[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Berzerker]

Nobody's pushing Joe. BLM wants to defund the police. Biden wants to inject them with $300M. The only person making it a Red/Blue Dems vs Reps decision is you.

BLM cofounder said Trump has to go and they'll talk with Joe. Why doesn't she count as a person? Both parties gave us the drug war, Biden's just worse than Trump on the issue. Thats why its ridiculous and transparently hypocritical for Dems to use police brutality in cities they run against Trump.

Before we go into quagmire or arguing over whatever, what exactly is your position re: BLM? That they should support Trump because he’s better than Obama?

If I was BLM I'd demand an end to the drug war and militarization of police. Those two go hand in hand and not much of anything will change if they remain the policy of the land. They should lend their support to any politician who takes up that mantle and deny it to any that wants the status quo. Sadly black voters went with Biden when they had the option of changing direction.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Before we go into quagmire or arguing over whatever, what exactly is your position re: BLM? That they should support Trump because he’s better than Obama?

This question won't be answered. Edit: See post above.

 

[Seon]

If I was BLM I'd demand an end to the drug war and militarization of police. Those two go hand in hand and not much of anything will change if they remain the policy of the land. They should lend their support to any politician who takes up that mantle and deny it to any that wants the status quo. Sadly black voters went with Biden when they had the option of changing direction.

Uh, yes, that's what "defund the police" means.

And changing direction to whom? Trump?

 

[Crezth]

BLM cofounder said Trump has to go and they'll talk with Joe. Why doesn't she count as a person? Both parties gave us the drug war, Biden's just worse than Trump on the issue. Thats why its ridiculous and transparently hypocritical for Dems to use police brutality in cities they run against Trump.

Trump bumps elbows with Nazis. He said the guys who killed that woman in 2017 were very fine people. His response to the protests have been... aggressive.

Let BLM talk to Biden and they'll learn very quickly Biden's not their man. In time they'll learn none of the politicians can help them. But Trump's very effectively situated himself as their enemy. Foolish of him.

 

[Berzerker]

This question won't be answered. Edit: See post above.

The 2nd question doesn't make sense, Obama's not running. And I answered both questions - support politicians who will end the drug war. Neither Trump or Biden will.

Uh, yes, that's what "defund the police" means.

And changing direction to whom? Trump?

I have never heard people say defunding the police means ending the drug war. For some reason BLM wont tie the two together, perhaps because plenty of black people more or less support the drug war. I already explained to whom - politicians who want to end the drug war.

The Greens, Libertarians, and even some of the Dems who ran in the primaries - Yang and Gabbard come to mind, Sanders was pro legalizing pot. The Dems need to convince themselves black lives matter.

Trump bumps elbows with Nazis. He said the guys who killed that woman in 2017 were very fine people. His response to the protests have been... aggressive.

Let BLM talk to Biden and they'll learn very quickly Biden's not their man. In time they'll learn none of the politicians can help them. But Trump's very effectively situated himself as their enemy. Foolish of him.

Trump condemned the neo-Nazis

“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

“Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

 

[Lexicus]

Obama's not running

so why the hell do you keep talking about him

 

[Seon]

Well, it is hard to prosecute a war against drugs without funding for the drug enforcement department of the police force, you know. Defunding the police goes beyond just removing equipment and also means cutting department staffing and funding that enables the police force to engage in frivolous acts of terrorism against American society, such as arresting black people for drug use or arresting sex workers.


Supporting greens and libertarians doesn't matter in our political economy. None of the three you proposed matters as they are not running for presidency. The choice is an actual binary between Biden and Trump.

You claim in this scenario, Trump is a superior candidate to Biden. Ergo, to be logically consistent, you are either arguing that BLM should do nothing, or they should support Trump.


And while you claim that Trump condemned neo-nazis, he claims that Confederate statues should be defended, people who fly Confederate flags are fine people, and have released 88 variations of 14 word political ad featuring nazi imagery, all the while dismissing the current protests as being nothing but thugs and vandals.

It doesn't take a genius to see why BLM and its allies would be so incensed against him.

