Girl Pepper Sprayed By Police


Off-Topic Discussions

251 to 300 of 444 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So Gandhi and MLK were peacefully assassinated and the protesters were violent?

EXACTLY.

Peaceful protests arent going to stop you from getting shot in the face.

Or having hoses turned on you. (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble).

Or having dogs turned loose on you (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble)

Or as in the case of Medgar Evers SHOT IN THE BACK in his own driveway. and upon being taken to the hospital was denied entry BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.

But people are determined to talk about how great peaceful protest is...

OTOH, I suspect without the commitment to non-violence on the mainstream of the movement it would have been even worse and not have ended even as well as it did. Black people couldn't have won the armed struggle it would have turned into.

Non-violence resistance is a valid tactic in the face of stronger oppression. It will be met with violence. Rule of thumb: If you're not being met with violence, you're not accomplishing anything.


Fergie wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
But that won't play with the Al Sharpton crowd.
Al Sharpton a fine fellow! He has been standing up for civil rights for as long as I can remember, against serious and brutal opposition. I can't think of many other people who have been as dedicated as he has, for as many years.

And when he can't find any opposition to stand up against, he will damn well manufacture some.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Norman Osborne wrote:
Quote:
Al Sharpton
And when he can't find any opposition to stand up against, he will damn well manufacture some.

Please give an example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Tawana Brawley has already been mentioned.

There is also the Freddie's Fashion Mart Massacre, where his ignorance of the facts of the matter combined with his race-baiting comments directly led to the murder of eight people.

Frankly, over the past decade or so, it's hard to find incidents he has been involved in that didn't actively worsen race relations.


thejeff wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So Gandhi and MLK were peacefully assassinated and the protesters were violent?

EXACTLY.

Peaceful protests arent going to stop you from getting shot in the face.

Or having hoses turned on you. (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble).

Or having dogs turned loose on you (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble)

Or as in the case of Medgar Evers SHOT IN THE BACK in his own driveway. and upon being taken to the hospital was denied entry BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.

But people are determined to talk about how great peaceful protest is...

OTOH, I suspect without the commitment to non-violence on the mainstream of the movement it would have been even worse and not have ended even as well as it did. Black people couldn't have won the armed struggle it would have turned into.

Non-violence resistance is a valid tactic in the face of stronger oppression. It will be met with violence. Rule of thumb: If you're not being met with violence, you're not accomplishing anything.

My issue with non-violent resistance is that it naturally favors the oppressor. It allows them to do heinous things and then the results only come after someone has been further hurt or killed. This from a country that doesn't hesitate to go to war to fight for it's interests. It's a do as I say not as I do. And it sucks.

Besides, non-violent protest is getting BLM nowhere. Nothing is changing for the better. The populace at large wants people of color out of sight and silent. We can be celebrities and sports stars as long as we don't speak out of turn. And if you're a person of color who doesn't have the benefit of celebrity you're a troublemaker. Thing is there are ALOT of scared black people in this country. The thing is people are only going to be scared for so long before they realize that they have very little or nothing to lose in fighting back.

Reminds me of something that was said by two characters is Tarantino's The Hateful Eight:

Major Marquis Warren: ...Just how many n*gg*r towns did ya'll sack in your fight for dignity in defeat?"

Chris Manix: Oh my fair share black major! 'cause when n*gg*rs are scared that's when white folks are safe!

and later on in the same movie

Major Marquis Warren: You got no idea what it's like being a black man facing down America. The only time black folks is safe? is when white folks is disarmed.

At one time both of these were kind of true. Maybe back in the 1870's. Maybe in the 1950's too. Not so much now though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
thejeff wrote:

OTOH, I suspect without the commitment to non-violence on the mainstream of the movement it would have been even worse and not have ended even as well as it did. Black people couldn't have won the armed struggle it would have turned into.

Non-violence resistance is a valid tactic in the face of stronger oppression. It will be met with violence. Rule of thumb: If you're not being met with violence, you're not accomplishing anything.

