(06-09-2020 08:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right, I was wrong about what your misrepresented this number as.
But big picture, you and Owl#s were still misrepresenting the number by not explaining what it is, in totality. It's a segment of a segment of a segment.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
When you look at the total number of UNARMED people killed by police, you see that 28 unarmed blacks were killed by police - almost a 3-fold increase from the 9 being bandied about.

Rather than argue (and I am pretty sure I correctly described the number in my earlier post), let's give you 28 (or 51 or 114, or even 235 total deaths, which is the number I usually use). Any of those numbers is still microscopic compared to the total population or the total number of police-civilian encounters. And whichever one you use, the difference with white numbers for the same thing are also insignificant.

Quote:

Quote:Lad, when the inclusion or non-inclusion of an off-duty cop shotgunning his wife and lover when off duty means literally a 10% change in the numbers, this is a pretty good indication of the definition of a non-problem.
When that number of 28, or 51, is stacked up against a number of 200 million police encounters, some say those numbers fail to show a trend of any sort.
Since you are 'Mr Objective' what exactly is the number that is derived by the simple formula of 79 divided by 200 fing million? Seems I forgot my calculator today.

So where is the % cut off we need to start carrying about crimes on a per capita/encounter basis? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%? Does the type of crime need to be weighted somehow so your % floor is lower?

Arguably the number should be zero, but that overlooks that fact that each event needs to be evaluated based upon the specifics of that event. I remember a celebrated case years ago where a citizen waved a Bible at an officer and was shot. It was night, not great visibility, and he pointed something at an officer. Under those circumstances, i would expect him to get shot.

Quote:And to the on/off-duty, where are you getting that there is a 10% change in the number of unarmed people killed?

Wife + lover = 2, 2 is almost 10% of 28.

(06-09-2020 06:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO - I’m wondering if you read the transcript from the Kaepernick interview and if you still believe he wasn’t protesting against police brutality?

This isn’t related to whether or not you agree with him, or his protest, but just to the content of his protest, and whether it included police brutality.

He was protesting oppression, and to the extent that would include police brutality toward black people, I guess it could be included, along with housing discrimination and Starbucks baristas being impolite. But nobody is protesting those things separately. How did PB become the face if the movement?

Adopting it as the public issue is just a smoke screen. It was not the issue when he sat the first time. It is an easy thing to get support for.

As I have said many time to deaf ears, I oppose police brutality. Who the hell doesn't? I don't think even white supremacists like police brutality. maybe Antifa. So it is an easy way to get people to stand with you. If your rallying cry is "this is an oppressive country", maybe it is a bit tougher. I will stand in unison against PB, if it is made clear we are talking about ALL PB, not just the stuff that sometimes happens to blacks. I am against police beating up people, all people, any person, not just police beating up black people. I think All lives matter, not just Black ones. But I am told that is racist.

(06-09-2020 09:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 09:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But it isn't unarmed black deaths. It is unarmed blacks killed by on-duty police officers using a firearm.

See: "shootings in which a police officer, in the line of duty, shoots and kills a civilian," as the Washington Post describes its data."

So again, George Floyd would not be counted in this, since he wasn't killed by a firearm.

Yes, great. That doesnt change the fact that you misrepresented that I said "total deaths", does it?

And, think of *why* the distinction is made between 'on-duty' and 'off-duty'. Given that the shotgun slayings of a cops wife and her lover by a cop are now thrown into the mix. Doesnt seem indicative of the present issue of 'police brutality', given that we are specifically talking about the left pulling the pin on the go apeshit grenade based on cops acting in their official duties. Does it?

Great, lets look at the 'inflated' numbers you jump up and down and now scream about. Just north of death by dog mauling, and still much, much less than by lightning. Yeah, that makes a giant fing difference.

You're right, I was wrong about what your misrepresented this number as.

But big picture, you and Owl#s were still misrepresenting the number by not explaining what it is, in totality. It's a segment of a segment of a segment.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

When you look at the total number of UNARMED people killed by police, you see that 28 unarmed blacks were killed by police - almost a 3-fold increase from the 9 being bandied about. If you want to diminish that number, it's your prerogative. But that seems way to high to me, given that the people were unarmed (and that's not even talking about the other races, for a total of 114 unarmed per year).

The only good news is that if you look at the trend, we've seen a decreasing trend in not only black, unarmed deaths per year since 2013, but overall unarmed deaths per year.

Lad, when the inclusion or non-inclusion of an off-duty cop shotgunning his wife and lover when off duty means literally a 10% change in the numbers, this is a pretty good indication of the definition of a non-problem.

When that number of 28, or 51, is stacked up against a number of 200 million police encounters, some say those numbers fail to show a trend of any sort.

Since you are 'Mr Objective' what exactly is the number that is derived by the simple formula of 79 divided by 200 fing million? Seems I forgot my calculator today.

So where is the % cut off we need to start carrying about crimes on a per capita/encounter basis? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%? Does the type of crime need to be weighted somehow so your % floor is lower?

And to the on/off-duty, where are you getting that there is a 10% change in the number of unarmed people killed?

One of the main points I am making is that it is a funny thing that you are still literally trying to gin up some 'systemic injustice' issue with something that occurs *less* than death by lightning, by a long margin.

A number that even when you use the inflated numbers, a double homicide by an off duty police officer (which has zero overlap with the concept of actions as taken in the matter of course of a police officer) makes those overall numbers jump by 10%. That is the mark of extraordinarily now numbers.

I am not even going to get into the issue of your inclusion of 'off duty' police deaths. Wait, maybe I will.... The issue we are speaking of is 'systemic injustice'. The issue that has popped the apeshit cork is 'deaths by cops'. I would wholeheartedly agree that all deaths by cops, whether by chokehold or by firearm, are germane -- but only when the cop is acting in the official line of duty.

You proudly point to 'expanded figures' -- which again are *still* exceedingly low. Especially for supposed proof of a systemic (using your words) problem. What those new numbers include, are acts by cops outside of their role as 'the system'.

The action of the off duty cop shotgunning his wife and lover really dont meet the criteria of such an official action -- yet you feel strangely anxious to include those as well.

(06-09-2020 09:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 06:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO - I’m wondering if you read the transcript from the Kaepernick interview and if you still believe he wasn’t protesting against police brutality?

This isn’t related to whether or not you agree with him, or his protest, but just to the content of his protest, and whether it included police brutality.

He was protesting oppression, and to the extent that would include police brutality toward black people, I guess it could be included, along with housing discrimination and Starbucks baristas being impolite. But nobody is protesting those things separately. How did PB become the face if the movement?

Did you read the transcript? It's pretty clear why "PB" become the face of the movement - Kaepernick talked about it extensively and explicitly.

Quote:Adopting it as the public issue is just a smoke screen. It was not the issue when he sat the first time. It is an easy thing to get support for.

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!

Quote:As I have said many time to deaf ears, I oppose police brutality. Who the hell doesn't? I don't think even white supremacists like police brutality. maybe Antifa. So it is an easy way to get people to stand with you. If your rallying cry is "this is an oppressive country", maybe it is a bit tougher. I will stand in unison against PB, if it is made clear we are talking about ALL PB, not just the stuff that sometimes happens to blacks. I am against police beating up people, all people, any person, not just police beating up black people. I think All lives matter, not just Black ones. But I am told that is racist.

(06-09-2020 09:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 09:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 06:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO - I’m wondering if you read the transcript from the Kaepernick interview and if you still believe he wasn’t protesting against police brutality?

This isn’t related to whether or not you agree with him, or his protest, but just to the content of his protest, and whether it included police brutality.

He was protesting oppression, and to the extent that would include police brutality toward black people, I guess it could be included, along with housing discrimination and Starbucks baristas being impolite. But nobody is protesting those things separately. How did PB become the face if the movement?

Did you read the transcript? It's pretty clear why "PB" become the face of the movement - Kaepernick talked about it extensively and explicitly.

Quote:Adopting it as the public issue is just a smoke screen. It was not the issue when he sat the first time. It is an easy thing to get support for.

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!

Quote:As I have said many time to deaf ears, I oppose police brutality. Who the hell doesn't? I don't think even white supremacists like police brutality. maybe Antifa. So it is an easy way to get people to stand with you. If your rallying cry is "this is an oppressive country", maybe it is a bit tougher. I will stand in unison against PB, if it is made clear we are talking about ALL PB, not just the stuff that sometimes happens to blacks. I am against police beating up people, all people, any person, not just police beating up black people. I think All lives matter, not just Black ones. But I am told that is racist.

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.

(06-09-2020 09:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 09:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 06:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO - I’m wondering if you read the transcript from the Kaepernick interview and if you still believe he wasn’t protesting against police brutality?

This isn’t related to whether or not you agree with him, or his protest, but just to the content of his protest, and whether it included police brutality.

