CSNbbs

(06-09-2020 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 09:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Did you read the transcript? It's pretty clear why "PB" become the face of the movement - Kaepernick talked about it extensively and explicitly.


Stop it with the gaslighting! I have provided, numerous times in this thread, direct sources (i.e. words Kaepernick spoke) where he clearly states that police brutality was a focus of the protest from the moment he sat. I provided a transcript from an interview the day after his initial comments where he clearly explains this, but somehow you keep saying it wasn't part of the initial protest.

Ehgads!

And yet your cute little gif avoids any of the topics that OO notes when talking about 'All Lives Matter'. I thought you were a tad above gif-boy in that regard. Perhaps not.

It perfectly responds to it.

Saying "Black Lives Matter" does not mean that other lives do not matter. Same way Jesus wasn't saying other people aren't blessed.

It's just a much more succinct way to present that idea.

But yet saying 'All Lives Matter' is now at the forefront of the Maoist cancel culture 'get rid of list'. Please dont dance around that 'nuance'.

Not sure what most of that means.

But the reason this saying is, at best, a stupid line, is that it intentionally tries to imply that Black Lives Matters doesn't care about others.

Based on that, then you fully support the use of "White Lives Matters" then? How about "Hmong Lives Matters"?

I mean, you lefties go fing apeshit at the use of "All Lives Matters", would love to see the result at "White Lives Matters".

But, this simply relates to the overarching principle of modern progressivism -- the love of identity politics and the absolutely overarching mission to find a 'victimhood' to support that identity cleave.

And yes, the counterpoint of 'Trump does it' is absolutely on point. But the originators and fing masters of the genre really hate that Alinsky-esque move. That culture shift is on you all, tbh. Something to be really proud of I assume.

Bummer.

Quote:It's a rhetorical tactic meant to diminish the concerns that affect black lives.

And reaction to it also emphasizes the absolute relish and toxicity of the cancel culture that your team has engendered to the nth degree, does it not?

Bummer that the concerns are measured in 20-ish lives. What about the other 50 some odd lives of unarmed people at the hands of cops? How disrespectful is BLM to them, or have you ever bothered to even fing think in those terms?

(06-09-2020 10:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Saying "Black Lives Matter" does not mean that other lives do not matter. Same way Jesus wasn't saying other people aren't blessed.

May not say it, but that's what it means.

Saying "All Lives Matter" is dismissive of the issues that people are trying to bring to the light when they say "Black Lives Matter".

Black lives DO matter. But there is little empirical evidence to support the idea that is being violated in any wholesale or systemic way.

(06-09-2020 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]not sure your point on the end - only poor people are blessed? Yes, I think we all all blessed in various ways and to various extents. I guess you will have to explain to me how "all lives matter" is a reprehensible statement.



We are going back to different points in time. I keep going back to his initial interview after his first sit-out.

https://www.businessinsider.com/colin-ka...hem-2016-8

I can only speculate how/why this have evolved from "oppressive country" to "police brutality". But it did. Why did it not evolve to "discrimination in lending"? Why did it not become "redlining"? Why not even "discrimination in policing"? And why are other forms of discrimination ignored in the protests against PB? Do you not care about discrimination in hiring?

But if you want to focus on later interpretations of what "oppressive country" means, that is your right. I will continue to focus on the original.

Look at what he said in the initial interview:

Quote:To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.

You think that isn't related to police brutality?

Then look at all the evidence I provided from a more in-depth interview the VERY NEXT DAY where he talked in length about police brutality.

You're literally putting your fingers in your ears to try and maintain your position.

As you are. Do you not hear a thing I say in your efforts to make me clean?

If it is JUST about police brutality, then all the other possible forms of discrimination are of no importance? Where are the protests against hiring practices?

But I think the PB is overblown. We get the focus on the dozen or so worst case annually, which represent an astronomically small percent of all police/civilian interactions. Does it occur. yes. Is it a systemic problem, whatever that means today? No. Is it the poster boy for a problem that is minimal. yes.

You can, and will present cases of police malfeasance. Others can and will present cases of police being murdered. Which one represents the norm?

Neither.