My issue with non-violent resistance is that it naturally favors the oppressor. It allows them to do heinous things and then the results only come after someone has been further hurt or killed. This from a country that doesn't hesitate to go to war to fight for it's interests. It's a do as I say not as I do. And it sucks.

Besides, non-violent protest is getting BLM nowhere. Nothing is changing for the better. The populace at large wants people of color out of sight and silent. We can be celebrities and sports stars as long as we don't speak out of turn. And if you're a person of color who doesn't have the benefit of celebrity you're a troublemaker. Thing is there are ALOT of scared black people in this country. The thing is people are only going to be scared for so long before they realize that they have very little or nothing to lose in fighting back.

So what's the answer? If non-violence won't work, are you suggesting violence? Do you think it's possible for that to work and not just make things even worse?

Non-violence favors the oppressor, but only in the sense that everything favors the oppressor. The oppressor has the power. You can't beat him with violence. Any kind of resistance, violent or otherwise gets those resistance hurt or killed. Violent resistance might give the momentary satisfaction of taking some of the bastards with you, but it's likely to end up in an even worse place.

I get that it's natural for scared folks with little to lose to turn to violence. To strike back. We're seeing that already. We've seen it before. That doesn't mean it's any more effective.


Norman Osborne wrote:
Stuff

Neither of those incidents are Al Sharpton's doing in any way. He had a tangential role in both. I don't stand by everything Al Sharpton says, but his message has always been non-violent. If you attempt to help the poorest people at the bottom of society, not all of them are going to be paragons of humanity. I think it would be fair to criticize Al Sharpton for going after publicity, but that is absolutely necessary in a civil rights movement.

Just out of curiosity, what civil rights leaders do you think have done a good job of improving race relations in the last couple of decades?


Fergie wrote:
Norman Osborne wrote:
Stuff

Neither of those incidents are Al Sharpton's doing in any way. He had a tangential role in both. I don't stand by everything Al Sharpton says, but his message has always been non-violent. If you attempt to help the poorest people at the bottom of society, not all of them are going to be paragons of humanity. I think it would be fair to criticize Al Sharpton for going after publicity, but that is absolutely necessary in a civil rights movement.

Just out of curiosity, what civil rights leaders do you think have done a good job of improving race relations in the last couple of decades?

I'm not siding with Normal Osbourne at all here, but he's not wrong about Al Sharpton. He DID incite that incident at Freddy's. I don't think that his intent was to cause deaths but he had to know that what he was saying that would incite passions in a way that would not end well.

That being said, Al Sharpton ONLY exists because white politicians stood by and did nothing whenever racism reared its head in the black community. Whether it was a place like Freddy's or police brutality instead of stepping up and speaking up for their constituents they did nothing. They could have easily blunted his influence but they couldn't be bothered. I personally dont care for Sharpton, he's an opportunist and that's being mild. But like him or not he gets the publicity and he gets results.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So Gandhi and MLK were peacefully assassinated and the protesters were violent?

EXACTLY.

Peaceful protests arent going to stop you from getting shot in the face.

Or having hoses turned on you. (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble).

Or having dogs turned loose on you (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble)

Or as in the case of Medgar Evers SHOT IN THE BACK in his own driveway. and upon being taken to the hospital was denied entry BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.

But people are determined to talk about how great peaceful protest is...

It's called laying your life on the line for a cause you believe in... the kind of thing we venerate soldiers for. A lot of people did just that during the Civil Rights Movement.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So Gandhi and MLK were peacefully assassinated and the protesters were violent?

EXACTLY.

Peaceful protests arent going to stop you from getting shot in the face.

Or having hoses turned on you. (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble).

Or having dogs turned loose on you (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble)

Or as in the case of Medgar Evers SHOT IN THE BACK in his own driveway. and upon being taken to the hospital was denied entry BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.

But people are determined to talk about how great peaceful protest is...

It's called laying your life on the line for a cause you believe in... the kind of thing we venerate soldiers for. A lot of people did just that during the Civil Rights Movement.

And for what? Alot of the same crap they were fighting and dying for is still going on. Segregation is still a thing more so than ever except now its redlining and gentrification. The police are still murdering unarmed men women and children the only difference is now it's being captured on video because everyone has a camera phone. The laws changed but people found ways around the laws to do what they want to anyway. I ask again, what did these peaceful protestors die for?