He was protesting oppression, and to the extent that would include police brutality toward black people, I guess it could be included, along with housing discrimination and Starbucks baristas being impolite. But nobody is protesting those things separately. How did PB become the face if the movement?

Did you read the transcript? It's pretty clear why "PB" become the face of the movement - Kaepernick talked about it extensively and explicitly.

Quote:Adopting it as the public issue is just a smoke screen. It was not the issue when he sat the first time. It is an easy thing to get support for.

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!

Quote:As I have said many time to deaf ears, I oppose police brutality. Who the hell doesn't? I don't think even white supremacists like police brutality. maybe Antifa. So it is an easy way to get people to stand with you. If your rallying cry is "this is an oppressive country", maybe it is a bit tougher. I will stand in unison against PB, if it is made clear we are talking about ALL PB, not just the stuff that sometimes happens to blacks. I am against police beating up people, all people, any person, not just police beating up black people. I think All lives matter, not just Black ones. But I am told that is racist.

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.

(06-09-2020 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 09:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 09:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 06:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO - I’m wondering if you read the transcript from the Kaepernick interview and if you still believe he wasn’t protesting against police brutality?

This isn’t related to whether or not you agree with him, or his protest, but just to the content of his protest, and whether it included police brutality.

He was protesting oppression, and to the extent that would include police brutality toward black people, I guess it could be included, along with housing discrimination and Starbucks baristas being impolite. But nobody is protesting those things separately. How did PB become the face if the movement?

Did you read the transcript? It's pretty clear why "PB" become the face of the movement - Kaepernick talked about it extensively and explicitly.

Quote:Adopting it as the public issue is just a smoke screen. It was not the issue when he sat the first time. It is an easy thing to get support for.

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!

Quote:As I have said many time to deaf ears, I oppose police brutality. Who the hell doesn't? I don't think even white supremacists like police brutality. maybe Antifa. So it is an easy way to get people to stand with you. If your rallying cry is "this is an oppressive country", maybe it is a bit tougher. I will stand in unison against PB, if it is made clear we are talking about ALL PB, not just the stuff that sometimes happens to blacks. I am against police beating up people, all people, any person, not just police beating up black people. I think All lives matter, not just Black ones. But I am told that is racist.

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.

(06-09-2020 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 09:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 09:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 06:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO - I’m wondering if you read the transcript from the Kaepernick interview and if you still believe he wasn’t protesting against police brutality?

This isn’t related to whether or not you agree with him, or his protest, but just to the content of his protest, and whether it included police brutality.

He was protesting oppression, and to the extent that would include police brutality toward black people, I guess it could be included, along with housing discrimination and Starbucks baristas being impolite. But nobody is protesting those things separately. How did PB become the face if the movement?

Did you read the transcript? It's pretty clear why "PB" become the face of the movement - Kaepernick talked about it extensively and explicitly.

Quote:Adopting it as the public issue is just a smoke screen. It was not the issue when he sat the first time. It is an easy thing to get support for.

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!

Quote:As I have said many time to deaf ears, I oppose police brutality. Who the hell doesn't? I don't think even white supremacists like police brutality. maybe Antifa. So it is an easy way to get people to stand with you. If your rallying cry is "this is an oppressive country", maybe it is a bit tougher. I will stand in unison against PB, if it is made clear we are talking about ALL PB, not just the stuff that sometimes happens to blacks. I am against police beating up people, all people, any person, not just police beating up black people. I think All lives matter, not just Black ones. But I am told that is racist.

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.

(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.

(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.

Try saying "all lives matter" at a protest.

Same with "Blue Lives Matter".

and the most racist of them all, "White Lives Matter".

Any variation at a protest can get you killed.

(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".

(06-09-2020 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 09:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 09:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 06:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO - I’m wondering if you read the transcript from the Kaepernick interview and if you still believe he wasn’t protesting against police brutality?

This isn’t related to whether or not you agree with him, or his protest, but just to the content of his protest, and whether it included police brutality.

He was protesting oppression, and to the extent that would include police brutality toward black people, I guess it could be included, along with housing discrimination and Starbucks baristas being impolite. But nobody is protesting those things separately. How did PB become the face if the movement?

Did you read the transcript? It's pretty clear why "PB" become the face of the movement - Kaepernick talked about it extensively and explicitly.

Quote:Adopting it as the public issue is just a smoke screen. It was not the issue when he sat the first time. It is an easy thing to get support for.

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!