 

[caketastydelish]

Joe Biden at least PRETENDS he cares about black people and minorities so some will fall for it. Trump is pretty open that he hates the majority of the country so there's no confusion in anyone's head about what he's really like. The reason some people (whether they're BLM or not) think Biden is so much better is because they're gullible and nieve. With Trump, no one gets that benefit of the doubt because he's honest in his hatred for almost all minority groups

In the US a house of worship is not just a building. As a place intended for gathering in service of religious beliefs arson of a house of worship is considered to be not only the violent crime it would be for another building, it is considered a direct assault on religious freedom as guaranteed by the constitution.

What if a Church's Chicken is burned down? Would that be considered a hate crime?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

People or property? Pick a lane, guy.

People own property, and its destruction is typically illegal for the reason that it effects people in some capacity.

This is why if I go into the middle of a large desert and rip apart a large stone with my bare hands it would be different from, say, destroying somebody's house with them not in it.

Helpful reminder: In debate its more common that judges or an audience will award positions points, rather than the proponents judging themselves.

Not sure how that relates to what I was saying. I am legit checking whether the loose relevance to original topic is straying too far from OP, because it was too far from the OP in the other thread and the OP requested the thread return to topic...which despite my disagreement with OP on much of the discussion seemed like a pretty reasonable request.

We don't have any official judges in this debate to award points, so we're stuck self-regulating/evaluating.

But churches frequently have people in them, statues do not. Arson is more like murder than vandalism, because it so frequently ends up as murder.

Arson *can* be murder, in the scenario that it kills someone intentionally. It is obviously not necessarily murder...in many cases an arsonist would seek to avoid there being people around, both to avoid murder and also to reduce the odds of being caught committing arson.