Near as I can tell, the narrative you want me to embrace is that this is an oppressive country, where daily, coast to coast, police are beating up and killing black people, just because they hate them, because police departments only hire racists.

Not buying it. Try to repackage if you want to continue your sales pitch.

No, the narrative I want you to embrace is NOT that.

I want you to embrace the fact that Kaepernick had been protesting PB from the start. I'm not arguing if it was the only issue, or if it should be the only issues. Just that your repeated stance that it was not part of his protest, from the start, is wrong.

The narrative I was asking about was the more universal one that is fueling these protests/riots/looting. So, at the macro level, is that the narrative you accept and that you want me to accept?

On the micro level, the words "police" and "brutality" did not appear in his initial interview. It certainly has evolved since then, and I think I know why.

But I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

But we were specifically focusing on Kaepernick.

Don’t move the goal posts/topic.

Kaepernick makes protest always included PB, and posts saying they didn’t are factually incorrect. Is it that hard to admit that you were misinformed?

Remember, this is what you posted:

Quote: So the kneeling has not been about police brutality - it had been about Kaepernick's perception of this country as oppressive. A perception I disagree with. Police brutality has become a vague bogeyman to excuse it. I hold to the original intent. I oppose police brutality - but I will not kneel in support of a false narrative.

(06-09-2020 11:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Look at what he said in the initial interview:


You think that isn't related to police brutality?

Then look at all the evidence I provided from a more in-depth interview the VERY NEXT DAY where he talked in length about police brutality.

You're literally putting your fingers in your ears to try and maintain your position.

As you are. Do you not hear a thing I say in your efforts to make me clean?

If it is JUST about police brutality, then all the other possible forms of discrimination are of no importance? Where are the protests against hiring practices?

But I think the PB is overblown. We get the focus on the dozen or so worst case annually, which represent an astronomically small percent of all police/civilian interactions. Does it occur. yes. Is it a systemic problem, whatever that means today? No. Is it the poster boy for a problem that is minimal. yes.

You can, and will present cases of police malfeasance. Others can and will present cases of police being murdered. Which one represents the norm?

Neither.

Near as I can tell, the narrative you want me to embrace is that this is an oppressive country, where daily, coast to coast, police are beating up and killing black people, just because they hate them, because police departments only hire racists.

Not buying it. Try to repackage if you want to continue your sales pitch.

No, the narrative I want you to embrace is NOT that.

I want you to embrace the fact that Kaepernick had been protesting PB from the start. I'm not arguing if it was the only issue, or if it should be the only issues. Just that your repeated stance that it was not part of his protest, from the start, is wrong.

The narrative I was asking about was the more universal one that is fueling these protests/riots/looting. So, at the macro level, is that the narrative you accept and that you want me to accept?

On the micro level, the words "police" and "brutality" did not appear in his initial interview. It certainly has evolved since then, and I think I know why.

But I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

But we were specifically focusing on Kaepernick.

Don’t move the goal posts/topic.

Kaepernick makes protest always included PB, and posts saying they didn’t are factually incorrect. Is it that hard to admit that you were misinformed?

Remember, this is what you posted:

Quote: So the kneeling has not been about police brutality - it had been about Kaepernick's perception of this country as oppressive. A perception I disagree with. Police brutality has become a vague bogeyman to excuse it. I hold to the original intent. I oppose police brutality - but I will not kneel in support of a false narrative.

To use one of your favorite phrases - it is a dog whistle, and you are barking.

We are in a larger conversation race relations that kaep is a tiny part of - what is the narrative you want me to adopt?

(06-09-2020 10:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]And yet your cute little gif avoids any of the topics that OO notes when talking about 'All Lives Matter'. I thought you were a tad above gif-boy in that regard. Perhaps not.

It perfectly responds to it.

Saying "Black Lives Matter" does not mean that other lives do not matter. Same way Jesus wasn't saying other people aren't blessed.

It's just a much more succinct way to present that idea.

But yet saying 'All Lives Matter' is now at the forefront of the Maoist cancel culture 'get rid of list'. Please dont dance around that 'nuance'.

Not sure what most of that means.

But the reason this saying is, at best, a stupid line, is that it intentionally tries to imply that Black Lives Matters doesn't care about others.

