[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

Status
Not open for further replies.
Watch the repercussions. People arr actually payong attention atm. Just got rid of a riot squad in Buffalo. Some departments will undoubtedly have new parts.

Oversight without power isn't much of a suggestion, no. Can't say I've been super impressed with the Governor Walker neophytes. It's a powerful stupid about face.
 
Let's see if actual change comes from the Mayors declarations in Chicago. She's saying all the right things, but we've heard it before.
 
That we have.
 
Just heard from Al Jazeera live, a new law (?) now is been work on, the law demands a cop responsibility to stop any violent act that done by another cop, if any cop at scene failed to do so it will be counted as if they did the act themselves.

It's just a news that I watch while having my late dinner, I cannot send you the exact thing because it's live and I'm not sure if I get it correctly because I was so hungry and too focus on my food.
 
Under pressure everything becomes fluid
just keep going with the protests

(no casualties in this landslide here)

 
I agree, you don't really need to complicate the fact that the "burn it to the ground costs be damned" people are stupid pricks.
"costs be damned" is yet a further thing you added into the mix to justify you calling a group of people "stupid pricks". Also, everything that Traitorfish said.
 
wait you think you are being oppressed like what happens to minorities on this forum?

Oppression of opposing opinions most certainly happens on these forums in the form of bullying. I don't feel its happened to me personally, its certainly happened to other members here. There's intolerance to diversity of thought here, there can be no doubt about that. I'm not offended by peoples comments on here by the way, I have witnessed some of the nastiness and bullying tactics towards members who have dissenting opinions to the status quo, but that seems OK with you because online bullying is not the same as what minorities go through....

No. I'm not going to call her out on it because it is stupid. Her implicit bias is one of inclusion and disdain for those who seek to harm others for little more than political gain or the powerful feeling of hurting the weak.

Your implicit bias seems to be minimizing minority rights.

When you use blanket statements like Cloud_Strife does and "wish harm to all police officers, all Republican party voters/supporters, all rich white people" or claim "there all bigots" that's implicit bias. When you racially stereotype white people by assuming they have privilege, that's implicit bias. The thing is I don't really mind if anyone says these things either, I'm not offended by it, I'm just after actual equality which requires equal responsibility, its a step in the right direction for true equality. You only seem to want equality when it suits...its counterfeit equality, it's not justice, its revenge.

Yes, I do have an implicit bias against bigots and those that would aggress against the already vulnerable; don't you? And if not, why not?

And why do you think having a bias against them is in anyway comparable to what they do to the vulnerable? Why are you defending these people, where is your humility?

Disliking bigots is not an implicit bias, you are fully aware of and have good reason why you don't like bigots, implicit bias is unconscious judgement or association of a group. Your reasoning makes no sense?

The problem with your reasoning is that you assume I agree with you that ALL police, Republican supporters/voters, and rich white people are bigots, I'm using these examples as these are the groups of people you regularly have a problem with on this forum, this is where your implicit bias comes into play. Do bigots exist within those groups of people, of course they do, but your stereotyping that entire group, which is the very thing you claim to be against.
 
"costs be damned" is yet a further thing you added into the mix to justify you calling a group of people "stupid pricks". Also, everything that Traitorfish said.

I don't have a particular problem with what traitorfish said in his last post. But people lighting fires in urban areas are usually pretty good examples of costs be damned stupid pricks. The pieces of **** that have been cooped up that just ran out long enough to loot booze are stupid pricks. The chicken hawks that can't even sort out well meaning advice on how to protest, because the thought never actually occurred to them...

Just heard from Al Jazeera live, a new law (?) now is been work on, the law demands a cop responsibility to stop any violent act that done by another cop, if any cop at scene failed to do so it will be counted as if they did the act themselves.

It's just a news that I watch while having my late dinner, I cannot send you the exact thing because it's live and I'm not sure if I get it correctly because I was so hungry and too focus on my food.

The city council passed a restraining order against police using choke holds or officers failing to attempt to stop and then report those who do. It's on hold pending a court ruling on it's legality, if I gathered right. I don't think anyone here has a particular problem with that either.

The two who pushed the 75 year old are up on criminal assault charges.
 
