By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
KiigelHeart on 02 June 2020
Ka-pi96 said:
Otter said:

I'm sorry what? MLK was a leader and agitator, If protestors are not allowed to have a leader then how are they supposed to effectively achieve a goal? But thats exactly what the police do not want to happen.. And of course anyone out on the streets, organising people is an agitator. This is really weak validation for arrest. You warn me about blindly following a narrative before inventing one yourself. Further more without disruption a protest is no more than a petition. 

Yeah, gotta agree with this.

If he was inciting violence, then fair enough, arrest him. But otherwise? There's no reason to arrest him. It doesn't matter if he's the leader of the protest, or encouraging other people to protest. If he isn't doing anything wrong then there's no reason to stop him. Arresting somebody because they could potentially be a "problem" is bullshit.

I'll answer to both of you. This isn't about not allowing a group of movement to have a leader. It's a tactic used in other countries to try and resolve a specific situation, which in this case is clearing the park. 

The reason he was arrested was disorderly conduct, that group were told to leave the park but didn't. They can't and don't want to arrest everybody so go for potential agitators and see if others leave. I'm not saying he was MLK or that they are trying to silence the whole movement ffs. Agree with this or not, this is what they do in Europe too so it's not an US thing. 

Arresting someone for potentially being a problem isn't always bullshit anyway. If some white surpremacist was walking towards the protest with his counter-protest signs and didn't obey to leave, then I'd say arrest him to avoid trouble. 

@Otter what narrative did I invent?

Also I get that some protesters want to get arrested to create disruption. It's ok, but then using that arrest to create a narrative is not with all the rioting going on. You just fuel more aggression between people and police. 



Around the Network
tsogud on 02 June 2020
Pemalite said:
tsogud said:

First bolded: Yes, if that's your stance then you are most definitely being hypocritical. Pride was born out of the protesting against police brutality too (your country's queer history includes this as well) and for many countries the first Pride were riots and protests that were violently escalated by the police.

1.) No Me being hypocritical would be if I supported the LGBTQI community being violent to essentially "get their own way" which is farther from the truth. I have condemned such actions prior even in this thread.

The fact is... You are defending violence, you are defending people who are killing, stealing, destroying life, property and the environment... And you are actually okay with that? Despite the fact innocent people are ultimately loosing out here?

tsogud said:

If you don't want to talk about UNITED STATES history and don't give a shit about the UNITED STATES constitution and how both of those relates to and influences UNITED STATES politics then don't come in a UNITED STATES thread and tell people in the UNITED STATES how to express their rights given to them by said constitution! Simple as that. If you're against how queer people around the world got their rights then you should not be celebrating Pride at all. You can't be "anti-riot" and celebrate Pride because Pride, our history, has it's roots in rebellion, riots and protests.

2) You are turning this into something it isn't.

Correct, I don't give two shits about the United States Constitution, it's not binding to me.

But you bet I can and will talk about the United States and it's Politics and give my perspectives and points of views, again... If you dislike the fact I am voicing my opinion you can simply not read and respond.

Again... I am not Anti-Protest. I am Anti-Riot+VIOLENCE. Learn the difference.

tsogud said:

Second bolded: That's a lie, you did disagree when you equated the two. There's seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding coming from you of what the consequences are if you generalize based on these two very different descriptors. The ONLY commonality is that they're descriptors of people. Period. It ends there. Besides that, they are nowhere near the same and should not be described as "equally as dangerous" when people generalize based off these descriptors.

3.)Nah Again. You are simply twisting this into something it's not, putting words in my mouth and trying to run with a certain preconceived narrative.

The point I am trying to convey is you cannot treat entire groups of people with the same brush. It's as simple as that.

You can either disagree or agree, either way, I don't care.

tsogud said:

When I said their badge comes off at the end of the day. You said "not exactly..." which tells me you maybe don't grasp the actual seriousness of generalizing people based on race because you so wontonly equate it with a profession and then back up that claim with a statement as ludicrous as "not exactly..." You're still a white cis male (is that how you identify btw??) living in a world where white cis males have certain privileges, one of them is not having to worry about being racially targeted by police.