Based on that, then you fully support the use of "White Lives Matters" then? How about "Hmong Lives Matters"?

I mean, you lefties go fing apeshit at the use of "All Lives Matters", would love to see the result at "White Lives Matters".

But, this simply relates to the overarching principle of modern progressivism -- the love of identity politics and the absolutely overarching mission to find a 'victimhood' to support that identity cleave.

And yes, the counterpoint of 'Trump does it' is absolutely on point. But the originators and fing masters of the genre really hate that Alinsky-esque move. That culture shift is on you all, tbh. Something to be really proud of I assume.

Bummer.

Quote:It's a rhetorical tactic meant to diminish the concerns that affect black lives.

And reaction to it also emphasizes the absolute relish and toxicity of the cancel culture that your team has engendered to the nth degree, does it not?

Bummer that the concerns are measured in 20-ish lives. What about the other 50 some odd lives of unarmed people at the hands of cops? How disrespectful is BLM to them, or have you ever bothered to even fing think in those terms?

How is it disrespectful to them? Nobody is saying "only black lives matter".

(06-09-2020 12:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]It perfectly responds to it.

Saying "Black Lives Matter" does not mean that other lives do not matter. Same way Jesus wasn't saying other people aren't blessed.

It's just a much more succinct way to present that idea.

But yet saying 'All Lives Matter' is now at the forefront of the Maoist cancel culture 'get rid of list'. Please dont dance around that 'nuance'.

Not sure what most of that means.

But the reason this saying is, at best, a stupid line, is that it intentionally tries to imply that Black Lives Matters doesn't care about others.

Based on that, then you fully support the use of "White Lives Matters" then? How about "Hmong Lives Matters"?

I mean, you lefties go fing apeshit at the use of "All Lives Matters", would love to see the result at "White Lives Matters".

But, this simply relates to the overarching principle of modern progressivism -- the love of identity politics and the absolutely overarching mission to find a 'victimhood' to support that identity cleave.

And yes, the counterpoint of 'Trump does it' is absolutely on point. But the originators and fing masters of the genre really hate that Alinsky-esque move. That culture shift is on you all, tbh. Something to be really proud of I assume.

Bummer.

Quote:It's a rhetorical tactic meant to diminish the concerns that affect black lives.

And reaction to it also emphasizes the absolute relish and toxicity of the cancel culture that your team has engendered to the nth degree, does it not?

Bummer that the concerns are measured in 20-ish lives. What about the other 50 some odd lives of unarmed people at the hands of cops? How disrespectful is BLM to them, or have you ever bothered to even fing think in those terms?

How is it disrespectful to them? Nobody is saying "only black lives matter".

But then why the umbrage at 'White Lives Matter"? Nobody is is saying "only white lives matter"?

Why the umbrage at the even larger scope 'All Lives Matter'? Nobody is saying "only lives matter"?

I wouldnt have any issue, but for the absolute ape **** crazy reactions to *any* "[X] Lives Matter" when [X] != Black.

The current state of governance:

Speedway having racing --> Governor declares Ace Speedway an ‘imminent hazard’ and closes the facility

Black Lives Matter protest (riot, looting, arson) of 10,000+ --> crickets

Awesome.

2020 --- I have really had enough A enormous swarm of locusts—8,000 times larger than before—could descend on East Africa

Posted here because I am sure Orange Man is somehow at the root of this harbinger of biblical wrath.

(06-09-2020 12:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 12:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 10:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]But yet saying 'All Lives Matter' is now at the forefront of the Maoist cancel culture 'get rid of list'. Please dont dance around that 'nuance'.

Not sure what most of that means.

But the reason this saying is, at best, a stupid line, is that it intentionally tries to imply that Black Lives Matters doesn't care about others.

Based on that, then you fully support the use of "White Lives Matters" then? How about "Hmong Lives Matters"?

I mean, you lefties go fing apeshit at the use of "All Lives Matters", would love to see the result at "White Lives Matters".

But, this simply relates to the overarching principle of modern progressivism -- the love of identity politics and the absolutely overarching mission to find a 'victimhood' to support that identity cleave.