ShinHakkaider wrote:


And for what? Alot of the same crap they were fighting and dying for is still going on. Segregation is still a thing more so than ever except now its redlining and gentrification. The police are still murdering unarmed men women and children the only difference is now it's being captured on video because everyone has a camera phone. The laws changed but people found ways around the laws to do what they want to anyway. I ask again, what did these peaceful protestors die for?

Because it's still bad but it has gotten a lot better.

That says more about how bad it was than about how good it is, but it IS getting better and it will keep getting better if we keep plugging away at it.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:


And for what? Alot of the same crap they were fighting and dying for is still going on. Segregation is still a thing more so than ever except now its redlining and gentrification. The police are still murdering unarmed men women and children the only difference is now it's being captured on video because everyone has a camera phone. The laws changed but people found ways around the laws to do what they want to anyway. I ask again, what did these peaceful protestors die for?

Because it's still bad but it has gotten a lot better.

That says more about how bad it was than about how good it is, but it IS getting better and it will keep getting better if we keep plugging away at it.

Or perhaps, because we stopped plugging away at it? In many ways we're dealing with backlash from the 60s Civil Rights movement.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
thejeff wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So Gandhi and MLK were peacefully assassinated and the protesters were violent?

EXACTLY.

Peaceful protests arent going to stop you from getting shot in the face.

Or having hoses turned on you. (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble).

Or having dogs turned loose on you (*Because you know there were a whole bunch of whites back then, just like now, who said it was the protesters fault for instigating and starting trouble)

Or as in the case of Medgar Evers SHOT IN THE BACK in his own driveway. and upon being taken to the hospital was denied entry BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.

But people are determined to talk about how great peaceful protest is...

OTOH, I suspect without the commitment to non-violence on the mainstream of the movement it would have been even worse and not have ended even as well as it did. Black people couldn't have won the armed struggle it would have turned into.

Non-violence resistance is a valid tactic in the face of stronger oppression. It will be met with violence. Rule of thumb: If you're not being met with violence, you're not accomplishing anything.

My issue with non-violent resistance is that it naturally favors the oppressor. It allows them to do heinous things and then the results only come after someone has been further hurt or killed. This from a country that doesn't hesitate to go to war to fight for it's interests. It's a do as I say not as I do. And it sucks.

Besides, non-violent protest is getting BLM nowhere. Nothing is changing for the better. The populace at large wants people of color out of sight and silent. We can be celebrities and sports stars as long as we don't speak out of turn. And if you're a person of color who doesn't have the benefit of celebrity you're a troublemaker. Thing is there are ALOT of scared black people...

Violence favors the oppressor even more. It allows them to legitimize their own use of force and grip onto their oppressive tactics harder.

If you insult me and I punch you, you'd probably feel entitled to defend yourself. If you do use violence, now I also feel entitled to violence.

Non-theoretical example: post-9/11, the US didn't take a step back and collectively say "Oh shit, we must have pissed someone off, maybe we should examine our behavior." We looked around for something to bomb.

Violence begets violence.

Statistically this is born out in the rest of the world as well. Non-violence has about a 50% effectiveness of large amounts of change and nearly 80% of at least moderate change. Violence has about a 20% effectiveness of large amounts of change and rarely if ever results in moderate change. By change, I mean changing the situation to more closely align with the acting groups ideals.


California police shoot man, witnesses say critically wounded man was unarmed with hands showing


Baltimore cops previously charged in Freddie Gray’s death celebrated at right-wing gala


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Violence begets Violence.

Why can't chocolate beget more chocolate?


Revolutionaries have a hard time in this world, that much is true. India got independence from Britain because they exploited the fact that Britain was still in shambles after WWII. Ireland got independence from Britain because they exploited the fact that Britain was still in shambled after WWI. As far as I can see, it requires some shown weakness in the oppressor before it can work. Then again, I am no expert.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Violence begets Violence.

Why can't chocolate beget more chocolate?