Last edited:
Oppression of opposing opinions most certainly happens on these forums in the form of bullying. I don't feel its happened to me personally, its certainly happened to other members here. There's intolerance to diversity of thought here, there can be no doubt about that. I'm not offended by peoples comments on here by the way, I have witnessed some of the nastiness and bullying tactics towards members who have dissenting opinions to the status quo, but that seems OK with you because online bullying is not the same as what minorities go through....

Won't anyone think of the race realists and the authoritarian bootlickers? Truly, their plight goes unnoticed in the marketplace of ideas.
 
There's intolerance to diversity of thought here, there can be no doubt about that.

Except we ALL have intolerance of diversity, especially on issues that tend to impact about us and ours; if you seriously think people, lets say Black people, are going to tolerate the continuation of systemic racism by institutions such as the police, then you're so far the impacts of it that you can reduce it to a mere topic of debate, rather than an actual, on-going process that continues to harm and claim lives and is measurably observable in reality.

You want to detatch yourself from the consequences of this continuing; i don't, I live in the real world where I have to contend with on-going harmful things perpetrated by some of those institutions whilst you see not being able to discuss them in "rational" detatched means as something akin to an existential theat.

Get. A. Grip. And get some basic empathy and stop expecting those on the recieving end to not be emotional or ****ed off.
 
The problem with your reasoning is that you assume I agree with you that ALL police, Republican supporters/voters, and rich white people are bigots

If you don't think the Republican party, that for decades called for the explicit and implicit discrimination of certain groups, is bigoted then you inhabit a seperate reality or universe, one in which only you experience that has no connection or mooring with the lived experiences of real life people nor reality they experience.

Like for god's ****ing sake man, the GOP literally left the LGBTQ community to suffer and die from aids not only because they believed it was akin to god punishing the wicked, but because they viewed them as a group worthy of suffering and death!

This is a matter of historical fact! Get. A. Grip.
 
Won't anyone think of the race realists and the authoritarian bootlickers? Truly, their plight goes unnoticed in the marketplace of ideas.

I cant say I'm a big fan of satirical humor, it usually emanates from an individuals inability to constructively and coherently participate in a discussion. It's essentially a weak attempt to discredit someone's argument when they cant offer anything tangible to the discussion.
 
I cant say I'm a big fan of satirical humor, it usually emanates from an individuals inability to constructively and coherently participate in a discussion. It's essentially a weak attempt to discredit someone's argument when they cant offer anything tangible to the discussion.

See, thing is, you haven't earned any better.
 
Won't anyone think of the race realists and the authoritarian bootlickers? Truly, their plight goes unnoticed in the marketplace of ideas.

I think there is a much easier answer here.

The implicit point being made by conservatives is that somehow their political beliefs are akin to statuses of people like race, sexuality, gender, religion etc and they shouldn't be made to ever feel uncomfortable by being confronted with the results of said beliefs.
 
I cant say I'm a big fan of satirical humor, it usually emanates from an individuals inability to constructively and coherently participate in a discussion. It's essentially a weak attempt to discredit someone's argument when they cant offer anything tangible to the discussion.

If we are as intolerant as you claim, it should be easy for you to provide us an example of the community running out someone with innocuous beliefs through bullying.

FWIW, I don't need to put in an effort in discrediting your argument. You do this well enough all on your own.
 
The implicit point being made by conservatives is that somehow their political beliefs are akin to statuses of people like race, sexuality, gender, religion etc and they shouldn't be made to ever feel uncomfortable by being confronted with the results of said beliefs.

I was thinking something even easier than that actually, but this is good too.
 
I cant say I'm a big fan of satirical humor, it usually emanates from an individuals inability to constructively and coherently participate in a discussion. It's essentially a weak attempt to discredit someone's argument when they cant offer anything tangible to the discussion.

Have you offered anything tangible to the discussion? Not doing so would be the typical use case for sarcasm and mockery, as ideas would actually be engaged with.
 
If we are as intolerant as you claim, it should be easy for you to provide us an example of the community running out someone with innocuous beliefs through bullying.

FWIW, I don't need to put in an effort in discrediting your argument. You do this well enough all on your own.

I've bullied some folks outta here and have not a shred of remorse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom