more often by the right. Looking at Ad Fontes Media's media bias chart, there are obviously more unreliable media on the right, and it includes big names like Fox News. Meanwhile, the left-hand-side is full of "literally who?"

(https://i.omgomg.eu/mediabias)

That said, I think it's also overly reductive to describe it as a problem that's exclusive to the right. I'd be quicker to describe it as a uniquely American problem, but then other Anglo countries are now starting to follow suit.

I suspect part of our disagreement might be in that we're exposed to different media. I see a lot of Occupy Democrats and the Daily Kos in my social circles, despite the fact that they're relatively small. I'm actually not sure why that is, but it certainly skews my view. My more passionate friends end up reposting shit that combines a photo of Trump with a Hitler quote while decrying right-wingers for being idiots who fall for fake news.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: somerled on June 21, 2020, 10:54:21 AM
The people who enslave other people are the problem . The rich greedy fuckin parasitic race enslave humanity regardless of colour . BLM and those opposing " far right" groups are used by the RGFPR to divide and conquer.

People just don't see the real enemy.



 
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 21, 2020, 11:01:27 AM
Picking out the extremism of the Left isn't hard to do when they are increasingly the party of rioters, criminals, and deviants who hate America.

But yes, they do it too. See the current violent race riots instigated by the Left over Geroge Floyd, where in reality few unarmed black men are killed each year out of the total 1000+ people killed by police a year, and usually at a number equal or less than unarmed white men. This is despite the known inequity of criminal activity by race.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ 

Stats from last year:

(https://i.imgur.com/X6pQx31.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/fTbE8LO.png)

(And most of these were justified killings. Only a few were accidents.)
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Roundy on June 21, 2020, 11:09:53 AM
I'm gonna take the lazy route. I don't really want to go watching through a bunch of The Young Turks to pick out specific examples.

And if you had done that you would have been showing clips of the worst the Left has to offer, only proving my point...

I'm kidding of course, but as far as mainstream liberalism goes they really are the worst.

Quote
I think you're right when you say it's employed more often by the right. Looking at Ad Fontes Media's media bias chart, there are obviously more unreliable media on the right, and it includes big names like Fox News. Meanwhile, the left-hand-side is full of "literally who?"

(https://i.omgomg.eu/mediabias)

That said, I think it's also overly reductive to describe it as a problem that's exclusive to the right. I'd be quicker to describe it as a uniquely American problem, but then other Anglo countries are now starting to follow suit.

I suspect part of our disagreement might be in that we're exposed to different media. I see a lot of Occupy Democrats and the Daily Kos in my social circles, despite the fact that they're relatively small. I'm actually not sure why that is, but it certainly skews my view. My more passionate friends end up reposting shit that combines a photo of Trump with a Hitler quote while decrying right-wingers for being idiots who fall for fake news.

A compromise, how nice. I think we agree more than we disagree on a lot of things tbh. We're not so different, you and I.

I will admit an occasional tendency to the reductive when arguing politics. I don't really see the world as black and white, I only come across that way sometimes.

Picking out the extremism of the Left isn't hard to do when they are the party of rioters, criminals, and deviants who hate America.

Someone else on the Right that regularly uses this tactic, thanks for posting and reminding us Tom.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: somerled on June 21, 2020, 11:15:39 AM
Picking out the extremism of the Left isn't hard to do when they are the party of rioters, criminals, and deviants who hate America.

But yes, they do it too. See the violent race riots instigated by the Left over Geroge Floyed, where in reality very few unarmed black men are killed each year, and usually at a number equal or less than unarmed white men.

The trouble I have Tom is that the American left is extremely right wing ha. Your politics over there are a mystery to me .
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 21, 2020, 11:32:50 AM
Beyonce and Tina Turner had afros and beads, therefore no black singer could ever have been discouraged from having an afro and beads by the music industry? To put it another way, your argument is essentially that she claims to have been told something illogical, therefore she couldn't have been told it.
So do you think this may have been a throw away comment once that she has trawled to be relevant, or do you think many music insiders perpetually gave this incorrect advice to her?
Diana Ross
Lionel Richie
The Jackson 5
Jimi Hendrix
Steve Wonder
Bob Marley
Aretha Franklin

It is stupid to suggest black people can't make it in music if they look black. And yet her comments go unchallenged because they fit the narrative that black people face racism from everywhere.

Quote
When I see people from other cultures ripping down statues and monuments from my culture

What are you talking about? The Confederate statues in America? They're not part of your culture. Given how those statues were all practically rolled out alongside Jim Crow laws, I question if they're genuinely part of anyone's culture.
Unfortunately our left wing press in the UK are dead set on importing America's problems to the UK. This caused BLM riots over here despite us not having a history of slavery. Black people in the UK aren't descended from slaves. They are descended from immigrants who have been given every oportunity for a better life in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52954305
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-53082545
And most ridiculous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53033550
^They literally want to tear down statues of Winston Churchill because racism. Don't say it doesn't affect my culture when you have zero idea what is going on, on this side of the Atlantic. 

Who is demanding that white people kneel before them? Yeah, there are a couple of videos of white people kneeling in front of black people. They're ridiculous, but you're going to see some ridiculous people in every group of movement. I haven't seen anything suggesting that it's particularly widespread (as opposed to simply kneeling in protest, which I hope you'll agree is different), nor that black people are calling for white people to kneel to them.
Please observe British sports stars being made to kneel before every game. This is not optional. They must also bear the slogan Black Lives Matter across their backs.
(https://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/imagecache/mbdxxlarge/mritems/Images/2020/6/1/3908fd6342a54ffc9170847212942994_18.jpg)
Why does a sport I like have to be used as a vehicle for far-left activism?

Who is saying that your life doesn't matter? ??? Where did that even come from?
Claiming All Lives matter, is apparently racist.

You don't have to have a positive opinion of Floyd to be outraged by what happened to him and demand better from the police. Who cares if people are making him out to be a martyr, anyway? He's not going to stand trial. He's not going to be back on the streets to take advantage of an unfairly earned good reputation or anything.
My problem with the George Floyd policeman is that everyone is screaming about how he is a racist. Missing the much more serious accusation that he is a murderer. The fact this cop is a murderer is only second on the agenda. His crime of being racist is being held up as the serious crime. Not tipping your black pizza delivery boy is racist. Sitting further away on the bus from black people is racist. Being racist is not a crime. Murder is. And yet BLM want racism seen as worse than murder. Its a disgusting campaign using a death to pervert future justice.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: somerled on June 21, 2020, 01:39:59 PM
It's not far left press advancing BLM - all I see is tptb and their mouthpiece media advancing this shit. Have to admit I've not read any Left wing press for a fair few years - what passes for it these days ?
     Football is also very shit imho . Money laundering scheme for the greedy criminals. Watch rugby league .
     Lilly livered liberalism isn't left wing .
 
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: ChrisTP on June 21, 2020, 02:38:44 PM
@Thork regarding the footballers kneeling, it's kind of a throwaway gesture to make sure they don't come across as insensitive like how every company that's completely unrelated are sending out a statement along the lines of "we care about diversity and black lives matter to us too bla bla". It doesn't hurt anyone and it makes said companies look/feel good, plus it raises awareness I suppose. While I agree with the sentiment that black lives matter the ones that are rioting and causing a ruckus are just bored fools. Those guys are the ones that are damaging their own cause along with their towns. I don't think you should hate on the overall message that's trying to be put out. As Pete said, in every movement you'll get people damaging it from the inside, making the movement look bad. Like feminism where some women proclaim they're feminists because they hate men and proceed to be super toxic and ill informed. God forbid I have one or two people on facebook from school like that who occasionally post dumb, horrible stuff then tag a movement as justification for them being scum.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: somerled on June 21, 2020, 04:21:26 PM
The kneeling down gesture is the governments attempt to control public opinion and promote its agenda . No human should kneel before another . We all matter .

Anyone who refuses to kneel will be branded a racist . That's the point of that . The psychopaths in control want you to live in fear.                     
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2020, 05:01:23 PM
No one is forgetting that George Floyd’s killer is a murderer. He has been charged with the crime and will be prosecuted. The protests are not about a single murder, what a silly interpretation of the events. It’s about a culmination of many injustices, real and perceived, that people are demanding be addressed.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: AATW on June 21, 2020, 10:10:09 PM
I've said it before in another thread in a more long winded way but of course everyone has all the same rights but what allows people to move ahead and get far in life or not is how everyone else treats you. It's not about rights, it's about how people are treated based on something that can't be changed. It's sad that people have prejudgement suspicions and fears toward black people. That's the problem. I mean come on, the US had a black president so we know black people can still reach that height but when black people get the police called on them for doing nothing there's a problem.
People have prejudgements about each other for all kinds of reasons - gender, race, social class, what they're wearing, their accent, their age. Lots of things, many of which a person can't change. The video you posted - the black dude was sitting on a wall outside someone's property. If I saw someone (of any race) doing that then I might wonder what they're doing. I doubt I'd call the police though. So yes, I think it's fair to say that whoever did that was over-reacting and the call was probably motivated in part by the guy's race. But the reason for that is statistically black people commit a statistically disproportionate amount of the crime in the US. That isn't because black people are inherently more violent or criminal but simply because crime is correlated with poverty and black families tend to be poorer. And that is because of a load of historic laws which were overtly racist - laws which stopped black families from buying properties in certain areas and stopped them getting mortgages in areas where they were allowed to buy property. And I don't think that's an easy problem to fix, wealth is passed down generations in families so those historic laws are going to have a long-lasting effect.

So yeah, black people will get profiled just like when people hear about a terrorist attack they tend to instinctively blame Islamic extremism - these stereotypes/prejudices aren't baseless, they're based on statistics. And in the video you posted, it may have been frustrating for the black dude to have been approached by the police when he wasn't doing anything wrong but all he had to do was identify himself and I suspect that would have been the end of the matter.

It's also worth noting here that these incidents are, statistically speaking, rare. The stupid bint who called the police on a black man in Central Park on spurious grounds was fired from her job, hopefully things like that will make people think twice before crying wolf.

We need to dispel this myth that black people are being routinely hunted down and killed by a systematically racist police in the US. That just isn't happening. Tom has provided some stats, a vanishingly small number of black people who were unarmed were killed by police last year. More unarmed white people were actually although per capita in terms of the population split between white and black people it did happen to more black people - I have suggested above why they might get profiled and be more likely to be affected though.
The idea that black people should be scared of encounters with the police lest they're gunned down in cold blood is just not borne out by the statistics.

There are occasional incidents and the George Floyd one was a bad one, but the police who did it are in jail so I don't understand what all the signs saying "no justice, no peace" mean. If the people who did it are acquitted then there will be a shitstorm, rightly so. Till then, I don't understand what these protests are intended to change. As you say, the laws to ensure equality already exist, what those policemen did is already illegal. People who do harbour racist views aren't exactly going to change that because of some protests.

Obviously I can't know what it's like being black in the UK. I don't see black people being chased down the street or have racist abuse shouted at them. Quite happy to believe it happens but is it common? I'd say most of the racism in the UK is more subtle - there's good evidence that people with "English sounding" surnames get more response to their CVs, for example. That's not all about race though, plenty of white people have foreign sounding surnames and would be affected by that. And that's an easy fix - anonymise CVs. I do think (and I realise, as a white person I'm on thin ice here) that some black people just look for racism everywhere they look and confirmation bias does the rest. Every perceived slight is deemed racist.

We are currently having ridiculous conversations at work about quota of BAME people at senior leadership level. I seriously don't understand how that is supposed to work, so if a black person leaves and that means we're now not meeting the quota then what, does that mean we have to hire another black person? There is no such thing as positive discrimination, it's an oxymoron. The solution to discrimination is equality, not more discrimination.

TL;DR - I'm not saying that racism isn't a thing now, but I'm not buying into the idea that black people are systematically oppressed these days. Profiled, maybe, but not entirely without basis. And subject to more subtle forms of racism, sure. But aren't we all affected by some forms of bias whether conscious or unconscious? As I said at the start of this ramble, we prejudge people based on all kinds of things about them, many of which they can't change.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2020, 10:24:19 PM
Statistically, black people are more likely to be stopped by and to suffer violence from police than white people are in every situation, controlling for a plethora of factors. The exception is that police shoot seem to be unbiased in their shooting of people.

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/workshop/leo/leo16_fryer.pdf

Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: ChrisTP on June 21, 2020, 11:54:19 PM
I've said it before in another thread in a more long winded way but of course everyone has all the same rights but what allows people to move ahead and get far in life or not is how everyone else treats you. It's not about rights, it's about how people are treated based on something that can't be changed. It's sad that people have prejudgement suspicions and fears toward black people. That's the problem. I mean come on, the US had a black president so we know black people can still reach that height but when black people get the police called on them for doing nothing there's a problem.
People have prejudgements about each other for all kinds of reasons - gender, race, social class, what they're wearing, their accent, their age. Lots of things, many of which a person can't change. The video you posted - the black dude was sitting on a wall outside someone's property. If I saw someone (of any race) doing that then I might wonder what they're doing. I doubt I'd call the police though. So yes, I think it's fair to say that whoever did that was over-reacting and the call was probably motivated in part by the guy's race. But the reason for that is statistically black people commit a statistically disproportionate amount of the crime in the US. That isn't because black people are inherently more violent or criminal but simply because crime is correlated with poverty and black families tend to be poorer. And that is because of a load of historic laws which were overtly racist - laws which stopped black families from buying properties in certain areas and stopped them getting mortgages in areas where they were allowed to buy property. And I don't think that's an easy problem to fix, wealth is passed down generations in families so those historic laws are going to have a long-lasting effect.