4)Or maybe you don't know what it's like to be a first responder?

5)Again, I am not generalizing people based on race... In-fact, if you actually bothered to read my statements... I am very much against generalizing ANYONE.

6)Stop putting words in my mouth, especially when I haven't made such assertions, it's fallacious.

tsogud said:

You take off your uniform you can go on about your day without worrying about how people will react/perceive you because of your race. A black firefighter takes off his uniform and he's faced with certain realities that you don't have to face, which is exacerbated by generalizations which can lead to his death. You both can take off your uniform but you can't take off your skin, your still white, he's still black. When you're tired of becoming a firefighter, and the unfair generalizations, you can quit and find a new profession, when he's tired of being targeted and oppressed and generalized he can't quit being black and find a new race. Those generalizations will put his life in danger. The badge/uniform does comes off.

Again, you are making this out to be something it's not.
And again, I don't actually disagree with this.

But you are taking my statements outside of it's intended context, which is fallacious... So I highly suggest you drop this narrative and go back to the very beginning of my posts in this thread and read my posts in their intended context, in their entirety.

Or don't. Either way, I don't care. - I will not be replying to any of your tangents going forth if this is the narrative you intend to continue with.

And yes, at the end of the day, I can take off my uniform, but I am still a firefighter, I still have certain community expectations on what I can/cannot do, my identity as a firefighter never stops, even if I were to take on a new profession.

And not all identifiers are visible and readily apparent via an outward appearance... Case in point... The majority LGBTQI community.

And even when I take off my uniform... Protecting life, property and the environment still comes first.

tsogud said:

Racism is violence. Generalizing a group of people based on race is racist and thus violent. You can't label racism as "equally as dangerous" as the generalization of people based on a profession.

7)When have I EVER said that Racism is okay? I haven't. I am against Racism, discrimination, bigotry in it's entirety.

Generalizing entire demographics with the same character label is damn well dangerous.
Not all Police are African-American murderers. Not all African-Americans are criminals.

I will leave this meme here as it sums it up perfectly.


tsogud said:

Third bolded: You literally said "I don't have a side in this" multiple times... And that your neither pro-black people (which I find disgusting that you aren't pro-people) or pro-police... How else would you describe that pretty NEUTRAL stance..?

8)Saying I am not "pro-people" is a very bold and false assertion on your behalf.
How many lives have you saved in the last few weeks? Or even your entire life? I think I might have the high ground in this regard.

9)I am very much Pro-People of Colour, LGBTQI, Womens Rights and so forth. I am not Pro-Unnecessary Violence. Learn the difference, I protect life, not promote it's removal.

tsogud said:

Giving equal blame to these groups that don't have equal power and turning your nose up at the pleas of the people don't sit right with me. The police have power and authority and they are using that position to commit acts of violence with no accountability, and have been for decades. And your moral stance is "well, a small minority of the protesters shouldn't have gotten angry.. so even though an overwhelming majority were within their rights and protesting peacefully I won't side with/support their whole cause. People should stop generalizing all cops!!"

I am giving blame to the entire systemic system in the United States that brought forth this issue to start with.

But retaliating and destroying more peoples lives is not the answer. It's never the answer. And as a first responder who puts life first, I will condemn both sides unnecessary violent actions.

10)Protesting is seen as a legitimate democratic right in most 1st world, democratic nations and I most certainly support that.
Rioting, destroying businesses, raping people, bashing people, injuring people... That isn't okay. And it will never be okay, the issue starts from the very top and the American people need to use their democratic powers to enact change appropriately.

1) That's essentially what we did tho... So you are being hypocritical... We've had to rebel and use riots and protests because are voices were going unheard. You're acting like our history doesn't have that at all which is completely false, you can't just rewrite history. The reason you have the privilege to celebrate Pride and be who you are is because someone else did that hard work and participated in those demonstrations that you turn your nose up at.