And yes, the counterpoint of 'Trump does it' is absolutely on point. But the originators and fing masters of the genre really hate that Alinsky-esque move. That culture shift is on you all, tbh. Something to be really proud of I assume.

Bummer.

Quote:It's a rhetorical tactic meant to diminish the concerns that affect black lives.

And reaction to it also emphasizes the absolute relish and toxicity of the cancel culture that your team has engendered to the nth degree, does it not?

Bummer that the concerns are measured in 20-ish lives. What about the other 50 some odd lives of unarmed people at the hands of cops? How disrespectful is BLM to them, or have you ever bothered to even fing think in those terms?

How is it disrespectful to them? Nobody is saying "only black lives matter".

But then why the umbrage at 'White Lives Matter"? Nobody is is saying "only white lives matter"?

Why the umbrage at the even larger scope 'All Lives Matter'? Nobody is saying "only lives matter"?

I wouldnt have any issue, but for the absolute ape **** crazy reactions to *any* "[X] Lives Matter" when [X] != Black.

Because, as far as I can tell from my reading on this, many black people feel that you are being intentionally dismissive of them and their issues when your response to "Black Lives Matter" is "All Lives Matter".

You should read that article that I linked. Here it is again:

https://www.bustle.com/articles/171457-h...ot-to-stop

Quote:"The problem with All Lives Matter is that it operates on the myth that all racial groups are situated similarly, and it resists efforts to improve the position of Black people specifically, who have been struggling for 400 years under the weight of anti-Black racism to belong in this country, and to have our humanity seen," powell says.

Quote:While this particular moment is centered on Black lives, powell uses the example of other minorities who face discrimination to explain why Black Lives Matter is so powerful. "Consider a statement that women managers in the workplace should be treated with respect," he says. "One could say all managers in the workplace should be treated with respect. While the second statement may be true, it ignores the situation that women are much less likely to be accorded respect in the formal workplace." The same applies to saying gay people shouldn't be attacked; while no person should be attacked, LGBTQ people face a disproportionately high risk of violence (including from the police) based on their identity.

Yes, you wax eloquently about all the horrible and painful 'issues', and cry forlornly about the 'systemic problems', and when actual numbers pop forth all you do is a cheap vaudeville version of a tap dance.

Maybe instead of the opinion articles, and the loaded language you seemingly have an ending fing supply of, perhaps you address something a little more objective in nature. You know, kind of the way you ran away from ever commenting on 'systemic issues' and 'systemic problems' in the first instance.

I mean, seriously, even you have a fairly substantial stick up your ass about the issue of *any* "[X] Lives Matter" when [X] != Black. Funny that.

Using your 'logic' many Hmong should be equally as incensed at the proposition of any "[X] Lives Matter" when [X] != Hmong.

Or more starkly, Hispanics should go through the fing roof under your logic with the proposition of any "[X] Lives Matter" when [X] != Hispanic.

I guess when you feast on the bull**** proposition that Blacks are suffering the jackboots of systematic oppression, I just might agree with your thought smorgasbord. But I have yet to see the evidence of the amazing and overriding steel cold oppression that sits at the core of your thesis (theology).

(06-09-2020 01:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, you wax eloquently about all the horrible and painful 'issues', and cry forlornly about the 'systemic problems', and when actual numbers pop forth all you do is a cheap vaudeville version of a tap dance.

Maybe instead of the opinion articles, and the loaded language you seemingly have an ending fing supply of, perhaps you address something a little more objective in nature. You know, kind of the way you ran away from ever commenting on 'systemic issues' and 'systemic problems' in the first instance.

I mean, seriously, even you have a fairly substantial stick up your ass about the issue of *any* "[X] Lives Matter" when [X] != Black. Funny that.

I don't have a stick up my ass about it. I am aware, though, that many black people find the term "All Lives Matter" dismissive to their plight.

Quote:Using your 'logic' many Hmong should be equally as incensed at the proposition of any "[X] Lives Matter" when [X] != Hmong.

That's not the same thing. It's not like "Hmong lives matter" was a "thing" and then "[X] Lives Matter" became a response to it.

Quote:Or more starkly, Hispanics should go through the fing roof under your logic with the proposition of any "[X] Lives Matter" when [X] != Hispanic.