So yeah, black people will get profiled just like when people hear about a terrorist attack they tend to instinctively blame Islamic extremism - these stereotypes/prejudices aren't baseless, they're based on statistics. And in the video you posted, it may have been frustrating for the black dude to have been approached by the police when he wasn't doing anything wrong but all he had to do was identify himself and I suspect that would have been the end of the matter.

It's also worth noting here that these incidents are, statistically speaking, rare. The stupid bint who called the police on a black man in Central Park on spurious grounds was fired from her job, hopefully things like that will make people think twice before crying wolf.

We need to dispel this myth that black people are being routinely hunted down and killed by a systematically racist police in the US. That just isn't happening. Tom has provided some stats, a vanishingly small number of black people who were unarmed were killed by police last year. More unarmed white people were actually although per capita in terms of the population split between white and black people it did happen to more black people - I have suggested above why they might get profiled and be more likely to be affected though.
The idea that black people should be scared of encounters with the police lest they're gunned down in cold blood is just not borne out by the statistics.

There are occasional incidents and the George Floyd one was a bad one, but the police who did it are in jail so I don't understand what all the signs saying "no justice, no peace" mean. If the people who did it are acquitted then there will be a shitstorm, rightly so. Till then, I don't understand what these protests are intended to change. As you say, the laws to ensure equality already exist, what those policemen did is already illegal. People who do harbour racist views aren't exactly going to change that because of some protests.

Obviously I can't know what it's like being black in the UK. I don't see black people being chased down the street or have racist abuse shouted at them. Quite happy to believe it happens but is it common? I'd say most of the racism in the UK is more subtle - there's good evidence that people with "English sounding" surnames get more response to their CVs, for example. That's not all about race though, plenty of white people have foreign sounding surnames and would be affected by that. And that's an easy fix - anonymise CVs. I do think (and I realise, as a white person I'm on thin ice here) that some black people just look for racism everywhere they look and confirmation bias does the rest. Every perceived slight is deemed racist.

We are currently having ridiculous conversations at work about quota of BAME people at senior leadership level. I seriously don't understand how that is supposed to work, so if a black person leaves and that means we're now not meeting the quota then what, does that mean we have to hire another black person? There is no such thing as positive discrimination, it's an oxymoron. The solution to discrimination is equality, not more discrimination.

TL;DR - I'm not saying that racism isn't a thing now, but I'm not buying into the idea that black people are systematically oppressed these days. Profiled, maybe, but not entirely without basis. And subject to more subtle forms of racism, sure. But aren't we all affected by some forms of bias whether conscious or unconscious? As I said at the start of this ramble, we prejudge people based on all kinds of things about them, many of which they can't change.
Here in the UK racism (at least in my experience) is mostly individuals who get ignored. No one in my social circle is racist other than maybe my grandparents who were mostly ignored when they made random racist comments. I dated a girl for 5 years who's dad was pretty racist but the rest of their family would give him evil glares and tell him to stfu whenever he would say anything racist.. Though ngl there's not many black people in the area of my city that I grew up in so maybe I wasn't exposed to it much. I think racism is far worse in other countries.

Also I believe in equal opportunity not of outcome. I don't think women and people of colour should be hired for jobs just because they are women or people of colour, I think they should be hired because their resume is best. This may not end in having a completely even mix of employees but that's not what matters, What matters is everyone should be given the same chances in life. Again though I may be naive in saying this but we do have equal opportunities and all the same rights now but I guess that won't matter if people are still prejudice toward skin colour and gender. I mean prejudice is important, if I see a group of people loitering on a street corner with their hoods up looking shady I'm going to cross the road even if it turns out they were just waiting for a taxi and thought it was gunna rain, better safe than sorry. :P

I happen to work in an industry that's famously mostly white males but it's slowly becoming more diverse, slowly... because the world has changed for the better and the youth coming in is mixed but the veterans of the industry aren't. This is fine IMO. with time. if we've had black presidents of the US and female prime ministers of the UK etc then there's no limits for them anymore, it's all down to the opportunities they have and the environment they're raised in. With that said, the BLM movement fighting the government when it's not a government problem... Sure, governments can do better to make sure people are well educated but that's about it. It's down to people to change in the end.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: AATW on June 22, 2020, 07:51:16 AM
I think these things take generations to change.
Even in my lifetime - I'm mid-40s - I've seen change. The sorts of language and "jokes" which were prevalent when I was a kid aren't any more. The generation of kids - in London at least - have grown up in a multi-cultural society in a way that even I didn't really (looked back at some old photos from my primary school recently, almost all white kids). I don't think there's a quick fix but the laws to prevent discrimination are already in place. The next trick is to try and stop more unconscious bias and that's a bit harder, but things like anonymising CVs will help
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 22, 2020, 06:20:34 PM
Statistically, black people are more likely to be stopped
Statistically black people are more likely to commit crime. QED.


things like anonymising CVs will help
They don't want that. White people and far East Asians will outshine all else. You have to appreciate that sub-Saharan Africans and Arabs are not as bright as other races. Map below is IQ map.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/World-iq-map-lynn-2006.svg/800px-World-iq-map-lynn-2006.svg.png)
This can't be let out of the bag. There must be positive discrimination so that black people don't feel inferior (so the leftists insist). An invisible hand helping them at every turn to the detriment of white and yellow people. Or as Margret Thatcher described it, cutting the heads off the tall poppies.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: ChrisTP on June 22, 2020, 06:27:59 PM
Statistically, black people are more likely to be stopped
Statistically black people are more likely to commit crime. QED.


things like anonymising CVs will help
They don't want that. White people and far East Asians will outshine all else. You have to appreciate that sub-Saharan Africans and Arabs are not as bright as other races. Map below is IQ map.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/World-iq-map-lynn-2006.svg/800px-World-iq-map-lynn-2006.svg.png)
This can't be let out of the bag. There must be positive discrimination so that black people don't feel inferior (so the leftists insist). An invisible hand helping them at every turn to the detriment of white and yellow people. Or as Margret Thatcher described it, cutting the heads off the tall poppies.
It's worth noting that IQ per country as the map you posted is not so simple. There are so many factors to consider, culturally, environmentally, nutritionally etc that may skew those results. Also worth not putting too much weight into IQ, it's just an estimate developed with biases.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on June 22, 2020, 07:31:14 PM
Statistically, black people are more likely to be stopped
Statistically black people are more likely to commit crime. QED.

Stopping black people more often in general because of the behavior of a subset of black people is, what? Anybody? Anybody? Racism.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 22, 2020, 07:50:47 PM
Statistically, black people are more likely to be stopped
Statistically black people are more likely to commit crime. QED.

Stopping black people more often in general because of the behavior of a subset of black people is, what? Anybody? Anybody? Racism.

Your way is just idiocy.

Car insurance costs more for men than women. Men are more likely to have accidents. Is that sexist? No. Its about risk management. Searching black people is the same. Risk management.

The alternative is to up the amount you search everyone else to make your equality quota. This inconveniences everyone else unnecessarily and is expensive as you need more cops to do all this extra stopping and searching. The efficient way is just to stop and search the blacks. Just as insurance companies can offer better rates to women, by making men pay as a group for the higher risk they pose.

People are not all the same. We are individuals and we can be grouped. Its not racism to group and then react accordingly to that group. It is common sense. Something the left have a shortage of.

Women of all races are searched far less than men. No one is screaming about sexism. Of course men are stopped more. They commit more crime. And I'm ok with being stopped more. A quick conversation with the policeman, let him hear my educated middle class accent and I'm on my way. I don't do something stupid like refusing to cooperate and so my face isn't smushed into the asphalt with a policeman's knee on my neck.

A short story with Thork.
The last time I was stopped by a policeman was a little over 10 years ago. I was driving along, my boss phoned me on my mobile and I answered. The instant I put the phone to my ear, I saw a jam sandwich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jam_sandwich_(police_car)) and threw the phone into the foot well.
Too late. He put on his lights and pulled me over.
C:-) "You were using your mobile phone"
??? "No I wasn't"
C:-) "We can do this the hard way or the easy way. Want me to rip your car apart looking for that phone?"
...
...
...
:'( "Its a crime of idiocy. I deserve the fine."
C:-)"Be more careful in future. Good day".

No one got shot. I started badly. One might almost say I started like a black man. A dindu nuffin. Then I realised I was being a prick, the cop appreciated I knew I was being a prick, and I got let go without a fine ... let alone being wrestled to the floor. Black people should be made to study my experience to avoid getting shot.

Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on June 22, 2020, 09:15:00 PM
Your way is just idiocy.

Car insurance costs more for men than women. Men are more likely to have accidents. Is that sexist? No. Its about risk management. Searching black people is the same. Risk management.

Turns out people's legal rights when the government wants to subject you to search and seizure are much more stringent than getting car insurance  ::)

Quote
The alternative is to up the amount you search everyone else to make your equality quota. This inconveniences everyone else unnecessarily and is expensive as you need more cops to do all this extra stopping and searching. The efficient way is just to stop and search the blacks. Just as insurance companies can offer better rates to women, by making men pay as a group for the higher risk they pose.

People are not all the same. We are individuals and we can be grouped. Its not racism to group and then react accordingly to that group. It is common sense. Something the left have a shortage of.

You aren't supposed to stop people unless you have a reasonable cause.  Stopping someone because they are black and black people commit more crimes is not a reasonable cause, it is discriminating against them based on their race.

Quote
Women of all races are searched far less than men. No one is screaming about sexism. Of course men are stopped more. They commit more crime. And I'm ok with being stopped more.

See my point above.

Quote
A quick conversation with the policeman, let him hear my educated middle class accent and I'm on my way.


Classic.

This doesn't even address the fact that black people are much more likely to suffer violence from police under identical circumstances to white people.  Even if you are granted that all stops are fair, there is still a giant problem with how police in North America are dealing with minorities.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 22, 2020, 10:20:18 PM
Turns out people's legal rights when the government wants to subject you to search and seizure are much more stringent than getting car insurance  ::)
How much do you earn?

Its a valid question. Let's say you earn $20 an hour. And for being a man, you have to pay an extra $100 a year in car insurance. Just for being a man, you were inconvenienced by 5 hours a year. You had that time taken from you.
Now let's say you are stopped by the police 5 times in a year. If each time was say 20 mins ... you were inconvenienced 3x more by the insurance company. So why is the insurance company's right to discriminate at will ok with you, when it costs you more of your time? And why won't you allow the police to discriminate when they can save lives by doing so. They are more likely to find miscreants with weapons and drugs by racially profiling them. Why should innocent people be hurt, because you don't want to inconvenience a particular group? We just shut the whole country inconveniencing everybody to prevent a few old people being hurt. Why would you let the rate of stabbings and shootings go up, just for political correctness? When you can do something, why would you not and let people get killed? Your political views are worth more than their lives?

You aren't supposed to stop people unless you have a reasonable cause.  Stopping someone because they are black and black people commit more crimes is not a reasonable cause, it is discriminating against them based on their race.
They are being stopped because of location ... not race. They don't stop black people outside the white house. Obama wasn't frisked on the way in. Will Smith isn't getting stopped on Hollywood boulevard. They stop black people in ghettos where all the crime is happening. If you are on a street where drugs are traded freely, expect cops to stop you more often. If you are walking down a road full of pimps and prostitutes, expect a cop to suspect you of pimping.

Black people live in crime areas because black people commit more crime. They then get stopped more because they are in a place where crime happens.

What are the odds of you getting stopped outside an opera house at 2pm in Richmond, VA and searched? Next to zero.
What are the odds of you getting searched if you are sat on the kerb of a street in downtown Chicago at 4am on a street notorious for narcotics? ... the cop won't care what colour you are.


This doesn't even address the fact that black people are much more likely to suffer violence from police under identical circumstances to white people.  Even if you are granted that all stops are fair, there is still a giant problem with how police in North America are dealing with minorities.
Last year 13 black people were killed by cops. 7500 black people were killed by other black people. The people the cops are trying to stop by searching. Your ideals are clouding your common sense again.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on June 22, 2020, 10:37:22 PM
Turns out people's legal rights when the government wants to subject you to search and seizure are much more stringent than getting car insurance  ::)
How much do you earn?

Its a valid question. Let's say you earn $20 an hour. And for being a man, you have to pay an extra $100 a year in car insurance. Just for being a man, you were inconvenienced by 5 hours a year. You had that time taken from you.
Now let's say you are stopped by the police 5 times in a year. If each time was say 20 mins ... you were inconvenienced 3x more by the insurance company. So why is the insurance company's right to discriminate at will ok with you, when it costs you more of your time?

Moving on.

Quote
And why won't you allow the police to discriminate when they can save lives by doing so. They are more likely to find miscreants with weapons and drugs by racially profiling them. Why should innocent people be hurt, because you don't want to inconvenience a particular group? We just shut the whole country inconveniencing everybody to prevent a few old people being hurt. Why would you let the rate of stabbings and shootings go up, just for political correctness? When you can do something, why would you not and let people get killed? Your political views are worth more than their lives?

It's not my political views, it's the law.  It would be much easier to stop criminals if we totally suspend all civil liberty, I will let you go back to your 8th grade lessons on civics to figure out why democratic nations don't do that.

Quote
They are being stopped because of location ... not race.

Alright Thork, you have had your fun, but I am not going to let you perpetuate your argument by just indulging you when you want to pivot to an entirely different position.


Quote
Your ideals are clouding your common sense again.
That's two people today who have made arguments for a fascist police force who doesn't have to respect the civil rights of citizens.

EDIT: I also noticed that your numbers for homicides are almost certainly fabricated.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: timterroo on June 22, 2020, 11:12:06 PM
BLM is not about white people, so if you feel like you don't matter or you're being left out because of this movement - if you're someone who says, "but every life matters" -  that's what is called "white privilege".