2) You were the one that said you didn't give a shit about the United States constitution in an United States political thread... If you really don't give a shit you had a choice of not posting problematic opinions. I literally couldn't give two shits that your a firefighter but I was respectful of your profession.

3) I'm literally quoting you. You said they're equally dangerous and I explained that they're not because in principle they're not the same thing. The simple fact is that race doesn't equal profession which you've agreed on. I'm not saying that generalizing on profession isn't dangerous in some way just that it's extremely problematic to say exactly what you said. Go and reread that italicized quote from you in my post.

4) Or maybe you don't know what it's like to be black or a poc in America?? Because that seems a hell of a lot more relevant than how a firefighter responds in Australia and their guidelines/policies/laws that they have to follow that's specifically tailored to that country.

5) I never said you generalized people based off race. I'm talking about your problematic language. I agree that nobody should be generalized.

6) Again I'm literally quoting you, not putting words in your mouth. Just trying to explain that you have a misconception here that's extremely problematic.

7) I never said you said racism is okay. Re-read that. You seem to be the one putting words into people's mouths... I'm literally agreeing with you there that generalizing people based on race is racist, and I add violent, but I disagree with your statement that this from of racism is "equally as dangerous" as generalizing people based on profession. As your statement is problematic. They're not equally dangerous because of many things including that race and profession, on principle, are different. Racism and prejudice based on profession are different beasts entirely.

8) For someone who egotistically thinks so highly of themselves that statement was extremely petty and childish. You literally said "I am criticizing BOTH sides for their childish bullshit, don't paint me out to be someone Pro-Police or Pro-African American, I am neither. I don't have a side in this. At. All." You literally said you are NOT Pro-African American, African Americans are people. Taking you on your word and quoting you is bold now??

9) Links to the previous statement: If you really are the great protector of life and are pro-people of color then you are Pro-African American and a proponent of these BLM protests and the movement but you clearly stated you don't have a side and that you're not Pro-African American so you really don't protect life and you aren't pro-people of color. Staying neutral and muddying the waters of what the protests mean will result in the removal of life.

10) Again your muddying the waters here and detracting of what the majority of the peaceful protesters did and what the protests mean because a few of them acted up in a way you don't like. That's almost a generalization there but not quite on the nose. The protests would've gone smoothly on the whole had the police officers instigating the violence done their job and kept the peace and protected their freedom of speech. An overwhelming majority of the violence was perpetuated by police officers so if you're against violence you should be leaning on the side of the protesters. Also that's like the third time you mentioned rape, I don't recall either the protesters or the police raping anybody? Got credible sources on that?

Last edited by tsogud - on 02 June 2020

 

tsogud on 02 June 2020

(Found a longer version of that vid)

Last edited by tsogud - on 02 June 2020

 

sundin13 on 02 June 2020

Remember that the police are continually and repeatedly contributing to the escalation of these protests.



JRPGfan on 02 June 2020
Torillian said:
LurkerJ said:

"Rioting & looting sends a message, it works, our goals will be achieved if we keep doing this!"

Assuming this is actually true and it does work to riot, but work to achieve what? what are you goals anyway? what do you want?

Every subset of the society in the US has lost some of its members due to police brutality, you're not more likely or less likely to be a victim because of your skin color. You have no cause, and this is not gonna fix anything because you're rioting against the problem that doesn't exist EVEN IF we all hypothetically agreed that rioting and looting solve those problems.

I have never heard the claim that all racial groups are equally likely to be the victim of police brutality. Do you have any studies to back that up? 

Here's mine: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

My take away,..... African american is more than twice as likely to get killed by a cop as a white person.
Latine, and native americans are almost equal to whites.

Theres a MASSIVE gender equality (wrong term, think its) sexism? issue at hand.
Men are like 100 times more likely to get killed than women.