Chocolate sweets beget more chocolate sweets when cocoa, sugar and/or milk love each other very, very much.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Norman Osborne wrote:
Stuff

Neither of those incidents are Al Sharpton's doing in any way. He had a tangential role in both. I don't stand by everything Al Sharpton says, but his message has always been non-violent. If you attempt to help the poorest people at the bottom of society, not all of them are going to be paragons of humanity. I think it would be fair to criticize Al Sharpton for going after publicity, but that is absolutely necessary in a civil rights movement.

Just out of curiosity, what civil rights leaders do you think have done a good job of improving race relations in the last couple of decades?

I'm not siding with Normal Osbourne at all here, but he's not wrong about Al Sharpton. He DID incite that incident at Freddy's. I don't think that his intent was to cause deaths but he had to know that what he was saying that would incite passions in a way that would not end well.

That being said, Al Sharpton ONLY exists because white politicians stood by and did nothing whenever racism reared its head in the black community. Whether it was a place like Freddy's or police brutality instead of stepping up and speaking up for their constituents they did nothing. They could have easily blunted his influence but they couldn't be bothered. I personally dont care for Sharpton, he's an opportunist and that's being mild. But like him or not he gets the publicity and he gets results.

ugh. I have hated that oaf since the purple tracksuit and perm days. He's the drunk uncle of the civil rights movement. No-one invited him, but he shows up anyways, drinking your top shelf liquor(that you haven't opened yet and were saving for a special occasion) and telling everyone how things would be better if everyone did what he did before passing out on the couch at 6pm snoring loudly through the game you were going to watch with your guests.


Comrade Omar, rest in peace, was fond of quoting an op-ed piece about Al Sharpton by Luther Campbell, formerly of 2 Live Crew, but alas, I can't find it, just an excerpt:

Uncle Luke Slams Rev. Al Sharpton's Past as a FBI Snitch

Anyway, back to random articles about police brutality:

Houston: Metro police release video of apparent beating

I like the use of the word "apparent".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
And for what? Alot of the same crap they were fighting and dying for is still going on. Segregation is still a thing more so than ever except now its redlining and gentrification. The police are still murdering unarmed men women and children the only difference is now it's being captured on video because everyone has a camera phone. The laws changed but people found ways around the laws to do what they want to anyway. I ask again, what did these peaceful protestors die for?

Gandhi liberated his people from the most powerful remaining colonial empire at the time. Of course the British still managed to mess up things like the partition, but overall it was still an improvement over what came before.

The blood spilled in our Civil Rights Movement was the start of the road to end racial discrimination. It's rather absurd to criticise the beginning because they couldn't end the entire scope of the problem in one swoop. You can't openly be proud to be a bigot anymore, that's a non-trivial change.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
You can't openly be proud to be a bigot anymore, that's a non-trivial change.

That was, at least, until this election...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's also important to remember that President Obama himself said "Racism, we are not cured of it. And it's not just a matter of not being able to say nigger in public. That's not the measure of whether racism still exists or not." (I know, that's inflammatory language, but I'm trusting the profanity filter to catch it, and those are the President's exact words.)

I'm not so sure you can't be openly proud to be a bigot anymore. You can certainly get away with coded terms like "urban" and "thug," and that's the least of the behavior Trump has displayed. That's not to say that things haven't improved since the days of Jim Crow, but there's still progress to be made, and we're going through an extremely reactionary period at the moment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
You can't openly be proud to be a bigot anymore, that's a non-trivial change.
That was, at least, until this election...

That's the problem with progress, unless actively maintained, it's always subject to reversal. One of the first things we learn in Odonian class.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
You can't openly be proud to be a bigot anymore, that's a non-trivial change.

Wait...What?!?!

That's an ENTIRELY trivial change. Also? *looks over at the Republican nominee for president and his base of white nationalist/alt-right supporters* I'm not really sure that that's accurate?

Separate but (not really?) equal is still around.
Wage discrepancies based on race is still around.
Disenfranchisement of the black voting block is still around.
Race based hiring is still around.
Race based housing is still around.
Disproportionate convictions and sentencing of black people is still around.