I guess when you feast on the bull**** proposition that Blacks are suffering the jackboots of systematic oppression, I just might agree with your thought smorgasbord. But I have yet to see the evidence of the amazing and overriding steel cold oppression that sits at the core of your thesis (theology).

Did you read the article or nah?

How to you accurately quantify police mistreatment of black people? How do you quantify episodes similar to this morning's "cartoon"?

Do you think that the mistreatment of black people is in America's rear-view mirror?

(06-09-2020 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]2020 --- I have really had enough A enormous swarm of locusts—8,000 times larger than before—could descend on East Africa

Posted here because I am sure Orange Man is somehow at the root of this harbinger of biblical wrath.

No chance. This guy is as pious as it gets. WWJD all the way.

(06-09-2020 02:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 01:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, you wax eloquently about all the horrible and painful 'issues', and cry forlornly about the 'systemic problems', and when actual numbers pop forth all you do is a cheap vaudeville version of a tap dance.

Maybe instead of the opinion articles, and the loaded language you seemingly have an ending fing supply of, perhaps you address something a little more objective in nature. You know, kind of the way you ran away from ever commenting on 'systemic issues' and 'systemic problems' in the first instance.

I mean, seriously, even you have a fairly substantial stick up your ass about the issue of *any* "[X] Lives Matter" when [X] != Black. Funny that.

I don't have a stick up my ass about it. I am aware, though, that many black people find the term "All Lives Matter" dismissive to their plight.

Quote:Using your 'logic' many Hmong should be equally as incensed at the proposition of any "[X] Lives Matter" when [X] != Hmong.

Or more starkly, Hispanics should go through the fing roof under your logic with the proposition of any "[X] Lives Matter" when [X] != Hispanic.

I guess when you feast on the bull**** proposition that Blacks are suffering the jackboots of systematic oppression, I just might agree with your thought smorgasbord. But I have yet to see the evidence of the amazing and overriding steel cold oppression that sits at the core of your thesis (theology).

Did you read the article or nah?

How to you accurately quantify police mistreatment of black people?

And, once again, please particularize your grandiose allegation of 'police mistreatment of black people' perhaps?

I mean, you are supposedly a smart guy, Rice, yada yada yada. You do know the difference between 'generalized grandiose and conclusory statement' and 'put up something that backs that generalized grandiose and conclusory statement', right? Hopefully?

I mean, you have run the hell away in every instance from actually identifying *anything* regarding your previous statements on 'systemic blahbitty blah blah blah' and now replace it with an equally gossamer construct. Good job there '93.

Krist on fing cracker.

Quote:How do you quantify episodes similar to this morning's "cartoon"?

Uhhh... as vignettes. Proof by vignette falls horribly short of proof. That should be a basic logical construct. Apparently not.

Quote:Do you think that the mistreatment of black people is in America's rear-view mirror?

Perhaps not. But it certainly doesnt live up to the jackboot of total oppression that you make it out to be. Let me restate -- not up to the vacuous, glossy, and gossamer wisp that your persistent and continued conclusory statements do. Of course, you offer no objectivity to the your 'statements', yet are perplexed when there is a stated disbelief or statements that are critical over the bald and conclusory statements that seem to be your only form of sustenance in this issue.

If all you can state is nothing more than such issues, then hide behind those very non-substance bearing and conclusory statements -- your actions are nothing more than preaching.

Tanq - I already provided other examples of policing practices that show evidence of discrimination (drug busts and traffic stops).

You aren't looking for more information, you're looking to shove your opinion down someone's throat and dismiss any contrary opinion to yours.

I happened to stumble on this article that does a bang up job addressing the item you keep trying to hammer home. As the article says, "Of particular concern to some on the right is the term “systemic racism,” often wrongly interpreted as an accusation that everyone in the system is racist. In fact, systemic racism means almost the opposite. It means that we have systems and institutions that produce racially disparate outcomes, regardless of the intentions of the people who work within them. When you consider that much of the criminal-justice system was built, honed and firmly established during the Jim Crow era — an era almost everyone, conservatives included, will concede rife with racism — this is pretty intuitive. The modern criminal-justice system helped preserve racial order — it kept black people in their place. For much of the early 20th century, in some parts of the country, that was its primary function. That it might retain some of those proclivities today shouldn’t be all that surprising."