Around the Network
sundin13 on 02 June 2020
JRPGfan said:

My take away,..... African american is more than twice as likely to get killed by a cop as a white person.
Latine, and native americans are almost equal to whites.

Theres a MASSIVE gender equality (wrong term, think its) sexism? issue at hand.
Men are like 100 times more likely to get killed than women.

Oh, for sure. If you look at sentencing too, you see that men consistently get much longer sentences for the same crime compared to women (again, this is also true for African Americans vs Whites). These issues are multidimensional and run deep in the criminal justice system. Almost every facet of it is broken in one way or another.



Torillian on 02 June 2020
JRPGfan said:
Torillian said:

I have never heard the claim that all racial groups are equally likely to be the victim of police brutality. Do you have any studies to back that up? 

Here's mine: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

My take away,..... African american is more than twice as likely to get killed by a cop as a white person.
Latine, and native americans are almost equal to whites.

Theres a MASSIVE gender equality (wrong term, think its) sexism? issue at hand.
Men are like 100 times more likely to get killed than women.

This might help make things more clear:

Latinx and Native american are something like 1.5 times as likely while African American are 2.5 times as likely. 

You're right that there's a massive difference in how men and women are treated by the police. I haven't looked into that. 



...

KiigelHeart on 02 June 2020

Are you for real? Could it be men are more likely to be involved in violent crimes, gangs, armed, intoxicated etc. Majority of homicide victims are also male.



Otter on 02 June 2020
KiigelHeart said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Yeah, gotta agree with this.

If he was inciting violence, then fair enough, arrest him. But otherwise? There's no reason to arrest him. It doesn't matter if he's the leader of the protest, or encouraging other people to protest. If he isn't doing anything wrong then there's no reason to stop him. Arresting somebody because they could potentially be a "problem" is bullshit.

I'll answer to both of you. This isn't about not allowing a group of movement to have a leader. It's a tactic used in other countries to try and resolve a specific situation, which in this case is clearing the park. 

The reason he was arrested was disorderly conduct, that group were told to leave the park but didn't. They can't and don't want to arrest everybody so go for potential agitators and see if others leave. I'm not saying he was MLK or that they are trying to silence the whole movement ffs. Agree with this or not, this is what they do in Europe too so it's not an US thing. 

Arresting someone for potentially being a problem isn't always bullshit anyway. If some white surpremacist was walking towards the protest with his counter-protest signs and didn't obey to leave, then I'd say arrest him to avoid trouble. 

@Otter what narrative did I invent?

Also I get that some protesters want to get arrested to create disruption. It's ok, but then using that arrest to create a narrative is not with all the rioting going on. You just fuel more aggression between people and police. 

You're explaining a tactic. I'm fully aware of the tactic, its to prevent protests from being successful and productive. The original post was explaining that they don't distinguish between peaceful and non peaceful protest. What happened that they suddenly had to leave the park? Were they not peaceful?

Please again revisit the original talking points.

I'm personally done with this thread because I feel there are more important places for my energy to spent. its also why I'm not responding to you @KLAMarine. Please actively research whats going on (i.e confirmed deaths) if you're going to constantly engage in conversation.

My last point, for anyone who is hell bent on trying to discredit the idea that police brutality has racial bias, please reconfigure your priorities. Either you think deaths like George Floyds are justified or not. Either you think police need to be held more accountable or not. 



Torillian on 02 June 2020
KiigelHeart said:
Are you for real? Could it be men are more likely to be involved in violent crimes, gangs, armed, intoxicated etc. Majority of homicide victims are also male.

Yeah....I said I haven't looked into it. I don't know what studies think the cause is. Possible that it's just a difference in how often police are interacting with men rather than women due to differing crime rates, but then you'd have to go back further and consider why men are more likely to commit violent crime. The same working back would be prudent for the racial stats as well, if you end it at "well because they commit more crime" that's useless. What you want is to work back to things you can change to make things better. Again, I'd have to look into it. 



...