All of this stuff still exists. So what someone will think twice about calling me a name to my face? I WANT to know who my enemies are. The thing is: these people are my co-workers, my doctors, my childs' teachers and administrators, our judges, OUR POLICE OFFICERS.

It's a little funny to me that people in this country especially the right wingers are so obsessed with Jihadists living among us or coming here to disrupt their way of life and kill them for no reason. Thing is? I know EXACTLY what that fear an anxiety feels like.


Hitdice wrote:

It's also important to remember that President Obama himself said "Racism, we are not cured of it. And it's not just a matter of not being able to say n$*!+* in public. That's not the measure of whether racism still exists or not." (I know, that's inflammatory language, but I'm trusting the profanity filter to catch it, and those are the President's exact words.)

I'm not so sure you can't be openly proud to be a bigot anymore. You can certainly get away with coded terms like "urban" and "thug," and that's the least of the behavior Trump has displayed. That's not to say that things haven't improved since the days of Jim Crow, but there's still progress to be made, and we're going through an extremely reactionary period at the moment.

I heard part of a RuPaul interview recently. He was suspicious of claims that LGBT rights had come a long way, or that things had been normalized. His comment was that in the 70's, gay men actually made significant process in acceptance in the rest of society, but then disco died and the AIDS epidemic came along and all that was wiped away.

I don't think that progress is linear; there are times we regress, sometimes significantly. I think the best we can hope for is to make progress, and even if regression happens, the progress puts us in a position to make either faster or bigger progress next time. We need to admit the times we take a step back and realize it's inevitable that that happens at some point.


ShinHakkaider wrote:


Separate but (not really?) equal is still around.
Wage discrepancies based on race is still around.
Disenfranchisement of the black voting block is still around.
Race based hiring is still around.
Race based housing is still around.
Disproportionate convictions and sentencing of black people is still around.

They're around but they're not as prevelant as they used to be.

The voter disenfranchisement has gotten worse than it was at one point but is still better than it was at others. Thats where we need to make the big push , because everything else follows from that. Republicans pulled a HUGE gerrymander by buying statewide midterm elections and rigging the census. I don't think they can keep that momentum going for long though. One democratic president a supreme court nominee or two and you're looking at independently drawn electoral districts and widening the prohibition on "white person id laws" . That will get you the vote back which should start to work on the rest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:


Separate but (not really?) equal is still around.
Wage discrepancies based on race is still around.
Disenfranchisement of the black voting block is still around.
Race based hiring is still around.
Race based housing is still around.
Disproportionate convictions and sentencing of black people is still around.

They're around but they're not as prevelant as they used to be.

Wolf, You're saying that these things arent are prevalent as they used to be and to be fair they arent.

They are still very far from equal though and I think that's the issue. You want to have harsh draconian drug laws? fine. But make sure penalties are applied equally across the board.

Dont tell me that hiring practices are fair across the board when white employers are more likely to hire a white guy with a felony record over a black guy with no record and an actual degree.

Dont pay me less in the same position as a white guy because of my skin color.

When I'm looking for an apartment to live in as long as I can pay the rent or in the case of buying a house can provide the down payment and pay the mortgage dont just take me to the lower income or black part of town.

And dont execute me at a traffic stop when my hands are raised in the air if you wouldnt do so to a white guy in the same situation. Or if you are going to execute ME, treat white guys with the same disdain for life.

FAIR. EQUAL.

That's LITERALLY all we're asking for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

...Nobody is, and nobody has.

"Things have gotten better" is not the same thing as saying "things are perfect". You're just arguing for the sake of argument at this point because you're just loudly agreeing with the people you're yelling at.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:

...Nobody is, and nobody has.

"Things have gotten better" is not the same thing as saying "things are perfect". You're just arguing for the sake of argument at this point because you're just loudly agreeing with the people you're yelling at.

"better" is a loaded term as the line that defines it is going to be in very different places for very different people.


Sundakan wrote:

...Nobody is, and nobody has.

"Things have gotten better" is not the same thing as saying "things are perfect". You're just arguing for the sake of argument at this point because you're just loudly agreeing with the people you're yelling at.

Didnt we have a mutual agreement to ignore and or not respond to each other on these boards?


Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:

...Nobody is, and nobody has.

"Things have gotten better" is not the same thing as saying "things are perfect". You're just arguing for the sake of argument at this point because you're just loudly agreeing with the people you're yelling at.

"better" is a loaded term as the line that defines it is going to be in very different places for very different people.

It was my mistake in thinking that was apparent in what I was saying. Thanks for clarifying, Freehold.


Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:

...Nobody is, and nobody has.

"Things have gotten better" is not the same thing as saying "things are perfect". You're just arguing for the sake of argument at this point because you're just loudly agreeing with the people you're yelling at.

"better" is a loaded term as the line that defines it is going to be in very different places for very different people.

My mistake. I'll be sure to keep in mind that some people thought things were better in the 40's for next time.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:


And for what? Alot of the same crap they were fighting and dying for is still going on. Segregation is still a thing more so than ever except now its redlining and gentrification. The police are still murdering unarmed men women and children the only difference is now it's being captured on video because everyone has a camera phone. The laws changed but people found ways around the laws to do what they want to anyway. I ask again, what did these peaceful protestors die for?

Because it's still bad but it has gotten a lot better.

That says more about how bad it was than about how good it is, but it IS getting better and it will keep getting better if we keep plugging away at it.

We hope it will keep better but no battle is certain, nor is victory in a war like this one. We can have reversals so bad that it entirely undoes the work of King and X. Or maybe we will learn more about that area of the Human psyche where such drives dwell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:

...Nobody is, and nobody has.

"Things have gotten better" is not the same thing as saying "things are perfect". You're just arguing for the sake of argument at this point because you're just loudly agreeing with the people you're yelling at.

"better" is a loaded term as the line that defines it is going to be in very different places for very different people.

I agree it's loaded, but which is better, a slow reduction in killings over the next 10 years, or that 10th year suddenly achieving the goal? Ex:

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

vs

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0

I say this because we aren't going to solve the issue this year and have a perfect year next year. We've had a strongly racist system for 400 years, you're not going to stop it and reverse it on a dime. It has momentum. I think we've mostly stopped the momentum, but we still need to turn it around and get it going the other way. It's going to continue to take time and energy. I would guess it takes us at least another generation.

There are grandchildren of slaves and slave owners alive today. Shit like this doesn't go away fast.


Sundakan wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:

...Nobody is, and nobody has.

"Things have gotten better" is not the same thing as saying "things are perfect". You're just arguing for the sake of argument at this point because you're just loudly agreeing with the people you're yelling at.

"better" is a loaded term as the line that defines it is going to be in very different places for very different people.

My mistake. I'll be sure to keep in mind that some people thought things were better in the 40's for next time.

ugh.

I have to deal with someone I work with who firmly believes this on a regular basis.


Military-Style Raid Ends Native Prayer Against Dakota Pipeline


A little late, but I recently discovered this website and liked this article:

CHARLOTTE, NC: “WELCOME TO THE END OF THE WORLD”


Even later:

VICTORY! SEATTLE BLOCKS POLICE BUNKER! VICTORY RALLY & RALLY TO BUILD 1,000 HOMES INSTEAD, SEPT. 22!


NYPD sent undercover officers to Black Lives Matter protest, records reveal

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
NYPD sent undercover officers to Black Lives Matter protest, records reveal

I wonder if they had operatives in the crowd stirring up trouble so they could justify cracking down on protesters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
NYPD sent undercover officers to Black Lives Matter protest, records reveal
I wonder if they had operatives in the crowd stirring up trouble so they could justify cracking down on protesters.

It would not be the first time. I recall the NYPD undercover goon squad crashing their scooters into crowds of people to start trouble.