If you fall into this category, and I did at first, try putting the word "too" after "black lives matter". That's what BLM is about.

No reason to be offended.

@thork, there's so much you are saying that makes you sound so incredibly privileged, you should be glad that you have never had to deal with the kind of discrimination black people (in the USA) have to deal with.

I'm from a small town, most people are white, but I have a niece who is black. The school once told her she couldn't come to school with her hair in a fro - they said it was a distraction, and they thought it meant she hadn't been showering, so CPS was nearly called. Any idea how long it takes to properly do up her hair, so that it isn't messy or afroed? My wife can do it in about 8 hours.

This is the result of a complete lack of cultural education. I wouldn't necessarily call it racist, but at least ignorant. However, this is the kind of ignorance that leads to preconceived notions which leads to racism.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2020, 02:43:58 AM
Quote
I'm from a small town, most people are white, but I have a niece who is black. The school once told her she couldn't come to school with her hair in a fro - they said it was a distraction, and they thought it meant she hadn't been showering, so CPS was nearly called.

Would that justify her participation in riots and crime in protest of this perceived racism?
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: honk on June 23, 2020, 02:54:46 AM
So do you think this may have been a throw away comment once that she has trawled to be relevant, or do you think many music insiders perpetually gave this incorrect advice to her?
Diana Ross
Lionel Richie
The Jackson 5
Jimi Hendrix
Steve Wonder
Bob Marley
Aretha Franklin

It is stupid to suggest black people can't make it in music if they look black. And yet her comments go unchallenged because they fit the narrative that black people face racism from everywhere.

I have no idea if this was a thing that people said to her frequently or just once, but it's worth condemnation even if it was just once. I'm stressing this point because it drives me nuts how so many people on the Internet are convinced that media executives or other professionals are driven purely by profit and would never allow petty human foibles to get in the way of the bottom line. They do, and I can think of countless examples from music, film, and other industries. John Fogerty spent many years after the breakup of Creedence Clearwater Revival distancing himself from the famous songs he had written and performed with them, undoubtedly hurting his career, in large part simply because he was mad at his old boss. There's a mediocre director named Colin Trevorrow who owes his entire career, most notably the fact that he was offered the chance to direct Jurassic World without even needing to pitch for it, to the fact that he's pals with Steven Spielberg and Brad Bird. Zack Snyder is another director who continues to be given huge budgets and creative freedom for blockbusters, despite the fact that he regularly delivers flop after flop.

I don't want to get too off-topic, but the point is that it's entirely believable that Alexandra Burke was told by people who ought to have known better that she shouldn't be "too black," and the fact that there are plenty of successful black musicians doesn't mean that logically they wouldn't have said that. It is still just an anecdote, and I think that's what Burke meant it as, not as a broad condemnation of society at large.

Quote
Unfortunately our left wing press in the UK are dead set on importing America's problems to the UK. This caused BLM riots over here despite us not having a history of slavery. Black people in the UK aren't descended from slaves. They are descended from immigrants who have been given every oportunity for a better life in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52954305
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-53082545
And most ridiculous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53033550
^They literally want to tear down statues of Winston Churchill because racism. Don't say it doesn't affect my culture when you have zero idea what is going on, on this side of the Atlantic.

My bad. I was ignorant and made assumptions. That being said, I looked up Edward Colston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Colston), and, uh, is this the guy you want representing your culture? Maybe the time has come for the British people to decide on new icons of their culture who deserve commemoration via public monuments. Your country has a rich history, and I'm sure you can do better than someone like Colston.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: timterroo on June 23, 2020, 03:01:35 AM
Quote
I'm from a small town, most people are white, but I have a niece who is black. The school once told her she couldn't come to school with her hair in a fro - they said it was a distraction, and they thought it meant she hadn't been showering, so CPS was nearly called.

Would that justify her participation in riots and crime in protest of this perceived racism?

No, not at all.

I get the impression that most people who are true to the BLM movement are not the people inciting violence. Of course, the rioting and violence is the majority of what the media shows, so that’s what people perceive.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2020, 03:13:27 AM
Quote
I'm from a small town, most people are white, but I have a niece who is black. The school once told her she couldn't come to school with her hair in a fro - they said it was a distraction, and they thought it meant she hadn't been showering, so CPS was nearly called.

Would that justify her participation in riots and crime in protest of this perceived racism?

No, not at all.

If nothing justifies riots and crime, then why are you here trying to plead and justify and argue in favor of this movement which causes riots and crime to occur?

An argument of "some people there aren't throwing bricks and destroying property" is rather poor justification for this movement which causes crime to occur.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: timterroo on June 23, 2020, 03:27:19 AM
Quote
I'm from a small town, most people are white, but I have a niece who is black. The school once told her she couldn't come to school with her hair in a fro - they said it was a distraction, and they thought it meant she hadn't been showering, so CPS was nearly called.

Would that justify her participation in riots and crime in protest of this perceived racism?

No, not at all.

If nothing justifies riots and crime, then why are you here trying to plead and justify and argue in favor of this movement which causes riots and crime to occur?

An argument of "some people there aren't throwing bricks and destroying property" is rather poor justification for this movement which causes crime to occur.

I’m not in favor of violence, and I never said I was.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2020, 03:29:05 AM
Quote
I'm from a small town, most people are white, but I have a niece who is black. The school once told her she couldn't come to school with her hair in a fro - they said it was a distraction, and they thought it meant she hadn't been showering, so CPS was nearly called.

Would that justify her participation in riots and crime in protest of this perceived racism?

No, not at all.

If nothing justifies riots and crime, then why are you here trying to plead and justify and argue in favor of this movement which causes riots and crime to occur?

An argument of "some people there aren't throwing bricks and destroying property" is rather poor justification for this movement which causes crime to occur.

I’m not in favor of violence, and I never said I was.

Yet here you are, pleading with and defending an organization which causes crime to occur.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: timterroo on June 23, 2020, 04:26:55 AM
Quote
I'm from a small town, most people are white, but I have a niece who is black. The school once told her she couldn't come to school with her hair in a fro - they said it was a distraction, and they thought it meant she hadn't been showering, so CPS was nearly called.

Would that justify her participation in riots and crime in protest of this perceived racism?

No, not at all.

If nothing justifies riots and crime, then why are you here trying to plead and justify and argue in favor of this movement which causes riots and crime to occur?

An argument of "some people there aren't throwing bricks and destroying property" is rather poor justification for this movement which causes crime to occur.

I’m not in favor of violence, and I never said I was.

Yet here you are, pleading with and defending an organization which causes crime to occur.

You said that already, and you are entitled to your opinion.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: AATW on June 23, 2020, 06:38:22 AM
Statistically, black people are more likely to be stopped
Statistically black people are more likely to commit crime. QED.

Stopping black people more often in general because of the behavior of a subset of black people is, what? Anybody? Anybody? Racism.
It’s profiling. And it’s based on statistics.
And there are lots of factors.
Race, yes, but also gender, time of day, location, age, the way someone is dressed. Maybe the way someone is behaving.
Lots of things. Why are some people fixated on race and declaring it racist?

How many black 50 year old men in business suits get stopped when they go out for lunch? I don’t know the answer to that but my guess is it pretty much doesn’t happen. Because profiling isn’t based purely on race but lots of factors and it’s based on statistics. As it should be.

Let’s imagine 95% of a certain crime are committed by women and that stop and search was intended to lower the rate of that crime. Are you suggesting that in the name of equality and political correctness the police should stop 50% men and 50% women? How would that make any sense?

It is generally young black men who are dressed in a certain way who are stopped. Because they tick all the boxes:
- Young
- Black
- Male
- Dressed in a certain way

Why are people picking out that person’s race and declaring that as the only factor and therefore it’s motivated by race and racism?

As for whether stop and search is an effective tactic, I’m not so sure about that. And whether the police should have a reason for suspicion (apart from the profile of the person) before stopping someone - if the idea is to try and reduce knife crime then I don’t know how the police can know whether someone is carrying a knife. If it’s thought to be an effective tactic (again, not entirely convinced it is) then profiling is all they’ve got.

And it was 14 unarmed black men killed by police last year. Hardly indicative of a systematically racist police force just itching to gun down black people at every opportunity

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: AATW on June 23, 2020, 06:45:24 AM
BLM is not about white people, so if you feel like you don't matter or you're being left out because of this movement - if you're someone who says, "but every life matters" -  that's what is called "white privilege".

If you fall into this category, and I did at first, try putting the word "too" after "black lives matter". That's what BLM is about.

Right. But it feels like a straw man. It’s arguing against a position which almost no one holds. Who says that black lives don’t matter?
I provided the stats above, it’s incredibly rare that unarmed black people are killed by police in the US. The George Floyd incident was indisputably awful but the people who did it are in jail - no laws need to change, what they did was already illegal. And the stats just don’t bear out this idea that a systematically racist police force are killing black people for no reason other than their race.

Obviously I don’t know what it’s like to be black in the UK, but my feeling is that the privileges I have enjoyed - and I certainly have - are largely because of my family’s affluence.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: ChrisTP on June 23, 2020, 10:28:37 AM
Quote
Black people live in crime areas because black people commit more crime.
Or another way to look at it is that people commit more crime because they live in an area with more crime, regardless of skin colour. And the reason there happens to be a lot of black people in those areas is because of a long history of racial discrimination.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: totallackey on June 23, 2020, 10:38:22 AM
"...the point is that it's entirely believable that Alexandra Burke was told by people who ought to have known better that she shouldn't be "too black,"...
Please describe in your own words what it means to be, "too black."
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on June 23, 2020, 10:56:28 AM
It’s profiling. And it’s based on statistics.
And there are lots of factors.
Race, yes, but also gender, time of day, location, age, the way someone is dressed. Maybe the way someone is behaving.
Lots of things. Why are some people fixated on race and declaring it racist?

Police aren't supposed to stop people because they fit a profile unless it is in relation to a particular crime and/or they have a good reason to.  Profiling practices were stopped because they were found to be a step too far for government involvement in people's lives.

Quote
How many black 50 year old men in business suits get stopped when they go out for lunch? I don’t know the answer to that but my guess is it pretty much doesn’t happen. Because profiling isn’t based purely on race but lots of factors and it’s based on statistics. As it should be.

Why don't you try and find out instead of guessing and then declaring everything as it should be?  I did that with police use of force and found out that use of force has a strong racial component to it.

Quote
Let’s imagine 95% of a certain crime are committed by women and that stop and search was intended to lower the rate of that crime. Are you suggesting that in the name of equality and political correctness the police should stop 50% men and 50% women? How would that make any sense?

I never did and specifically have made other suggestions.  Let's talk, but make sure you understand me first.


Quote
It is generally young black men who are dressed in a certain way who are stopped. Because they tick all the boxes:
- Young
- Black
- Male
- Dressed in a certain way

Why are people picking out that person’s race and declaring that as the only factor and therefore it’s motivated by race and racism?

I don't know, and I don't agree that that should happen.

Quote
As for whether stop and search is an effective tactic, I’m not so sure about that. And whether the police should have a reason for suspicion (apart from the profile of the person) before stopping someone - if the idea is to try and reduce knife crime then I don’t know how the police can know whether someone is carrying a knife. If it’s thought to be an effective tactic (again, not entirely convinced it is) then profiling is all they’ve got.

The point that many are making is that police forces are inadequate at preventing crimes but there are many ways to engage with society that cut crime and perhaps we should put more funding in to that?

Quote
And it was 14 unarmed black men killed by police last year. Hardly indicative of a systematically racist police force just itching to gun down black people at every opportunity

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/

As I pointed out earlier, every other type of police use of force is more likely to be applied to black people rather than white, and that is controlling for context and confounding factors.  The conversation shouldn't end at shootings.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Tumeni on June 23, 2020, 11:23:05 AM
I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but in the last day or so, I watched a video of NYPD in action; with two white civilians talking trash to them, and videoing them on smartphones, they push past the two whites to arrest the black guy behind them, who  wasn't doing anything apart from standing around behind the white guys.

EDITed for grammer misteak ..
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: AATW on June 23, 2020, 11:24:54 AM
Quote
Black people live in crime areas because black people commit more crime.
Or another way to look at it is that people commit more crime because they live in an area with more crime, regardless of skin colour. And the reason there happens to be a lot of black people in those areas is because of a long history of racial discrimination.
Right. Exactly this.
Black people are profiled because, statistically, they commit a lot of the crime.
Not because there are inherent differences between the races in terms of propensity towards violence/crime, simply because it is correlated with poverty and black people tend to be poorer for historic reasons. That is the root of all this IMO, and I don't think there's an easy fix.

I don't know if I have "white privilege", but I definitely have benefited from "affluent privilege". We didn't own a yacht or anything but neither did I want for anything, my way through university was paid - all that confers a big advantage in life which I have definitely benefited from.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: timterroo on June 23, 2020, 02:46:01 PM
BLM is not about white people, so if you feel like you don't matter or you're being left out because of this movement - if you're someone who says, "but every life matters" -  that's what is called "white privilege".

If you fall into this category, and I did at first, try putting the word "too" after "black lives matter". That's what BLM is about.

Right. But it feels like a straw man. It’s arguing against a position which almost no one holds. Who says that black lives don’t matter?
I provided the stats above, it’s incredibly rare that unarmed black people are killed by police in the US. The George Floyd incident was indisputably awful but the people who did it are in jail - no laws need to change, what they did was already illegal. And the stats just don’t bear out this idea that a systematically racist police force are killing black people for no reason other than their race.