The article brings up evidence ranging from racial profiling in police stops to discrepancies in pedestrian violations to differences in arrest rates for marijuana to how frequent jurors were struck (based on race) to how the death penalty is applied across races and on and on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opin...the-proof/

(06-09-2020 02:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 02:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 01:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, you wax eloquently about all the horrible and painful 'issues', and cry forlornly about the 'systemic problems', and when actual numbers pop forth all you do is a cheap vaudeville version of a tap dance.

Maybe instead of the opinion articles, and the loaded language you seemingly have an ending fing supply of, perhaps you address something a little more objective in nature. You know, kind of the way you ran away from ever commenting on 'systemic issues' and 'systemic problems' in the first instance.

I mean, seriously, even you have a fairly substantial stick up your ass about the issue of *any* "[X] Lives Matter" when [X] != Black. Funny that.

I don't have a stick up my ass about it. I am aware, though, that many black people find the term "All Lives Matter" dismissive to their plight.

Quote:Using your 'logic' many Hmong should be equally as incensed at the proposition of any "[X] Lives Matter" when [X] != Hmong.

Or more starkly, Hispanics should go through the fing roof under your logic with the proposition of any "[X] Lives Matter" when [X] != Hispanic.

I guess when you feast on the bull**** proposition that Blacks are suffering the jackboots of systematic oppression, I just might agree with your thought smorgasbord. But I have yet to see the evidence of the amazing and overriding steel cold oppression that sits at the core of your thesis (theology).

Did you read the article or nah?

How to you accurately quantify police mistreatment of black people?

And, once again, please particularize your grandiose allegation of 'police mistreatment of black people' perhaps?

I mean, you are supposedly a smart guy, Rice, yada yada yada. You do know the difference between 'generalized grandiose and conclusory statement' and 'put up something that backs that generalized grandiose and conclusory statement', right? Hopefully?

I mean, you have run the hell away in every instance from actually identifying *anything* regarding your previous statements on 'systemic blahbitty blah blah blah' and now replace it with an equally gossamer construct. Good job there '93.

Krist on fing cracker.

Quote:How do you quantify episodes similar to this morning's "cartoon"?

Uhhh... as vignettes. Proof by vignette falls horribly short of proof. That should be a basic logical construct. Apparently not.

Quote:Do you think that the mistreatment of black people is in America's rear-view mirror?

Perhaps not. But it certainly doesnt live up to the jackboot of total oppression that you make it out to be. Let me restate -- not up to the vacuous, glossy, and gossamer wisp that your persistent and continued conclusory statements do. Of course, you offer no objectivity to the your 'statements', yet are perplexed when there is a stated disbelief or statements that are critical over the bald and conclusory statements that seem to be your only form of sustenance in this issue.

If all you can state is nothing more than such issues, then hide behind those very non-substance bearing and conclusory statements -- your actions are nothing more than preaching.

Wait... you want me to prove that black people are negatively affected by racism in 2020?

Do you want to look at health outcomes of black versus white Americans? Even when stratified by income? The infant mortality rate of black kids versus white kids?
Maternal death rate?

How about the rate that black people are imprisoned for drug-related crimes relative to the rate of white people convicted of similar crimes? Once out of prison, the rate of call-backs following job interviews for a black person with a criminal record relative to the rate that a white person with a criminal record?

Housing? How about the some mortgage programs used to be restricted to white applicants and how the opportunity to own their homes has affected black wealth? How about segregation, redlining, and laws that upheld housing discrimination?

Education? Do you think we have an equal public school setup for black versus white children? Do black kids often have teachers that look like them? How about the unequal way that punishment in schools is delivered?

How about being charged higher interest rates for loans despite the same income/credit scores as a white person?

How about falling asleep in the college commons and waking up to the police standing over you because somebody called them?

Trump's tweet repeating an unfounded rumor about the 75 year old man in Buffalo pushed down by the police (being a set-up) is yet another massive presidential tweet fail.

Here's his tweet.

"Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment," Trump tweeted Tuesday, citing the conservative TV channel OANN. "I watched, he fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?