New York City: RNC Protesters Framed Up
Cops, Lies and Videotape

a paragraph from the Workers Vanguard about RNC arrests:

Jamal Holiday is a young black man arrested during the RNC protests. On August 30, Holiday was part of the Poor People's March when a plainclothes cop drove an unmarked motor scooter into the crowd of demonstrators, striking at least one woman. The protesters reacted in defense against the apparently crazed individual. As the video of the incident shows, Jamal told the police who came on the scene, "He just ran over people." The next day, in standard police racial profiling, Holiday was picked up by cops who claimed surveillance cameras showed him to be wearing the same clothing (a baseball cap and T-shirt) as an individual filmed kicking the undercover provocateur. With Holiday facing up to seven years in prison on assault charges, his bail was set at $250,000, in part because political literature was found in his home. Jamal Holiday spent seven months in Rikers Island, and after agreeing to a plea bargain, was finally released on probation under conditions of one year of "intensive supervision," but he still faces possible charges.


Ah, my old comrades!

Sovereign Court

I know that sort of thing happened up here in Canada at least once that I remember, there were a couple of masked protesters holding rocks amidst a peaceful protest and the protesters themselves herded the two trouble makers towards the police so they could arrest them. Later when the police report showed no arrests at the event people were curious what happened to the two masked men that the police had picked up. Turns out they were both undercover officers, clearly looking to start something so their buddies could crack down. Something aught to come of that but it gets swept under the rug.

Edit:
Found the video

Not quite as I remember but still pretty sickening.


Guy Humual wrote:
I know that sort of thing happened up here in Canada at least once that I remember, there were a couple of masked protesters holding rocks amidst a peaceful protest and the protesters themselves herded the two trouble makers towards the police so they could arrest them. Later when the police report showed no arrests at the event people were curious what happened to the two masked men that the police had picked up. Turns out they were both undercover officers, clearly looking to start something so their buddies could crack down. Something aught to come of that but it gets swept under the rug.

Was that in Toronto? I think I saw a youtube vid on that, although I think the VPD has tried that trick in Vancouver a few times as well.

Calex,
Fraser Valley, BC, Canada

Edit: oh. Quebec.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Violence begets Violence.

Why can't chocolate beget more chocolate?

Chocolate sweets beget more chocolate sweets when cocoa, sugar and/or milk love each other very, very much.

And thus the world is at peace.


ShinHakkaider wrote:


They are still very far from equal though and I think that's the issue. You want to have harsh draconian drug laws? fine. But make sure penalties are applied equally across the board.

Thats the difficulty in improving the situation now that the blatant more blatant racism has been curtailed.

Quote:
Dont tell me that hiring practices are fair across the board when white employers are more likely to hire a white guy with a felony record over a black guy with no record and an actual degree.

I'm not. I just don't see an easy , or even hard, solution to that.

Quote:
Dont pay me less in the same position as a white guy because of my skin color.

Thats already illegal. It happens.

Quote:
When I'm looking for an apartment to live in as long as I can pay the rent or in the case of buying a house can provide the down payment and pay the mortgage dont just take me to the lower income or black part of town.

It's already illegal. From a policy standpoint how do you crack down on it more?

Quote:
And dont execute me at a traffic stop when my hands are raised in the air if you wouldnt do so to a white guy in the same situation. Or if you are going to execute ME, treat white guys with the same disdain for life.

White people disproportionately live in areas with fewer police, have fewer interactions with the police, and the police don't have to worry about actual threats to their lives besides veering drivers. Even if you HAD some way of picking non racist cops, those other factors would still prevent equality.

Body camera's can help.

Not making the police fund themselves on annoying tickets can help.

But there's no chance for equality without fixing the underlying economic disparity.

Sovereign Court

Calex wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
I know that sort of thing happened up here in Canada at least once that I remember, there were a couple of masked protesters holding rocks amidst a peaceful protest and the protesters themselves herded the two trouble makers towards the police so they could arrest them. Later when the police report showed no arrests at the event people were curious what happened to the two masked men that the police had picked up. Turns out they were both undercover officers, clearly looking to start something so their buddies could crack down. Something aught to come of that but it gets swept under the rug.

Was that in Toronto? I think I saw a youtube vid on that, although I think the VPD has tried that trick in Vancouver a few times as well.

Calex,
Fraser Valley, BC, Canada

Edit: oh. Quebec.

That's the video I remembered but before I looked it up I was certain that it happened in BC as well, so likely this has happened a couple of times.

251 to 300 of 444 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Girl Pepper Sprayed By Police All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.