Obviously I don’t know what it’s like to be black in the UK, but my feeling is that the privileges I have enjoyed - and I certainly have - are largely because of my family’s affluence.

I was writing this in response to some comments that were made earlier in the thread - primarily thorks comments. I often here people say things like that - "all lives matter", and that comes from a place of privilege as it misses the point of BLM.

You mention that you have been privileged in your life because you have money. This is not the same as "white privilege". There are plenty of wealthy black people.

White privilege is being advantaged solely because your skin is white. nothing to do with being rich or poor.

Take the bird watcher example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2020/06/05/people-called-police-this-black-birdwatcher-so-many-times-that-he-posted-custom-signs-explain-his-hobby/

An educated black man who watches birds as a hobby evidently gave some poor lady a big enough scare that she called 911 on him - and she wasn't the first to do so.

This man's only crime was having black skin. If he had white skin, guaranteed nobody would have thought twice. This is what white privilege is - not having to worry you'll be judged or profiled because your skin is white.

Quote
It is generally young black men who are dressed in a certain way who are stopped. Because they tick all the boxes:
- Young
- Black
- Male
- Dressed in a certain way

Why are people picking out that person’s race and declaring that as the only factor and therefore it’s motivated by race and racism?

I disagree. If you have "young, white, male, dressed in a certain way", I think you will be stopped less than if you are black. Doesn't mean you won't draw suspicion, but not as quickly. However, I don't have any proof of this.

Quote

And it was 14 unarmed black men killed by police last year. Hardly indicative of a systematically racist police force just itching to gun down black people at every opportunity

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/


Although I don't think police are "itching to gun down black people at every opportunity", I do think those statistics are not giving the entire picture. There are far more white people in this country than black people, so statistically, there would be more white people shot down by police. The fact that the numbers are actually close is telling that the percentage of black people shot is higher than that for whites.


Edit:

@AATW, I re-read your post and I think I misunderstood. Are you saying the entire BLM movement is a strawman? If so, I think I see what you mean, but this is also exactly what I'm trying to say - People aren't explicitly saying "black lives don't matter", yet society treats them like they don't matter. Take my example of the bird watcher. If she had actually saw the man as a human being, rather than a black man, she might not have been so scared. No, there are no more laws that explicitly discriminate and we are all legally equal, it doesn't mean we are practically speaking because society implicitly biases against black people. So by saying "Black Lives Matter", that isn't an argument against people who say "black lives don't matter", it's a message for people to wake up and realize there is a problem.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: honk on June 24, 2020, 04:57:51 AM
"...the point is that it's entirely believable that Alexandra Burke was told by people who ought to have known better that she shouldn't be "too black,"...
Please describe in your own words what it means to be, "too black."

I suppose having darker skin, as well as wearing afros, beads, or other cultural trappings that suggest pride in an African heritage or traditional black fashion? I'm not pretending it's sound or logical, far from it. I think a lot of the time it really just comes down to the biases and prejudices of these industry people (possibly unconscious ones) which they then assume are shared by the general population, even with plenty of evidence indicating that's not the case.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Fortuna on June 24, 2020, 05:08:32 AM
BLM's demands don't even make any sense. 90% of their problems can be traced back to their own crime infested neighborhoods, yet they have no plan of action to clean them up. So all of the good black citizens in them will suffer immensely when police are defunded, or budgets are slashed. They're just making the feedback loop 10x worse, pissing off a lot of people, and getting some brand icons changed.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: timterroo on June 24, 2020, 04:59:56 PM
BLM's demands don't even make any sense. 90% of their problems can be traced back to their own crime infested neighborhoods, yet they have no plan of action to clean them up. So all of the good black citizens in them will suffer immensely when police are defunded, or budgets are slashed. They're just making the feedback loop 10x worse, pissing off a lot of people, and getting some brand icons changed.

I want to believe that BLM is going the right direction, but there seems to be so many different 'groups', each with different motives.... There are good people and bad people getting wrapped up into the whole mess, and when all you get is media bias, it's hard to make an informed judgement on the entire ordeal.

Plus, I'm now having doubts that the movement was even started by black people, but rather from some hidden entity using tech giants to spout propaganda conspiring to control society. Similarly to how they are swaying elections and changing peoples minds with targeted advertisement campaigns - but that could be a whole other topic.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2020, 05:08:58 PM
BLM's demands don't even make any sense. 90% of their problems can be traced back to their own crime infested neighborhoods, yet they have no plan of action to clean them up. So all of the good black citizens in them will suffer immensely when police are defunded, or budgets are slashed. They're just making the feedback loop 10x worse, pissing off a lot of people, and getting some brand icons changed.

I want to believe that BLM is going the right direction, but there seems to be so many different 'groups', each with different motives.... There are good people and bad people getting wrapped up into the whole mess, and when all you get is media bias, it's hard to make an informed judgement on the entire ordeal.

Plus, I'm now having doubts that the movement was even started by black people, but rather from some hidden entity using tech giants to spout propaganda conspiring to control society. Similarly to how they are swaying elections and changing peoples minds with targeted advertisement campaigns - but that could be a whole other topic.

Yeah, astro-turfing is a thing to be concerned about.  The Reopen movement was an example of that just this year.  I haven't seen anything to indicate that BLM is astro-turfed, but I am wary.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 07:47:30 PM
Racist BLM supporter discovers that she's white.

(https://i.imgur.com/Eeb2kt7.png)
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2020, 07:53:18 PM
Racist BLM supporter discovers that she's white.

There is no "white" DNA.  So the whole thing is dumb.  Out of curiosity, how did you decide she is racist?

Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: timterroo on June 24, 2020, 08:09:55 PM
Racist BLM supporter discovers that she's white.

There is no "white" DNA.  So the whole thing is dumb.  Out of curiosity, how did you decide she is racist?

I'm guessing because of the, "in my family, being called white is the ultimate insult".

But ya.... many people in this country who are considered black would be considered white in Africa, so where does that leave us....
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 08:24:42 PM
Here is the article: https://onezero.medium.com/a-dna-test-told-me-im-white-here-s-why-it-s-wrong-9e6b20f128e4

DNA is majority European. Her parents are from Latin countries. Someone asked her if she was black when she was 10. Proceeds to self identify as black.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2020, 08:26:49 PM
Here is the article: https://onezero.medium.com/a-dna-test-told-me-im-white-here-s-why-it-s-wrong-9e6b20f128e4

DNA is majority European. Her parents are from Latin countries. Someone asked her if she was black when she was 10. Proceeds to self identify as black.

Situations like this are, to me, the reason why we need to subvert the entire idea of classifying people by race.  It never helps, it only ever divides.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 24, 2020, 08:31:06 PM
i believe FIFA is institutionally racist.

I will give a little background for those not English. Every year in the UK we celebrate remembrance day. It is our day to remember all those who died in wars for our freedom. And we buy poppies. The money then goes to The Royal British Legion that use it to support soldiers and their families should they die or have a leg blown off. Its very very important in England. We remember all soldiers (predominantly white) who lost their lives for our nation. And everyone wears a poppy. You can't go on TV without a poppy as say a newsreader or a gameshow host. Your career would be over. It is very very important to us as a nation. And why not? You should venerate your veterans and provide support to the injured and bereaved. Pretty sure anyone reading this is going to be onboard with this concept. Its our thing. Its important to us. We remember our forefathers who gave their lives.

Not FIFA.

Quote from: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/fifa-poppy-ban-england-fine-35000-scotland-a7484296.html
England fined £35,000 by Fifa for wearing poppies against Scotland but will appeal sanction
England players (who would be on TV), wore a shirt as follows.
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/04/article-2057817-0EABF94000000578-228_233x423.jpg)

FIFA went mental because
Quote from: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/fifa-poppy-ban-england-fine-35000-scotland-a7484296.html
England has been fined CHF 45,000 [£35,000] for several incidents in the framework of the England v Scotland match, including the display by the host association, the English team and spectators of a political symbol and several cases of spectator misconduct.
Note the wording ... a political symbol shown on the shirts and by the players and fans. In the end our government had to get involved to tell FIFA to wind its neck in.

It turns out however, that footballing authorities don't dislike political symbols on shirts at all ... so long as they agree with those symbols. And those celebrating lost white lives are abhorrent, but those celebrating black lives are welcomed and championed.

(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/AbUbfZmpGHbv9U5PsyNb57-650-80.jpg)

If you need further evidence ... this was flown at a game this week
(https://i.ibb.co/PtJ9xhV/Untitled.jpg)

This outrageous statement has been referred to the police.
https://www.nhregister.com/sports/article/Police-investigating-White-Lives-Matter-banner-15359186.php

And Burnley football club issued the following statement.
Quote from: from the racists at Burnley football club
Burnley Football Club strongly condemns the actions of those responsible for the aircraft and offensive banner that flew over The Etihad Stadium on Monday evening," the club said. "We wish to make it clear that those responsible are not welcome at Turf Moor. This, in no way, represents what Burnley Football Club stands for and we will work fully with the authorities to identify those responsible and issue lifetime bans

And all because someone dared to say white lives matter.

This is not the way to stop racism. It stokes it.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2020, 08:48:40 PM
FIFA doesn't sound racist, just another corporation being politically convenient for the sake of their brand.

In regards to that banner none of it is helpful.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: honk on June 24, 2020, 11:25:00 PM
Here is the article: https://onezero.medium.com/a-dna-test-told-me-im-white-here-s-why-it-s-wrong-9e6b20f128e4

DNA is majority European. Her parents are from Latin countries. Someone asked her if she was black when she was 10. Proceeds to self identify as black.

35.7% is not a majority, but this article is ridiculous all the same. The DNA test didn't tell her she's white, so why did even she bother saying something so silly as "My DNA test is wrong"?

If you need further evidence ... this was flown at a game this week
(https://i.ibb.co/PtJ9xhV/Untitled.jpg)

This outrageous statement has been referred to the police.
https://www.nhregister.com/sports/article/Police-investigating-White-Lives-Matter-banner-15359186.php

And Burnley football club issued the following statement.
Quote from: from the racists at Burnley football club
Burnley Football Club strongly condemns the actions of those responsible for the aircraft and offensive banner that flew over The Etihad Stadium on Monday evening," the club said. "We wish to make it clear that those responsible are not welcome at Turf Moor. This, in no way, represents what Burnley Football Club stands for and we will work fully with the authorities to identify those responsible and issue lifetime bans

And all because someone dared to say white lives matter.

It's a shame that Britain doesn't have freedom of speech like we do.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: ChrisTP on June 25, 2020, 02:34:47 AM
Here is the article: https://onezero.medium.com/a-dna-test-told-me-im-white-here-s-why-it-s-wrong-9e6b20f128e4

DNA is majority European. Her parents are from Latin countries. Someone asked her if she was black when she was 10. Proceeds to self identify as black.

35.7% is not a majority, but this article is ridiculous all the same. The DNA test didn't tell her she's white, so why did even she bother saying something so silly as "My DNA test is wrong"?

If you need further evidence ... this was flown at a game this week
(https://i.ibb.co/PtJ9xhV/Untitled.jpg)

This outrageous statement has been referred to the police.
https://www.nhregister.com/sports/article/Police-investigating-White-Lives-Matter-banner-15359186.php

And Burnley football club issued the following statement.
Quote from: from the racists at Burnley football club
Burnley Football Club strongly condemns the actions of those responsible for the aircraft and offensive banner that flew over The Etihad Stadium on Monday evening," the club said. "We wish to make it clear that those responsible are not welcome at Turf Moor. This, in no way, represents what Burnley Football Club stands for and we will work fully with the authorities to identify those responsible and issue lifetime bans

And all because someone dared to say white lives matter.

It's a shame that Britain doesn't have freedom of speech like we do.
Well, we do have freedom of speech and anyone can condemn that speech all the same. Regardless though, flying an obviously antagonising banner in the sky during sensitive times is just stupid and can easily be considered purposefully offensive or hate speech. Yes, all lives should matter but the point with BLM is that they don't think all lives matter if black lives don't matter as much. There are memes floating around showcasing why it's stupid to say all lives matter in this context, let alone saying white lives matter...
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: AATW on June 25, 2020, 04:17:35 PM
Police aren't supposed to stop people because they fit a profile unless it is in relation to a particular crime and/or they have a good reason to.  Profiling practices were stopped because they were found to be a step too far for government involvement in people's lives.
If that's so then fine, but if they're going to do "random" stop and searches then making them truly random makes no sense.
I couldn't find any stats on which people are stopped and searched other than by race. My guess is that race is only one factor in the police's decision on who to stop. Let's put it this way, in all the videos I've seen online of people spluttering with rage about someone being stopped "because they're black", the person in question was also young and dressed casually. So it's not much of a stretch to say that while race is a factor it is not the only one but it is the one that people fixate on.

Quote
The point that many are making is that police forces are inadequate at preventing crimes but there are many ways to engage with society that cut crime and perhaps we should put more funding in to that?

Fair enough. And in a recent John Oliver piece about this he was explaining what "defund the police" means, and it isn't that you call 999 (or 911, for you Yanks) and get an answering machine, it's exactly what you say. Stop expecting the police to deal with lots of social issues and fund programmes which will help. I agree that makes sense.

Quote
As I pointed out earlier, every other type of police use of force is more likely to be applied to black people rather than white, and that is controlling for context and confounding factors.  The conversation shouldn't end at shootings.