There are standards to evaluate when this happens vs not.

~~~

There was also some random ad hominem directed at me but I ignored those.

 

[Crezth]

People own property, and its destruction is typically illegal for the reason that it effects people in some capacity.

This is why if I go into the middle of a large desert and rip apart a large stone with my bare hands it would be different from, say, destroying somebody's house with them not in it.

Statues ain't houses.

 

[Seon]

People own property, and its destruction is typically illegal for the reason that it effects people in some capacity.

This is why if I go into the middle of a large desert and rip apart a large stone with my bare hands it would be different from, say, destroying somebody's house with them not in it.

irrelevant to the point of discussion/incredibly obvious and trivial point. How does this help the case that distinguishing between destroying a church and a statue is arbitrary decision?

To help you understand my bewilderment on the matter, consider the following hypothetical.

"Is it okay to commit cold blooded murder if it is okay to commit cold blooded murder?"

This appears to be what you are saying when you claim that there would be no difference between destroying statues and churches if we only care about property values.

 

[Berzerker]

so why the hell do you keep talking about him

I was responding to Seon, he wanted to talk about Obama. Maybe you're not paying attention, but 2-3 people have argued BLM is not partisan because it began under Obama. I cant very well respond without talking about him.

No.

1. Man made incorrect claim that statue vandalism is a violent crime.
2. Man is proved wrong. Vandalism itself is in fact a property crime.
3. Man suddenly brings up real historic KKK church arson out of nowhere as example of property crime being violent.
4. Other people are confused by this bizarre analogy because obviously KKK church fire bombings are a violent crime, arson, as well as terrorism but statue vandalism is none of those things.
4, Man then makes intention clearer when he states that:

5. i.e. Man states that if one considers statue vandalism to be a non-violent property crime then they should also give KKK terrorism the same courtesy.
6. Man (with long history on forum of giving sketchy nods at racism) is called out for making an KKK apologist argument.
Edit: Almost forgot: 7. Another man(fred) leaps heroically to man's defense without looking at the greater context.

3) I asked if the KKK burning down a black church with no one inside was a violent crime.
5) I was challenging your argument property crimes cant be violent crimes
6) Accusing the KKK of the violent crime of destroying a black church is an apologist argument? Is that how you define sketchy?
7) He got it right and he wasn't afraid to be fair

I dont know why you started that post with 'no', MB said "Man posts that he regards the KKK burning down an empty to church to be an act of violence."

Which was my argument. You seem to agree, so property crimes can be violent.

 

[Seon]

What a farce. I brought up Obama because you brought up Obama and kept on bringing him up for several pages now. I don’t want to talk about him either, so maybe don’t.

I suppose that if your definition of ‘partisanship’ is “opposing the Republican Party,” I suppose you would be correct that BLM is partisan.

but in their defense, the Republican Party could try to make themselves less opposable.

 

[Crezth]

Trump condemned the neo-Nazis

Tell that to his supporters lol.

 

[red_elk]

What if someone lives inside the statue?

good premise for a short story imho.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/408631366159197549/

 

[Berzerker]

You claim in this scenario, Trump is a superior candidate to Biden. Ergo, to be logically consistent, you are either arguing that BLM should do nothing, or they should support Trump.

BLM should do what I said, demand an end to the drug war and support politicians who agree. They should push Trump for a 2nd step act, and a 3rd. But the drug war is conspicuously absent from their rhetoric even though they know full well its at the heart of police brutality. So why is that? Well, I think its because their goal is electing Joe Biden and he wont go there. Joe's a true believer in his war.

And while you claim that Trump condemned neo-nazis, he claims that Confederate statues should be defended, people who fly Confederate flags are fine people, and have released 88 variations of 14 word political ad featuring nazi imagery, all the while dismissing the current protests as being nothing but thugs and vandals.

I posted what Trump said about neo-Nazis and yes, he supports confederate statues. I dont, but I also know a majority aint with me on that and I have no right to walk onto other people's property and destroy their statues. Some might consider that a hate crime.

It doesn't take a genius to see why BLM and its allies would be so incensed against him.

Then why argue BLM isn't partisan? The problem is Biden has his fingerprints all over the weapon responsible for ruining the lives of so many black people it makes BLM look hypocritical.

What a farce. I brought up Obama because you brought up Obama and kept on bringing him up for several pages now. I don’t want to talk about him either, so maybe don’t.

Did I bring up supporting Trump because he was better than Obama? I said BLM was partisan and the rebuttal was BLM started under Obama. Thats true... and they gave Obama a pass.

Tell that to his supporters lol.

He already did

 

[Crezth]

BLM should do what I said, demand an end to the drug war and support politicians who agree. They should push Trump for a 2nd step act, and a 3rd. But the drug war is conspicuously absent from their rhetoric even though they know full well its at the heart of police brutality. So why is that? Well, I think its because their goal is electing Joe Biden and he wont go there. Joe's a true believer in his war.

This is what "defund the police" means. They also support decarceration, i.e., ending mass incarceration for victimless crimes. Trump represents exactly the opposite of this. As I said, Biden won't do anything, but Trump's base is the one calling for live ammo. They don't care what he says about skinheads and crossburners, they know he's behind their cops 100%.

 

[Seon]

1. What you suggest is even more ridiculous than BLM supporting Biden, which they don’t. Because apparently to you, if you oppose someone, you automatically support their rival.

I suppose this is technically could be true considering our country runs in FPTP Republican election system, but also would be a ridiculous reach. I am talking to you right now, does that mean I support you for the presidency of America?

2. like I said, if your definition of partisanship is being opposed to trump, which I have shown myriad of reason why black people might be opposed to Trump, I suppose you would be correct. Correct and also absurd.

3. BLM also did not have a nation wide and highly energized protests of millions breaking out in their support back during Ferguson.

4. And yet they continue to support him anyways, because they know he’s their man. Just like how black people and other minorities know he’s their enemy.

 

[Inhalaattori]

I think its interesting that people are supporting BLM organization without even knowing much about it. Or are they actually only supporting the phrase? Lot of people in the BLM organization seems to be pretty extreme in their views.

Its also very weird how small aggressive minority is now controlling American society when it comes to who can say and what. Being labeled as a racist is the ultimate evil. And it seems that the most minor things get you labeled a racist and you can lose your job for pretty innocent tweet if SJW mob happens to make big deal of it. What I find disturbing is that now even family members of these so called racists are fired and stuff people said as teens is used to fire them. So people cant change?

As an outsider its interesting to see how fast USA is heading for some kind of SJW hegemony. I would have never though to see day when statues of founding fathers are brought down and American society is just watching it happen without real pushback. What is holding America together in the future if the American history as a whole is seen in negative light?

 

[gay_Aleks]

Police are right now dominating the civil authorities and have cowed them into submission to brutalise Americans citizens, and yet you are fighting spectres. You deserve the police state you get.