Biden can hide in his bunker until November, and probably cruise to victory based on how many times Trump just produces colossal presidential gaffes (mostly on twitter).

(06-09-2020 03:22 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Trump's tweet repeating an unfounded rumor about the 75 year old man in Buffalo pushed down by the police (being a set-up) is yet another massive presidential tweet fail.

Here's his tweet.

"Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment," Trump tweeted Tuesday, citing the conservative TV channel OANN. "I watched, he fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?

Biden can hide in his bunker until November, and probably cruise to victory based on how many times Trump just produces colossal presidential gaffes (mostly on twitter).

It is going to be the duel between Biden's verbal blunders and Trump's tweets. You would think that the tweets would be easier to control than the verbal blunders. I mean... you can pause, reconsider, maybe even get other opinions prior to sending the tweet?

(06-09-2020 03:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 03:22 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Trump's tweet repeating an unfounded rumor about the 75 year old man in Buffalo pushed down by the police (being a set-up) is yet another massive presidential tweet fail.

Here's his tweet.

"Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment," Trump tweeted Tuesday, citing the conservative TV channel OANN. "I watched, he fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?

Biden can hide in his bunker until November, and probably cruise to victory based on how many times Trump just produces colossal presidential gaffes (mostly on twitter).

It is going to be the duel between Biden's verbal blunders and Trump's tweets. You would think that the tweets would be easier to control than the verbal blunders. I mean... you can pause, reconsider, maybe even get other opinions prior to sending the tweet?

Trump has no filter.

Even if the tweet/rumor is true, it's not Trump's job to take sides. All he's doing is further divide the country. And hiding behind twitter while he's doing it.

(06-09-2020 02:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 02:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 02:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-09-2020 01:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, you wax eloquently about all the horrible and painful 'issues', and cry forlornly about the 'systemic problems', and when actual numbers pop forth all you do is a cheap vaudeville version of a tap dance.

Maybe instead of the opinion articles, and the loaded language you seemingly have an ending fing supply of, perhaps you address something a little more objective in nature. You know, kind of the way you ran away from ever commenting on 'systemic issues' and 'systemic problems' in the first instance.

I mean, seriously, even you have a fairly substantial stick up your ass about the issue of *any* "[X] Lives Matter" when [X] != Black. Funny that.

I don't have a stick up my ass about it. I am aware, though, that many black people find the term "All Lives Matter" dismissive to their plight.

Quote:Using your 'logic' many Hmong should be equally as incensed at the proposition of any "[X] Lives Matter" when [X] != Hmong.

Or more starkly, Hispanics should go through the fing roof under your logic with the proposition of any "[X] Lives Matter" when [X] != Hispanic.

I guess when you feast on the bull**** proposition that Blacks are suffering the jackboots of systematic oppression, I just might agree with your thought smorgasbord. But I have yet to see the evidence of the amazing and overriding steel cold oppression that sits at the core of your thesis (theology).

Did you read the article or nah?

How to you accurately quantify police mistreatment of black people?

And, once again, please particularize your grandiose allegation of 'police mistreatment of black people' perhaps?

I mean, you are supposedly a smart guy, Rice, yada yada yada. You do know the difference between 'generalized grandiose and conclusory statement' and 'put up something that backs that generalized grandiose and conclusory statement', right? Hopefully?

I mean, you have run the hell away in every instance from actually identifying *anything* regarding your previous statements on 'systemic blahbitty blah blah blah' and now replace it with an equally gossamer construct. Good job there '93.

Krist on fing cracker.

Quote:How do you quantify episodes similar to this morning's "cartoon"?

Uhhh... as vignettes. Proof by vignette falls horribly short of proof. That should be a basic logical construct. Apparently not.

Quote:Do you think that the mistreatment of black people is in America's rear-view mirror?

Perhaps not. But it certainly doesnt live up to the jackboot of total oppression that you make it out to be. Let me restate -- not up to the vacuous, glossy, and gossamer wisp that your persistent and continued conclusory statements do. Of course, you offer no objectivity to the your 'statements', yet are perplexed when there is a stated disbelief or statements that are critical over the bald and conclusory statements that seem to be your only form of sustenance in this issue.