Fair point. I'm not denying the police have prejudices and there is a racist element. I'm just frustrated by this perception from some that black people should be actively scared when they encounter the police lest they be shot. The numbers really don't bear that out.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: AATW on June 25, 2020, 04:39:36 PM
You mention that you have been privileged in your life because you have money. This is not the same as "white privilege". There are plenty of wealthy black people. White privilege is being advantaged solely because your skin is white. nothing to do with being rich or poor.
Understood. And I'm not saying it doesn't exist at all, but my feeling is in the UK at least a black person who grew up in the circumstances I did would have had most of the same advantages in life as I did. The incidents in the US where 911 is called on black people for spurious reasons are unfortunate although I would suggest they are rare, statistically speaking, and the stupid bint in Central Park who called the police on someone got sacked for it, so hopefully that will deter others from doing things so silly.

Quote
I disagree. If you have "young, white, male, dressed in a certain way", I think you will be stopped less than if you are black. Doesn't mean you won't draw suspicion, but not as quickly. However, I don't have any proof of this.

You're right, the stats show you're right, more black people are stopped. But that's because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime. So their race is absolutely part of why they might get stopped but there are other factors and I'd suggest it's based on statistics more than racism.

And yes, police in the US do kill a disproportionate amount of black people but, again, looking at the crime stats you can see why they might have more encounters with the police and thus more opportunity for these incidents to occur. The fact remains that if you're unarmed then you are very unlikely to be killed by the police no matter your race.

Quote
Are you saying the entire BLM movement is a strawman?

If BLM is saying that racism still exists and that's a bad thing then fine, I agree.
But if the argument is that systematically the police and other authorities don't regard black people's lives as worthy as white people's then I think that's a straw man. Of course individuals will have prejudices, some will be racist (as Avenue Q reminds us, everyone's a little bit racist, and white people don't have a monopoly on that). The person or people who called the police on the bird watcher. I can understand why people might have wondered what he was up to. Calling 911 is an over-reaction, agreed. Was that based on racism or stereotypes and is there a difference between those two things? It's a fine line and stereotypes become stereotypes for a reason (Again, Avenue Q "race jokes may be thought uncouth but you laugh because they're based on truth!")

I'm not saying there isn't a problem but I would suggest that society does not as a whole think that black lives don't matter, and that's what makes BLM a bit of a straw man. But the problem is people stereotype each other - but that isn't just based on race, it can be because of gender, age, social class, the way someone dresses, all kinds of things. And I don't know how you fix that.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: timterroo on June 25, 2020, 07:26:36 PM
You mention that you have been privileged in your life because you have money. This is not the same as "white privilege". There are plenty of wealthy black people. White privilege is being advantaged solely because your skin is white. nothing to do with being rich or poor.
Understood. And I'm not saying it doesn't exist at all, but my feeling is in the UK at least a black person who grew up in the circumstances I did would have had most of the same advantages in life as I did. The incidents in the US where 911 is called on black people for spurious reasons are unfortunate although I would suggest they are rare, statistically speaking, and the stupid bint in Central Park who called the police on someone got sacked for it, so hopefully that will deter others from doing things so silly.
I don't know much about the history of black people in the UK, so maybe "white privilege", as we know it in the US, is not an issue for the UK?

Quote
I disagree. If you have "young, white, male, dressed in a certain way", I think you will be stopped less than if you are black. Doesn't mean you won't draw suspicion, but not as quickly. However, I don't have any proof of this.

You're right, the stats show you're right, more black people are stopped. But that's because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime. So their race is absolutely part of why they might get stopped but there are other factors and I'd suggest it's based on statistics more than racism.

And yes, police in the US do kill a disproportionate amount of black people but, again, looking at the crime stats you can see why they might have more encounters with the police and thus more opportunity for these incidents to occur. The fact remains that if you're unarmed then you are very unlikely to be killed by the police no matter your race.


In the US, I think there is a correlation between the high rate of crime committed by black people, and the history of systemic racism in this country. After slavery was abolished, Jim Crow laws became a thing, and that dictated where black people could live, who they could associate with, what jobs they could have, and even what restrooms or public services they could use.

These racist laws (yes, Tom, enacted by the democrats) forced black people into impoverished areas where crime was practically an inevitability. Then, police brutality became a thing, and the US built up their prison systems. So now we have a bunch of poor, crime-ridden black communities that are suddenly being locked up and brutalized by police, only to be incarcerated and put back to work for no pay - just as they were when they were "slaves".

These racist laws were eventually abolished, and we have tried to make things equal, but the animosity has not gone. The implicit biases are not gone. Racism is still not gone. Now we can conveniently use poor black communities ridden with crime as an excuse to continue incarcerating them at disproportionate rates.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on June 25, 2020, 07:48:49 PM
To add on to Tim’s point about the continuation of racism, the economic conditions that many systemically oppressed black people found themselves in are inherited today as well.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: AATW on June 25, 2020, 09:30:17 PM
In the US, I think there is a correlation between the high rate of crime committed by black people, and the history of systemic racism in this country. After slavery was abolished, Jim Crow laws became a thing, and that dictated where black people could live, who they could associate with, what jobs they could have, and even what restrooms or public services they could use.

These racist laws (yes, Tom, enacted by the democrats) forced black people into impoverished areas where crime was practically an inevitability. Then, police brutality became a thing, and the US built up their prison systems. So now we have a bunch of poor, crime-ridden black communities that are suddenly being locked up and brutalized by police, only to be incarcerated and put back to work for no pay - just as they were when they were "slaves".

These racist laws were eventually abolished, and we have tried to make things equal, but the animosity has not gone. The implicit biases are not gone. Racism is still not gone. Now we can conveniently use poor black communities ridden with crime as an excuse to continue incarcerating them at disproportionate rates.
Right, exactly this.
Those historic laws meant most of the wealth in the US is with white people.
Crime is correlated with poverty.
Police are more likely to crack down on areas with high crime.
So black people are going to be disproportionately affected by police brutality etc.
I do think there's a racist element too but I'd suggest the history of it all is a bigger factor.

As for the UK, I wouldn't say racism is fixed here but it's more covert and subtle. There's good evidence that English sounding names do better when people are applying for jobs, for example. Things are changing but there's no quick fix, attitudes take generations to improve. I should note here that I'm speaking as a Londoner, it's a pretty multi-cultural bubble in the UK, outside of London things may be different.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: timterroo on June 26, 2020, 02:17:22 AM
I do think there's a racist element too but I'd suggest the history of it all is a bigger factor.
Right, I don't think people try to be racist, not all people, not today. Most of us didn't grow up in the Jim Crow days, and we have no idea what 'real racism' is. Yet we have implicit biases that makes us do things, or react to things we ordinarily wouldn't, and this could definitely be a result of our racist history.

As for the UK, I wouldn't say racism is fixed here but it's more covert and subtle. There's good evidence that English sounding names do better when people are applying for jobs, for example. Things are changing but there's no quick fix, attitudes take generations to improve. I should note here that I'm speaking as a Londoner, it's a pretty multi-cultural bubble in the UK, outside of London things may be different.

Maybe this is media/television bias, but I get the impression that England, Britain, and other parts of the UK are more 'proper' than US, is this true? If so, I wonder if it has an impact on the expression of racism in the UK. Keep in mind, I'm stretching on this one, and I have virtually no real reason to think this way.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: AATW on June 26, 2020, 09:11:56 AM
Maybe this is media/television bias, but I get the impression that England, Britain, and other parts of the UK are more 'proper' than US, is this true? If so, I wonder if it has an impact on the expression of racism in the UK. Keep in mind, I'm stretching on this one, and I have virtually no real reason to think this way.
We like to think we're a bit less uncouth than you lot and I think that's sort of true. You don't get so much of the patriotic (which IMO veers a bit too close to jingoistic) flag waving over here. We love a bit of pomp and ceremony - often around Royal occasions - but it's all a lot more dignified. That said, there's a large underclass here too who the rest of us secretly look down on while pretending not to.

And I don't think any of that has much to do with the issue of racism, I just think we're a bit further along the path than you are. It's shocking to us that segregation was a thing within living memory in the US. You're not going to go from that to complete equality overnight, it takes generations. I think we're a bit further along than you are but we're not there yet either, the racism here is just more subtle.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Tron on June 27, 2020, 06:16:52 AM
... presumably ... to someone.

I have to wonder where this movement is going, how effective it is and what it wants? Usually, activists demand something. What BLM want is anyone's guess.


I think during WW2 America saw similar protests.  Right now our government is having problems and is to tough on its people. 
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 28, 2020, 06:45:52 PM
To clear a few things up ... the UK does not have historical racial tensions like the US does.

We didn't have black slaves here. Not even the royal family had slaves. No one can claim to be descended from slaves 200ish years ago in the UK.
We didn't have Jim Crow laws or any equivalent. We never had segregation or separate laws. It has never been against the law to marry interracially.
Black people in the UK are immigrants or descended from recent immigrants. They have been given every opportunity, They weren't brought against their will.
Our police don't have guns. Black people aren't being shot by the police. 

So, why am I watching British sports stars bending the knee? Why is the British press so desperate to import America's problems to the UK? Why are they telling black people in the UK that they are victims and white people that they are colonialists? The British aren't colonialists. We are descended from the people who didn't get on the boats ... people who chose to stay at home and not be colonialists.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: timterroo on June 29, 2020, 12:28:06 AM
To clear a few things up ... the UK does not have historical racial tensions like the US does.

We didn't have black slaves here. Not even the royal family had slaves. No one can claim to be descended from slaves 200ish years ago in the UK.
We didn't have Jim Crow laws or any equivalent. We never had segregation or separate laws. It has never been against the law to marry interracially.
Black people in the UK are immigrants or descended from recent immigrants. They have been given every opportunity, They weren't brought against their will.
Our police don't have guns. Black people aren't being shot by the police. 

So, why am I watching British sports stars bending the knee? Why is the British press so desperate to import America's problems to the UK? Why are they telling black people in the UK that they are victims and white people that they are colonialists? The British aren't colonialists. We are descended from the people who didn't get on the boats ... people who chose to stay at home and not be colonialists.

That is interesting. I wonder why? Maybe they are being empathetic?
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: honk on June 29, 2020, 12:30:33 AM
Well, we do have freedom of speech and anyone can condemn that speech all the same. Regardless though, flying an obviously antagonising banner in the sky during sensitive times is just stupid and can easily be considered purposefully offensive or hate speech. Yes, all lives should matter but the point with BLM is that they don't think all lives matter if black lives don't matter as much. There are memes floating around showcasing why it's stupid to say all lives matter in this context, let alone saying white lives matter...

I was being snarky, but to be more serious, you don't have freedom of speech if hate speech is criminalized. I agree that nobody who says "white lives matter" is acting in good faith, but it shouldn't be a crime to say that, nor anything hateful or offensive.

So, why am I watching British sports stars bending the knee? Why is the British press so desperate to import America's problems to the UK? Why are they telling black people in the UK that they are victims and white people that they are colonialists? The British aren't colonialists. We are descended from the people who didn't get on the boats ... people who chose to stay at home and not be colonialists.

Everything the colonists did, they did in Britain's name and with Britain's authority. They were funded by British money and protected by British military power, and the taxes they paid and profits they earned were sent back to Britain. I'm not saying you should feel guilty about it or ashamed of it, because it's ridiculous to blame anyone for what their ancestors or predecessors did, but it's just as ridiculous to try and act like Britain can just wash its hands of the dark legacy of colonialism on the grounds that it happened somewhere else. Incidentally, you're confusing colonists, the people who left Britain to settle foreign lands, with colonialists, the people who perpetuated and supported the practice of colonialism. The British weren't colonists, but they were colonialists.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 29, 2020, 01:11:32 PM
Everything the colonists did, they did in Britain's name and with Britain's authority. They were funded by British money and protected by British military power, and the taxes they paid and profits they earned were sent back to Britain. I'm not saying you should feel guilty about it or ashamed of it, because it's ridiculous to blame anyone for what their ancestors or predecessors did, but it's ridiculous to try and act like Britain can just wash its hands of the dark legacy of colonialism on the grounds that it happened somewhere else. Incidentally, you're confusing colonists, the people who left Britain to settle foreign lands, with colonialists, the people who perpetuated and supported the practice of colonialism. The British weren't colonists, but they were colonialists.
I think we can wash our hands of it.

The USA declared independence in 1776.
(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/week4-1234200345736107-1/95/africanamerican-history-growth-of-slavery-3-638.jpg)

Not much more than half a million slaves when we left. By 1807 Britain has abolished slavery passing the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act. Graph still keeps going up. Slavery is a part of US history. Not British history. We're the good guys. The ones who ended it. You're the nation that liked its cotton pickers too much.

Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on June 29, 2020, 01:34:56 PM

Not much more than half a million slaves when we left.

Only half a million?

Quote
By 1807 Britain has abolished slavery passing the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act. Graph still keeps going up. Slavery is a part of US history. Not British history.

But by your own admission you enslaved half a million people? 

Quote
We're the good guys. The ones who ended it.

You're also the bad guys, the ones who started it.

Quote
You're the nation that liked its cotton pickers too much.

Guess who bought the cotton?  The UK loved the cheap cotton, relied heavily on it and didn't care why it was so cheap.  How noble  ::)
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 29, 2020, 01:53:57 PM
You're also the bad guys, the ones who started it.
Hardly. The Romans were over here enslaving us 2000 years earlier. Every major civilisation has had slaves. Every single one. And it was the British who stopped it.

Guess who bought the cotton?  The UK loved the cheap cotton, relied heavily on it and didn't care why it was so cheap.  How noble  ::)
Guess who boycotted cheap cotton and demanded fair trade and refused to buy cotton picked by slaves despite their government refusing to abolish slavery?





The British public.  (http://abolition.e2bn.org/campaign_17.html) We really were the good guys in all this, and we don't deserve to be painted as the worst slave owning villains of all time. The truth is the exact opposite.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: totallackey on June 29, 2020, 02:49:53 PM

Not much more than half a million slaves when we left.

Only half a million?
Yes.

How many are in slavery today?
Quote
By 1807 Britain has abolished slavery passing the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act. Graph still keeps going up. Slavery is a part of US history. Not British history.

But by your own admission you enslaved half a million people?
You think Thork has enslaved half a million people?

How many have you enslaved?
Quote
We're the good guys. The ones who ended it.

You're also the bad guys, the ones who started it.
No, they didn't.
Quote
You're the nation that liked its cotton pickers too much.

Guess who bought the cotton?  The UK loved the cheap cotton, relied heavily on it and didn't care why it was so cheap.  How noble  ::)
Everybody loves cheap stuff.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on June 29, 2020, 03:12:19 PM
You're also the bad guys, the ones who started it.
Hardly. The Romans were over here enslaving us 2000 years earlier. Every major civilisation has had slaves. Every single one. And it was the British who stopped it.

We are talking about chattel slave trade from Africa to North America, which the UK participated in for over 150 years and transported over 3 million slaves to the New World.  It's good the UK stopped it but to say...
Slavery is a part of US history. Not British history.
...is completely false and you know that.

Quote
Guess who boycotted cheap cotton and demanded fair trade and refused to buy cotton picked by slaves despite their government refusing to abolish slavery?

Just as slavery was ending a few factory workers decided to take a stance against slave cotton, not all of them mind you. So it took almost 50 years after the abolishing of slavery to take a principled stance on slave picked cotton, and that stance was taken by a tiny minority of UK citizens who happened to wield no power?  Seems like the UK's morals weren't as strong as you are touting them.

Quote
We really were the good guys in all this, and we don't deserve to be painted as the worst slave owning villains of all time.

No one has done that.  Stop lying.

Quote
The truth is the exact opposite.

Evidently false.  The UK kept slaves, exported millions more and was a main buyer of slave picked cotton for the vast majority of the time the industry existed after they abolished slaves.

Trying to minimize the UKs role in this is just a vain attempt to protect your nationalist ego.  You would do well to be a true patriot and accept your history so that it's lessons can continue to be soaked in for future generations; we don't want to be doomed to repeat it do we?
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: TomInAustin on June 29, 2020, 04:42:06 PM


A compromise, how nice. I think we agree more than we disagree on a lot of things tbh. We're not so different, you and I.

I will admit an occasional tendency to the reductive when arguing politics. I don't really see the world as black and white, I only come across that way sometimes.


You nailed the problem.   Binary thinking is the problem now.   I am 62 and have never seen anything like the pure hatred each side has for the other.   

It's easy to get into the "Blue Plate Special" thinking in politics.   You take it all or you are the enemy.   You see it every day where people are crucified for not being BLM enough or saying it wrong or not enough we've though they mean well.

There are many good cops and bad cops
There are many good Democrats and bad Democrats
There are many good Republicans and bad Republicans
There are many good people and bad people


Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: totallackey on June 30, 2020, 11:20:13 AM
To add on to Tim’s point about the continuation of racism, the economic conditions that many systemically oppressed black people found themselves in are inherited today as well.
Thomas Sowell proves your stated position is devoid of substance.

Lifestyle choice is not systemic.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on June 30, 2020, 11:26:33 AM
To add on to Tim’s point about the continuation of racism, the economic conditions that many systemically oppressed black people found themselves in are inherited today as well.
Thomas Sowell proves your stated position is devoid of substance.

Lifestyle choice is not systemic.

How did he prove it?
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: totallackey on June 30, 2020, 11:44:12 AM
To add on to Tim’s point about the continuation of racism, the economic conditions that many systemically oppressed black people found themselves in are inherited today as well.
Thomas Sowell proves your stated position is devoid of substance.

Lifestyle choice is not systemic.

How did he prove it?
By examination of the total picture within your preferred method of introducing a number of other factors dealing with  lifestyle choices.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on June 30, 2020, 12:29:21 PM
By examination of the total picture within your preferred method of introducing a number of other factors dealing with  lifestyle choices.

Have a link to his work?
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: totallackey on June 30, 2020, 12:37:20 PM
By examination of the total picture within your preferred method of introducing a number of other factors dealing with  lifestyle choices.

Have a link to his work?
Nearly all of his works and his accomplishments can be found detailed on the Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: timterroo on June 30, 2020, 03:30:01 PM
To add on to Tim’s point about the continuation of racism, the economic conditions that many systemically oppressed black people found themselves in are inherited today as well.
Thomas Sowell proves your stated position is devoid of substance.

Lifestyle choice is not systemic.

You are correct, but we are not talking about "lifestyle choices". Because of Jim Crow laws, it wasn't their choice to live in impoverished locations, with low resources. It wasn't their choice to be forced to accepting low-paying, low-class jobs. It wasn't their choice that dealing drugs and prostitution was the most sustainable way to live - yes it was their choice to participate, but it was not their choice that it was the most profitable way to survive.

In fact, if you study inner-city marginalization, you find that many drug dealers attempted to get out of that business and "go legit". Struggling to survive on a legit income is much harder if you are black, poor, and marginalized. <- none of those things are anyone's choice.

So, I'm not sure why you call these "lifestyle choices" because nobody chooses their skin color, nobody chooses where there they are born, and nobody chooses what socio-economic class they are born into.

All Rama is saying is that a lot of this is still true today - Jim Crow laws disappeared, but that didn't automatically make anyone's lives better, or matter more.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: totallackey on June 30, 2020, 03:35:50 PM
To add on to Tim’s point about the continuation of racism, the economic conditions that many systemically oppressed black people found themselves in are inherited today as well.
Thomas Sowell proves your stated position is devoid of substance.

Lifestyle choice is not systemic.

You are correct, and I would agree with you except for the fact that it wasn't their choice to live in impoverished locations, with low resources.
Yes, it is.

There are no laws keeping people from living where they want.
It wasn't their choice to be forced to accepting low-paying, low-class jobs.
Yes, it is.

There are no laws prohibiting people from applying for any job they want.
It wasn't their choice that dealing drugs and prostitution was the most sustainable way to live - yes it was their choice to participate, but it was not their choice that it was the most profitable way to survive.
Dealing drugs and engaging in prostitution is certainly a lifestyle choice.

Where did I claim that cost of items is a lifestyle choice?
In fact, if you study inner-city marginalization, you find that many drug dealers attempted to get out of that business and "go legit". Struggling to survive on a legit income is much harder if you are black, poor, and marginalized. <- none of those things are anyone's choice.
Horseshit.

Absolutely no economic data to support this at all.
So, I'm not sure why you call these "lifestyle choices" because nobody chooses their skin color, nobody chooses there they are born, and nobody chooses what socio-economic class they are in from birth.
Your entire post is simply a fake mantra.

Read Thomas Sowell and take it up with him.

I'll take the word of a black professor over yours any day of the week.

Yeah, that was a racist thing to write, so sue me.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on June 30, 2020, 04:08:43 PM

Yes, it is.

There are no laws keeping people from living where they want.


Quote
Yes, it is.

There are no laws prohibiting people from applying for any job they want.

Laws aren't the only factor that limit people's choices.  For example, even if it were legal for me, I couldn't move to the upper east side of Manhattan because I don't have the necessary resources to do so. 

Thanks for the link to Sowell, I will have a look. Is there a particular work that you think addresses the immediate subject matter we are discussing?
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: timterroo on June 30, 2020, 04:27:37 PM
Your entire post is simply a fake mantra.

Read Thomas Sowell and take it up with him.

I'll take the word of a black professor over yours any day of the week.

Yeah, that was a racist thing to write, so sue me.

This isn't my word.

Most of what I've said comes from the words of a man who lived with crack dealers in New York City for several years journaling his entire experience and interviewing them first-hand in order to write a book about it.

Edit:

The book is called "In Search of Respect" - Philippe Bourgois
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: AATW on June 30, 2020, 07:05:44 PM
You are correct, and I would agree with you except for the fact that it wasn't their choice to live in impoverished locations, with low resources.
Yes, it is.
To be honest, I thought that was a Thork post, it's a very Thork thing to say.
It's not a choice when you don't have the money or resources to make any other choices.
And the reason black families tend not to have those resources is because of historic racist laws which prevented black families a couple of generations back from owning properties. White families were able to and that wealth has trickled down the generations in a way it hasn't for black families.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: ChrisTP on June 30, 2020, 07:35:29 PM
To add on to Tim’s point about the continuation of racism, the economic conditions that many systemically oppressed black people found themselves in are inherited today as well.
Thomas Sowell proves your stated position is devoid of substance.

Lifestyle choice is not systemic.

You are correct, and I would agree with you except for the fact that it wasn't their choice to live in impoverished locations, with low resources.
Yes, it is.

There are no laws keeping people from living where they want.
It wasn't their choice to be forced to accepting low-paying, low-class jobs.
Yes, it is.

There are no laws prohibiting people from applying for any job they want.
It wasn't their choice that dealing drugs and prostitution was the most sustainable way to live - yes it was their choice to participate, but it was not their choice that it was the most profitable way to survive.
Dealing drugs and engaging in prostitution is certainly a lifestyle choice.

Where did I claim that cost of items is a lifestyle choice?
In fact, if you study inner-city marginalization, you find that many drug dealers attempted to get out of that business and "go legit". Struggling to survive on a legit income is much harder if you are black, poor, and marginalized. <- none of those things are anyone's choice.
Horseshit.

Absolutely no economic data to support this at all.
So, I'm not sure why you call these "lifestyle choices" because nobody chooses their skin color, nobody chooses there they are born, and nobody chooses what socio-economic class they are in from birth.
Your entire post is simply a fake mantra.

Read Thomas Sowell and take it up with him.

I'll take the word of a black professor over yours any day of the week.

Yeah, that was a racist thing to write, so sue me.
I get what you're saying regarding the laws not stopping anyone from doing what they want to do. It's not the law that's preventing holding them back. Poor towns, poor cities, poor countries even, they don't choose to be poor. With poverty comes limited options of survival so if I'm struggling to feed my children and I were desperate enough to go out and steal some bikes or something to put food on the table why not? and this mindset and lifestyle is handed down. If you live in that kind of society all your life you're more likely to keep living that way. In a sense you could say that the only thing holding people back now is themselves and that would be true if it weren't also for the general racism they receive too. It's a complicated subject and not just black and white obviously, but it's not just the law keeping people living like that. People that are wealthy already are likely to have wealthy kids. that grow up making more money and staying wealthy. When you have that wealth to begin with you are in a far better position to stay wealthy. This isn't really something anyone can deny and to be fair, no one would complain about it if they were the ones living on the wealthy side of life.

Since the law isn't stopping you Totallackey, why aren't you a millionaire living a totally legit/lawful lifestyle? Did you choose not to be rich?
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 30, 2020, 08:53:38 PM
To be honest, I thought that was a Thork post, it's a very Thork thing to say.
I haven't posted in this thread for ages. I lit the touch paper and walked away from this dumpster fire ages ago.

White families were able to and that wealth has trickled down the generations in a way it hasn't for black families.
Are you a trust fund kid or something? No one gave me anything. White people aren't inheriting a fortune on their 18th birthday. Where do you get this nonsense? Most white people EARN a living. They don't get bursaries or grants for being BAME. They just get on with working hard. It is why they are called the working class.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: timterroo on June 30, 2020, 09:02:14 PM
To be honest, I thought that was a Thork post, it's a very Thork thing to say.
I haven't posted in this thread for ages. I lit the touch paper and walked away from this dumpster fire ages ago.

White families were able to and that wealth has trickled down the generations in a way it hasn't for black families.
Are you a trust fund kid or something? No one gave me anything. White people aren't inheriting a fortune on their 18th birthday. Where do you get this nonsense? Most white people EARN a living. They don't get bursaries or grants for being BAME. They just get on with working hard. It is why they are called the working class.

There's a difference between *** INHERITING MILLIONS!!!! *** and being privileged enough to have land that your ancestors were able to acquire, or inability to acquire (if you're black) which had everything to do with the Jim Crow laws and racism of our history. This is the wealth (I believe) AATW is speaking of.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: AATW on June 30, 2020, 09:38:23 PM
Are you a trust fund kid or something?
I wouldn't go that far.
But I grew up in a stable home where while we didn't have a yacht or anything we were well off enough.
We didn't want for anything. We owned our own home, had nice holidays, could afford theatre trips and other cultural experiences.
My way was paid through university, dad set up some investments for me which helped pay the deposit on my first place. I'll inherit a fair bit of money which if invested wisely will mean I'm able to help my kids.
Things haven't been handed to me on a silver platter. I've done OK in my career, I earn above average and that is due to me working hard in my degree and career. No-one is paying my mortgage for me, I do that. But the stable and relatively affluent background I describe have absolutely given me a leg up in life. Not in the same way that Boris Johnon has - I didn't go to Eton, I'll never have the advantages which moving in those circles buys you. But having a stable, reasonably affluent family makes your life easier. And it's not to do with me being white, I firmly believe that were I from a black family that was as stable and affluent as mine was that I would have had the same advantages. The issue in the US is for historic reasons black families are rarely affluent. That doesn't mean that black kids don't have many of the same opportunities in theory, but it does make it harder for them to take those opportunities.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 02, 2020, 07:23:29 PM
In the news today ... you'll enjoy this link.

David Starky is one of the most high profile historians in the United Kingdom. His comments are hilarious.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53262668
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on July 02, 2020, 08:41:32 PM
I mean, I agree that slavery wasn’t genocide. Kind of an oxymoron. The way he phrased it was pretty shit.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Roundy on July 02, 2020, 09:48:06 PM
In the news today ... you'll enjoy this link.

David Starky is one of the most high profile historians in the United Kingdom. His comments are hilarious.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53262668

Who exactly was he responding to, that characterized slavery as genocide?

To me it sounds like someone else on the right treating a minority opinion on the left as something that the majority treats seriously, even though they probably don't, and doing so in a profoundly racist way. No wonder you have such a hard-on for him.

And yes I did enjoy that! Thanks.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: totallackey on July 09, 2020, 10:43:25 PM
Are you a trust fund kid or something?
I wouldn't go that far.
But I grew up in a stable home where while we didn't have a yacht or anything we were well off enough.
We didn't want for anything. We owned our own home, had nice holidays, could afford theatre trips and other cultural experiences.
My way was paid through university, dad set up some investments for me which helped pay the deposit on my first place. I'll inherit a fair bit of money which if invested wisely will mean I'm able to help my kids.
Things haven't been handed to me on a silver platter. I've done OK in my career, I earn above average and that is due to me working hard in my degree and career. No-one is paying my mortgage for me, I do that. But the stable and relatively affluent background I describe have absolutely given me a leg up in life. Not in the same way that Boris Johnon has - I didn't go to Eton, I'll never have the advantages which moving in those circles buys you. But having a stable, reasonably affluent family makes your life easier. And it's not to do with me being white, I firmly believe that were I from a black family that was as stable and affluent as mine was that I would have had the same advantages. The issue in the US is for historic reasons black families are rarely affluent. That doesn't mean that black kids don't have many of the same opportunities in theory, but it does make it harder for them to take those opportunities.
The overwhelming reason why kids do not do well in the US is due to the loss of the nuclear family.

Nothing to do with this mythological systemic racism.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Tumeni on July 09, 2020, 10:59:42 PM
The overwhelming reason why kids do not do well in the US is due to the loss of the nuclear family.

... is that based on opinion, or science?
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Tron on July 10, 2020, 07:16:08 AM
This makes sense to me.   A lot of problems are created for people when their family falls apart.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Lord Dave on July 10, 2020, 09:29:21 AM
This makes sense to me.   A lot of problems are created for people when their family falls apart.

Yes but not because its the Nuclear family or not.
Two women, carring for an adopted child, can cause issues if they break apart.

Its change and stress that causes issues, not the structure itself.  Like two people who fight alot but never divorce are worse for kids than if they divorced.  And two people who divorce on good terms and do everything they can to keep the kids from having alot of change or hard circumstances, fair well.

You also have issues like parent(s) who are very busy and can't offer the child the attention they need because they choose to or need to work to maintain survival.

Ex: single dad working 2 low paying jobs to keep the bills paid may not be able to play with his kids as often as he or the kids want.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: AATW on July 10, 2020, 10:08:00 AM
Right. Which is why I believe a lot of this comes back to affluence.
For historic racist reasons black families tend not to be as affluent. They weren't able to accrue the wealth which has trickled down generations in white families.

Coming back to a previous discussion about profiling. I questioned whether it was just about race. I found these stats from the UK:

https://data.gov.uk/dataset/a61f9145-be44-4895-9650-4cc583516ca6/stop-and-search-statistics-2018-19

I had a look and found:
88.2% of people who were stopped and searched were male. Why is no-one railing against a systematically sexist police force?
54.7% of people who were stopped were under 25. Are the police ageist too?

Everyone understands why those people are profiled. And if you look at the crime stats you'll know why race is a factor too, it just seems to be racist to say that bit even though it happens to be true.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: totallackey on July 10, 2020, 10:17:04 AM
The overwhelming reason why kids do not do well in the US is due to the loss of the nuclear family.

... is that based on opinion, or science?
Science.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240051/
"Nearly three decades of research evaluating the impact of family structure on the health and well-being of children demonstrates that children living with their married, biological parents consistently have better physical, emotional, and academic well-being. "

This goes for everyone, regardless of the color their skin.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on July 16, 2020, 07:41:39 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/16/politics/supreme-court-florida-felons/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+%28RSS%3A+CNN+-+Most+Recent%29

This is the sort of disenfranchisement that evolved from Civil Rights movement. Poor felons are overwhelmingly black and so are barred from voting if they can’t pay a fine. Yes, there are some subset of that group who are just irresponsible asshats who are avoiding paying that fine but hey there is a subset of irresponsible asshats running corporations that avoid paying taxes because they are rich enough to say “get fucked“. They still get to vote though!
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Lord Dave on July 16, 2020, 08:28:51 PM
The overwhelming reason why kids do not do well in the US is due to the loss of the nuclear family.

... is that based on opinion, or science?
Science.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240051/
"Nearly three decades of research evaluating the impact of family structure on the health and well-being of children demonstrates that children living with their married, biological parents consistently have better physical, emotional, and academic well-being. "

This goes for everyone, regardless of the color their skin.

You uhh... you missed something there.

"The best scientific literature to date suggests that, with the exception of parents faced with unresolvable marital violence, children fare better when parents work at maintaining the marriage. Consequently, society should make every effort to support healthy marriages and to discourage married couples from divorcing."

You are basically quoting a paper that says Divorce of parents is usually bad for kids.  This does not support your claim.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Tron on July 19, 2020, 04:03:23 AM
 >o<what did he miss? the paper says kids do well that live with two parents with no violent history?
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Lord Dave on July 19, 2020, 10:48:51 AM
>o<what did he miss? the paper says kids do well that live with two parents with no violent history?

Yes but his claim was that kids do poorly when the nuclear family: Mom, Dad, kids - is removed.  But you can have kids do well with a single parent, two moms, two dads, an aunt and uncle, etc...

And he used a paper stating that divorce is damaging to kids.  Which is true but doesn't support his claim as the divorce itself is damaging, not the loss of the mom and dad living together as a couple.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Roundy on July 19, 2020, 03:10:51 PM
Dave's point is that divorce itself is traumatizing, and the paper does nothing to address healthy non-nuclear families.

It was a terrible attempt on totallackey's part at trying to cherry-pick a source that he thought would help support his position.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: totallackey on July 20, 2020, 10:22:19 AM
The overwhelming reason why kids do not do well in the US is due to the loss of the nuclear family.

... is that based on opinion, or science?
Science.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240051/
"Nearly three decades of research evaluating the impact of family structure on the health and well-being of children demonstrates that children living with their married, biological parents consistently have better physical, emotional, and academic well-being. "

This goes for everyone, regardless of the color their skin.

You uhh... you missed something there.

"The best scientific literature to date suggests that, with the exception of parents faced with unresolvable marital violence, children fare better when parents work at maintaining the marriage. Consequently, society should make every effort to support healthy marriages and to discourage married couples from divorcing."

You are basically quoting a paper that says Divorce of parents is usually bad for kids.  This does not support your claim.
Of course it does.

Divorce =/= nuclear family.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Lord Dave on July 20, 2020, 12:34:25 PM
*sigh*
If I punch you in the face, does it hurt because I punched you, or because your face is now red instead of its usual color?
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2020, 01:18:58 AM
This video pretty much sums up the liberal woke culture.

https://youtu.be/Ev373c7wSRg
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on July 21, 2020, 04:40:27 AM
That's pretty funny.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Lord Dave on July 27, 2020, 09:39:46 AM
Here is a link to related news.  However, in the spirit of our multi-political users, I have decided to make headlines based on various political bias.  Just so no one feels left out.

Protester shot and killed by driver.
Texas driver opened fired on crowded street, killing 1.
Driver protects himself from heavily armed protester.
Patriot, exercising his 2nd amendment rights, killed by driver.
Lawful gun owner killed by driver.
Lawful gun owner murders peaceful protester.

All these headlines are factually true.  Just different spins. 




Article Link (https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/26/895531346/police-declare-riots-at-portland-and-seattle-protests-1-killed-in-austin)

Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Lord Dave on July 29, 2020, 03:08:02 PM
Oh and here's another nugget.

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/28/896515022/minneapolis-police-reportedly-identify-viral-umbrella-man-as-white-supremacist

Bet ya most of the people starting shit are white supremecists.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: TomInAustin on August 31, 2020, 06:32:05 PM
Here is a link to related news.  However, in the spirit of our multi-political users, I have decided to make headlines based on various political bias.  Just so no one feels left out.

Protester shot and killed by driver.
Texas driver opened fired on crowded street, killing 1.
Driver protects himself from heavily armed protester.
Patriot, exercising his 2nd amendment rights, killed by driver.
Lawful gun owner killed by driver.
Lawful gun owner murders peaceful protester.

All these headlines are factually true.  Just different spins. 


This underlines the problem.  The biased press, yes all of them, put their own spin on every event.     

Of course this case being in Texas the driver was well within his rights to cap the guy that stuck an AK in his face.  In New York he would get life for defending himself.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Lord Dave on August 31, 2020, 07:17:05 PM
Here is a link to related news.  However, in the spirit of our multi-political users, I have decided to make headlines based on various political bias.  Just so no one feels left out.

Protester shot and killed by driver.
Texas driver opened fired on crowded street, killing 1.
Driver protects himself from heavily armed protester.
Patriot, exercising his 2nd amendment rights, killed by driver.
Lawful gun owner killed by driver.
Lawful gun owner murders peaceful protester.

All these headlines are factually true.  Just different spins. 


This underlines the problem.  The biased press, yes all of them, put their own spin on every event.     

Of course this case being in Texas the driver was well within his rights to cap the guy that stuck an AK in his face.  In New York he would get life for defending himself.

Except he didn't stick an AK in his face.  He walked down a street holding an AK.  The driver was in a god damn car and was in no actual danger.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: TomInAustin on August 31, 2020, 07:25:47 PM
Here is a link to related news.  However, in the spirit of our multi-political users, I have decided to make headlines based on various political bias.  Just so no one feels left out.

Protester shot and killed by driver.
Texas driver opened fired on crowded street, killing 1.
Driver protects himself from heavily armed protester.
Patriot, exercising his 2nd amendment rights, killed by driver.
Lawful gun owner killed by driver.
Lawful gun owner murders peaceful protester.

All these headlines are factually true.  Just different spins. 


This underlines the problem.  The biased press, yes all of them, put their own spin on every event.     

Of course this case being in Texas the driver was well within his rights to cap the guy that stuck an AK in his face.  In New York he would get life for defending himself.

Except he didn't stick an AK in his face.  He walked down a street holding an AK.  The driver was in a god damn car and was in no actual danger.

Sure he was, totally peaceful and the evil driver murdered him. 
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Lord Dave on August 31, 2020, 08:20:02 PM
Here is a link to related news.  However, in the spirit of our multi-political users, I have decided to make headlines based on various political bias.  Just so no one feels left out.

Protester shot and killed by driver.
Texas driver opened fired on crowded street, killing 1.
Driver protects himself from heavily armed protester.
Patriot, exercising his 2nd amendment rights, killed by driver.
Lawful gun owner killed by driver.
Lawful gun owner murders peaceful protester.

All these headlines are factually true.  Just different spins. 


This underlines the problem.  The biased press, yes all of them, put their own spin on every event.     

Of course this case being in Texas the driver was well within his rights to cap the guy that stuck an AK in his face.  In New York he would get life for defending himself.

Except he didn't stick an AK in his face.  He walked down a street holding an AK.  The driver was in a god damn car and was in no actual danger.

Sure he was, totally peaceful and the evil driver murdered him.
1. Not evil, scared.
2. 2nd Amendment rights to self defense by open carry apparently only apply to Republicans.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: TomInAustin on August 31, 2020, 08:48:38 PM
Here is a link to related news.  However, in the spirit of our multi-political users, I have decided to make headlines based on various political bias.  Just so no one feels left out.

Protester shot and killed by driver.
Texas driver opened fired on crowded street, killing 1.
Driver protects himself from heavily armed protester.
Patriot, exercising his 2nd amendment rights, killed by driver.
Lawful gun owner killed by driver.
Lawful gun owner murders peaceful protester.

All these headlines are factually true.  Just different spins. 


This underlines the problem.  The biased press, yes all of them, put their own spin on every event.     

Of course this case being in Texas the driver was well within his rights to cap the guy that stuck an AK in his face.  In New York he would get life for defending himself.

Except he didn't stick an AK in his face.  He walked down a street holding an AK.  The driver was in a god damn car and was in no actual danger.

Sure he was, totally peaceful and the evil driver murdered him.
1. Not evil, scared.


Since the witnesses say the man approached the car (that was being attacked) with the gun he was within his rights to defend himself.

I notice you hammered on that idiot kind in Wisconsin that killed 2 people for bringing a gun yet not a peep about the dead guy that brought an AK.  Hmm, bias much?

Quote
2. 2nd Amendment rights to self defense by open carry apparently only apply to Republicans.

Not even close, everyone has a right to carry in Texas unless otherwise restricted by federal law.   And who said anyone was a republican?  Only idiots identify with a party.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Lord Dave on August 31, 2020, 09:12:36 PM
Here is a link to related news.  However, in the spirit of our multi-political users, I have decided to make headlines based on various political bias.  Just so no one feels left out.

Protester shot and killed by driver.
Texas driver opened fired on crowded street, killing 1.
Driver protects himself from heavily armed protester.
Patriot, exercising his 2nd amendment rights, killed by driver.
Lawful gun owner killed by driver.
Lawful gun owner murders peaceful protester.

All these headlines are factually true.  Just different spins. 


This underlines the problem.  The biased press, yes all of them, put their own spin on every event.     

Of course this case being in Texas the driver was well within his rights to cap the guy that stuck an AK in his face.  In New York he would get life for defending himself.

Except he didn't stick an AK in his face.  He walked down a street holding an AK.  The driver was in a god damn car and was in no actual danger.

Sure he was, totally peaceful and the evil driver murdered him.
1. Not evil, scared.


Since the witnesses say the man approached the car (that was being attacked) with the gun he was within his rights to defend himself.
Walking down a street is approaching the car, I guess.  Buuutttt unless you wanna show me evidence that the protestor looked like he was gonna shoot the guy (gun raised) I'm not buying it.

Quote
I notice you hammered on that idiot kind in Wisconsin that killed 2 people for bringing a gun yet not a peep about the dead guy that brought an AK.  Hmm, bias much?
Of course not.  That wasn't the topic of discussion.
But I'm seeing you seem to think a kid posing as a protector with a gun is ok but a protestor with one isn't.  Hmmm...  Bias much?

Quote
Quote
2. 2nd Amendment rights to self defense by open carry apparently only apply to Republicans.

Not even close, everyone has a right to carry in Texas unless otherwise restricted by federal law.   And who said anyone was a republican?  Only idiots identify with a party.
And yet it got someone killed.  Funny how that works out.  Seems people think other people with guns are threatening.  Go figure!
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: TomInAustin on August 31, 2020, 09:20:34 PM
Here is a link to related news.  However, in the spirit of our multi-political users, I have decided to make headlines based on various political bias.  Just so no one feels left out.

Protester shot and killed by driver.
Texas driver opened fired on crowded street, killing 1.
Driver protects himself from heavily armed protester.
Patriot, exercising his 2nd amendment rights, killed by driver.
Lawful gun owner killed by driver.
Lawful gun owner murders peaceful protester.

All these headlines are factually true.  Just different spins. 


This underlines the problem.  The biased press, yes all of them, put their own spin on every event.     

Of course this case being in Texas the driver was well within his rights to cap the guy that stuck an AK in his face.  In New York he would get life for defending himself.

Except he didn't stick an AK in his face.  He walked down a street holding an AK.  The driver was in a god damn car and was in no actual danger.

Sure he was, totally peaceful and the evil driver murdered him.
1. Not evil, scared.


Since the witnesses say the man approached the car (that was being attacked) with the gun he was within his rights to defend himself.
Walking down a street is approaching the car, I guess.  Buuutttt unless you wanna show me evidence that the protestor looked like he was gonna shoot the guy (gun raised) I'm not buying it.

Quote
I notice you hammered on that idiot kind in Wisconsin that killed 2 people for bringing a gun yet not a peep about the dead guy that brought an AK.  Hmm, bias much?
Of course not.  That wasn't the topic of discussion.
But I'm seeing you seem to think a kid posing as a protector with a gun is ok but a protestor with one isn't.  Hmmm...  Bias much?

Quote
Quote
2. 2nd Amendment rights to self defense by open carry apparently only apply to Republicans.

Not even close, everyone has a right to carry in Texas unless otherwise restricted by federal law.   And who said anyone was a republican?  Only idiots identify with a party.
And yet it got someone killed.  Funny how that works out.  Seems people think other people with guns are threatening.  Go figure!


Its called reading comprehension, you should look into it.   You are trying like hell to knee jerk me into a corner but failed miserably.  I don't think any of them should have been open carrying.    I am very much on the other side on open carry, it is needlessly provacativce and like we can see, dangerous.

You and I were not there and the witnesses say the dead guy approached the car but you still insist you know what happened.  Just walking down the street and got shot.  I am sure you also know exactly what happened in every case that hits the news. 

Seems people think other people with guns approchaing a car that is under attack are threatening.  Go figure!
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: existoid on August 31, 2020, 10:59:23 PM
I have to say the killing in Austin is way harder to draw conclusions from.  The guy in the car could have been justified if the man approaching with a rifle had raised it at the last moment in a threatening way (we don't know that he did, and we don't know that he didn't, right?).  Or possibly he was super unjustified and the guy approaching the car with the rifle had it lowered barrel pointing at the ground the whole time. That seems like he should not have been shot.

But there's also lots of "frame of mind" questions - did the man in the car feel threatened for his life? 

From only this article I don't personally feel we can make a solid judgment on whether it was justified.   (Unlike the Kyle R. event which I think now has tons of exculpatory evidence already).
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: existoid on August 31, 2020, 11:41:58 PM
Written five days after that NPR article, the Texas Tribune has more info on that Austin shooting:
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/31/daniel-perry-austin-protest-garrett-foster/

Here's one quote from it:
"Broden wrote that “several witnesses” confirmed that Foster pointed his gun toward Perry first."

Foster is the man in the street with a rifle. Perry is the man driving the car who killed Foster. 

Maybe we STILL don't have all the facts, but here's at least one article that creates the plausibility that Perry believed he was protecting his life and acting in self-defense. 

And I think it's telling that Perry has been cooperating with law enforcement. More articles about him:

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/lawyers-of-army-sergeant-who-fatally-shot-garrett-foster-release-new-information-photos

https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2020-08-07/a-show-of-police-force-after-fosters-killer-is-idd/








 
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Lord Dave on September 01, 2020, 09:22:03 AM
Written five days after that NPR article, the Texas Tribune has more info on that Austin shooting:
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/31/daniel-perry-austin-protest-garrett-foster/

Here's one quote from it:
"Broden wrote that “several witnesses” confirmed that Foster pointed his gun toward Perry first."

Foster is the man in the street with a rifle. Perry is the man driving the car who killed Foster. 

Maybe we STILL don't have all the facts, but here's at least one article that creates the plausibility that Perry believed he was protecting his life and acting in self-defense. 

And I think it's telling that Perry has been cooperating with law enforcement. More articles about him:

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/lawyers-of-army-sergeant-who-fatally-shot-garrett-foster-release-new-information-photos

https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2020-08-07/a-show-of-police-force-after-fosters-killer-is-idd/

If that's accurate, then yeah, Foster deserved to die.  I must have been going on old information then.  No question there.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: TomInAustin on September 02, 2020, 05:15:44 PM
If that's accurate, then yeah, Foster deserved to die.  I must have been going on old information then.  No question there.

I am impressed, it is rare these days for people to admit it when they are misinformed.  That is the problem, the press grabs something and goes for the sensationalism  for ratings amd political agendas.   Yes on both sides, I long ago lost the stomach to listen to Fox, CNN, or MSNBC.  People only care about there own agendas.   The most current one that comes to mind is Don Lemom saying the rioting has to stop as it is hurting Bidon in the poles, not that people are being killed, injured, or losing businesses they worked to build.   I am sure there are as many FOX examples as CNN examples.

The thing we all need to remember is not a single one of the politicians at a national level give a rats ass about us.  And very few at local levels.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Dr David Thork on September 02, 2020, 06:13:48 PM
I often wondered why there is no news network that just tells the news. No agenda, no opinions, just facts. You would think it would be very advertiser friendly and would win viewers from across the political spectrum. I'm guessing the issues are as follows.

1) As soon as the outlet gets a large enough audience, someone buys it to take advantage of that trusting audience and remove the threat.
2) Finding actual journalists, instead of activists who write, is likely impossible. I guess the people who go into it and actually get a break are those who slot into the liberal hive mind ... or they work for Fox.
3) I'm guessing that people actually like opinion based reporting. That just straight facts is dry and boring or that people like a large dose of conformation bias in their news stories.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on September 02, 2020, 06:18:08 PM
There is definitely a significant portion of reporters who aren't interested in activist reporting, but are forced to do it for editorial reasons.  "To play the game"
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: TomInAustin on September 02, 2020, 06:18:54 PM
I often wondered why there is no news network that just tells the news. No agenda, no opinions, just facts. You would think it would be very advertiser friendly and would win viewers from across the political spectrum. I'm guessing the issues are as follows.

1) As soon as the outlet gets a large enough audience, someone buys it to take advantage of that trusting audience and remove the threat.
2) Finding actual journalists, instead of activists who write, is likely impossible. I guess the people who go into it and actually get a break are those who slot into the liberal hive mind ... or they work for Fox.
3) I'm guessing that people actually like opinion based reporting. That just straight facts is dry and boring or that people like a large dose of conformation bias in their news stories.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It seems to me that most people I hear talking,  take comfort from watching a station that confirms their beliefs with no challenge.  I can't imagine any other reason people could stomach Chris Hayes, Maddow, Carlson, Hannity etc.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Dr David Thork on September 02, 2020, 06:27:31 PM
Maddow and Little Brian Stelter make me sick in my own mouth. 🤢

And yes, I got so sick of not having a puking emoji to convey my feelings, I've added one to my text expander.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: TomInAustin on September 02, 2020, 06:34:42 PM
Maddow and Little Brian Stelter make me sick in my own mouth. 🤢

And yes, I got so sick of not having a puking emoji to convey my feelings, I've added one to my text expander.

🤮
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on September 02, 2020, 06:39:04 PM
Maddow and Little Brian Stelter make me sick in my own mouth. 🤢

And yes, I got so sick of not having a puking emoji to convey my feelings, I've added one to my text expander.

Its good to know that all your talk about not being concerned with foreign affairs was just for show.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: JSS on September 02, 2020, 07:05:38 PM
It seems to me that most people I hear talking,  take comfort from watching a station that confirms their beliefs with no challenge.  I can't imagine any other reason people could stomach Chris Hayes, Maddow, Carlson, Hannity etc.

I don't like watching anyone who's just yelling at me all red faced and angry.

I can piss myself off by reading the news just fine, I don't need help.

No wonder people who listen to Rush or Hanity or Tucker or Maddow all day are upset.

The world would be a better place without all of them.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Dr David Thork on September 02, 2020, 07:07:47 PM
I like Tucker. He's probably my favourite out of all of them. He's almost reasonable.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: TomInAustin on September 02, 2020, 07:32:55 PM
Maddow and Little Brian Stelter make me sick in my own mouth. 🤢

And yes, I got so sick of not having a puking emoji to convey my feelings, I've added one to my text expander.

Its good to know that all your talk about not being concerned with foreign affairs was just for show.

What does that have to do with all the liars in the MSM?
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on September 02, 2020, 07:38:42 PM
Maddow and Little Brian Stelter make me sick in my own mouth. 🤢

And yes, I got so sick of not having a puking emoji to convey my feelings, I've added one to my text expander.

Its good to know that all your talk about not being concerned with foreign affairs was just for show.

What does that have to do with all the liars in the MSM?

Thork contributes to shitty tribalism as much as the news does. He has one set of standards for people he condemns and another for those he condones.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Lord Dave on September 02, 2020, 07:44:12 PM
I often wondered why there is no news network that just tells the news. No agenda, no opinions, just facts. You would think it would be very advertiser friendly and would win viewers from across the political spectrum. I'm guessing the issues are as follows.

1) As soon as the outlet gets a large enough audience, someone buys it to take advantage of that trusting audience and remove the threat.
2) Finding actual journalists, instead of activists who write, is likely impossible. I guess the people who go into it and actually get a break are those who slot into the liberal hive mind ... or they work for Fox.
3) I'm guessing that people actually like opinion based reporting. That just straight facts is dry and boring or that people like a large dose of conformation bias in their news stories.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Umm... NPR.
The AP.  The AP especially are exactly what you want.  Its literally just the facts.  0 Bias.  Its very very boring journalism that most major news agencies copy off of and add in their own flair.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: JSS on September 02, 2020, 07:49:40 PM
I often wondered why there is no news network that just tells the news. No agenda, no opinions, just facts. You would think it would be very advertiser friendly and would win viewers from across the political spectrum. I'm guessing the issues are as follows.

1) As soon as the outlet gets a large enough audience, someone buys it to take advantage of that trusting audience and remove the threat.
2) Finding actual journalists, instead of activists who write, is likely impossible. I guess the people who go into it and actually get a break are those who slot into the liberal hive mind ... or they work for Fox.
3) I'm guessing that people actually like opinion based reporting. That just straight facts is dry and boring or that people like a large dose of conformation bias in their news stories.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Umm... NPR.
The AP.  The AP especially are exactly what you want.  Its literally just the facts.  0 Bias.  Its very very boring journalism that most major news agencies copy off of and add in their own flair.

The scary thing is Fox News watchers think NPR is some kind of evil liberal socialist hive of scum and villainy. Republicans constantly try and defund it.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Lord Dave on September 02, 2020, 08:09:03 PM
I often wondered why there is no news network that just tells the news. No agenda, no opinions, just facts. You would think it would be very advertiser friendly and would win viewers from across the political spectrum. I'm guessing the issues are as follows.

1) As soon as the outlet gets a large enough audience, someone buys it to take advantage of that trusting audience and remove the threat.
2) Finding actual journalists, instead of activists who write, is likely impossible. I guess the people who go into it and actually get a break are those who slot into the liberal hive mind ... or they work for Fox.
3) I'm guessing that people actually like opinion based reporting. That just straight facts is dry and boring or that people like a large dose of conformation bias in their news stories.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Umm... NPR.
The AP.  The AP especially are exactly what you want.  Its literally just the facts.  0 Bias.  Its very very boring journalism that most major news agencies copy off of and add in their own flair.

The scary thing is Fox News watchers think NPR is some kind of evil liberal socialist hive of scum and villainy. Republicans constantly try and defund it.

Don't you know?  Fox is fair and balanced.  So anything to the left of Fox must be evil.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Rama Set on September 02, 2020, 08:17:07 PM
Defunding the NPR is funny since about 90% of their funds come from non-government sources.
Title: Re: Black Lives Matter
Post by: Lord Dave on October 23, 2020, 06:40:12 PM
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/10/23/charges-self-described-boogaloo-bois-member-fired-ak-47-style-weapon-into-mpds-3rd-precinct-during-may-28-unrest/