If all you can state is nothing more than such issues, then hide behind those very non-substance bearing and conclusory statements -- your actions are nothing more than preaching.

Wait... you want me to prove that black people are negatively affected by racism in 2020?

Do you want to look at health outcomes of black versus white Americans? Even when stratified by income? The infant mortality rate of black kids versus white kids?
Maternal death rate?

Proof of 'rampant racism'? Seriously?

Quote:How about the rate that black people are imprisoned for drug-related crimes relative to the rate of white people convicted of similar crimes?

Proof of racism, or proof of a disparity of lawyering there?

Or better yet, you neglect the other categories of offenses in your cherry pick there. If you bother to look at 'all offenses' (that is including violent, property, drug, and weapon) whites are just as likely to receive incarceration than blacks. What is so fing special about 'drug offenses' and blacks, that is, aside from that being the major category out of whack? Please do tell....

Better yet, the length of sentence has a far better correlation based on income --- poor white crackers on the average get roughly equal sentencing as poor hispanic crackers and poor black crackers. That control kind of blows your 'unequal sentence == racism' out the proverbial window. Funny how you failed to note that one. Amazing.

Quote:Once out of prison, the rate of call-backs following job interviews for a black person with a criminal record relative to the rate that a white person with a criminal record?

'Once out of prison' --- for what mind you? You are aware that blacks have much higher rates of arrests and convictions for violent crimes and homicides, right? That probably has *nothing* to do with htat, because the only fing qualifier you put out there is 'once out of prison'. Yeah, I can see a real issue between a callback for a gangbanger/murder/armed assault and one for a forger. Your little qualifier there kind of glosses that over into oblivion, doesnt it?

Quote:Housing? How about the some mortgage programs used to be restricted to white applicants

Please do tell which mortgage programs are restricted to white applicants. Kind of been against Federal law for, oh, only about 40 fing years.

Edited to change the number: more like 52 years, to be precise. I guess legal history isnt your forte, or perhaps not as much as a forte of throwing a grab bag of items against the wall....

Quote:How about segregation, redlining, and laws that upheld housing discrimination?

See above.

Quote:Education? Do you think we have an equal public school setup for black versus white children?

Again, you seemingly conflate *anything* with a racial element to *proof* of racial discrimination -- invidious racial discrimination.

Funny, last I noted public schools are a construct of highly localized administration. You have great proof in inequities in the abilities of school administrations. That does not equate to proof of invidious racial discrimination.

Currently, your list is a grab bag of things that you *really* want to be about systemic racial discrimination, but really dont make the fing mark. That is the problem with argument by grab bag ****.

Quote:Do black kids often have teachers that look like them?

Proof of rampant systemic discrimination? get fing real. Since you asked this rhetorical question, perhaps you can do something that you have utterly failed to fing do since this came up --- perhaps educate us on how many black kids have teachers that look like them, then please do tell us what the **** that has to do with systemic racial discrimination.

Quote:How about the unequal way that punishment in schools is delivered?

Any sort of control on the unequality? Or is this just another grab bag of disparate items that you are clutching at? Maybe the unequal rates in punishment follows the national rates of convictions of violent crimes, that is, as opposed to some white cracker getting his jollies by spanking little black kids on an exlcusive basis.

Maybe it is an issue tied the absolute overloaded presence of fatherless households in the balck community, that is, one seemingly that is the black community's onus to fix. Naahhh, cant be that.

Quote:How about being charged higher interest rates for loans despite the same income/credit scores as a white person?

How about the concept that a loan risk is tied to the security that lendee can show? *That* is simple gd economics.

Quote:How about falling asleep in the college commons and waking up to the police standing over you because somebody called them?

How about falling asleep on the side of the road in a Camaro and having the cops roust that person. Glad to know that is objective proof of systemic racism. Maybe you should tell Officer Torres that that cracker peckerhead was me. Want his number so you can preach that act of racism to him?

That **** happens all the time to people of all races, mind you. But in your simpleton grab bag throw everything against the wall style, I am sure that precludes that answer.

Edited: I surprised you didnt add the highly out of kilter rates of crack babies between races in your smorgasbord of issues that prove up 'systemic racism'.