Quote:As I have said many time to deaf ears, I oppose police brutality. Who the hell doesn't? I don't think even white supremacists like police brutality. maybe Antifa. So it is an easy way to get people to stand with you. If your rallying cry is "this is an oppressive country", maybe it is a bit tougher. I will stand in unison against PB, if it is made clear we are talking about ALL PB, not just the stuff that sometimes happens to blacks. I am against police beating up people, all people, any person, not just police beating up black people. I think All lives matter, not just Black ones. But I am told that is racist.

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.

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

(06-09-2020 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 09:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 09:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 06:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO - I’m wondering if you read the transcript from the Kaepernick interview and if you still believe he wasn’t protesting against police brutality?

This isn’t related to whether or not you agree with him, or his protest, but just to the content of his protest, and whether it included police brutality.

He was protesting oppression, and to the extent that would include police brutality toward black people, I guess it could be included, along with housing discrimination and Starbucks baristas being impolite. But nobody is protesting those things separately. How did PB become the face if the movement?

Did you read the transcript? It's pretty clear why "PB" become the face of the movement - Kaepernick talked about it extensively and explicitly.

Quote:Adopting it as the public issue is just a smoke screen. It was not the issue when he sat the first time. It is an easy thing to get support for.

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!

Quote:As I have said many time to deaf ears, I oppose police brutality. Who the hell doesn't? I don't think even white supremacists like police brutality. maybe Antifa. So it is an easy way to get people to stand with you. If your rallying cry is "this is an oppressive country", maybe it is a bit tougher. I will stand in unison against PB, if it is made clear we are talking about ALL PB, not just the stuff that sometimes happens to blacks. I am against police beating up people, all people, any person, not just police beating up black people. I think All lives matter, not just Black ones. But I am told that is racist.

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'.

I think 93 and Lad try to minimize the effect of Black Live matter as a slogan.

I am fine with that slogan if the word "also" is appended.

But if I try to do that, I will be attacked as a racist. Perhaps physically. perhaps by 93 and Lad.

So I am told it is wrong to care about lives other than black. ONLY Black Lives Matter. That is the ONLY slogan you can say and not be racist.

(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:  

(06-09-2020 09:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  He was protesting oppression, and to the extent that would include police brutality toward black people, I guess it could be included, along with housing discrimination and Starbucks baristas being impolite. But nobody is protesting those things separately. How did PB become the face if the movement?

Did you read the transcript? It's pretty clear why "PB" become the face of the movement - Kaepernick talked about it extensively and explicitly.

Quote:Adopting it as the public issue is just a smoke screen. It was not the issue when he sat the first time. It is an easy thing to get support for.

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!

Quote:As I have said many time to deaf ears, I oppose police brutality. Who the hell doesn't? I don't think even white supremacists like police brutality. maybe Antifa. So it is an easy way to get people to stand with you. If your rallying cry is "this is an oppressive country", maybe it is a bit tougher. I will stand in unison against PB, if it is made clear we are talking about ALL PB, not just the stuff that sometimes happens to blacks. I am against police beating up people, all people, any person, not just police beating up black people. I think All lives matter, not just Black ones. But I am told that is racist.

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. This line of thinking suggests that there should be no special causes, because focusing on a special cause is anti-all other causes. Should we not support Rice football because we have other sports that also need support?

So we shouldn't have cancer specialists because other diseases and illnesses matter. We shouldn't have farm aid, because urban aid matters too. It's a rhetorical tactic meant to diminish the concerns that affect black lives.

(06-09-2020 10:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think 93 and Lad try to minimize the effect of Black Live matter as a slogan.

I am fine with that slogan if the word "also" is appended.

But if I try to do that, I will be attacked as a racist. Perhaps physically. perhaps by 93 and Lad.

So I am told it is wrong to care about lives other than black. ONLY Black Lives Matter. That is the ONLY slogan you can say and not be racist.

No, you are not told it is wrong to care about lives other than blacks.

You are told that you're obfuscating the issues being promoted by BLM by trying to argue with a point they aren't making. What positions of theirs indicate they believe that other lives don't matter?

You're also being told that the statement "Black Lives Matters" is not exhaustive in the sense that it means ONLY black lives matters.

(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. This line of thinking suggests that there should be no special causes, because focusing on a special cause is anti-all other causes. Should we not support Rice football because we have other sports that also need support?

So we shouldn't have cancer specialists because other diseases and illnesses matter. We shouldn't have farm aid, because urban aid matters too. It's a rhetorical tactic meant to diminish the concerns that affect black lives.

Should we support track if we will be attacked and called antifootball if we do?

Track Lives Matter does not mean Football Lives don't. But the football crowd chooses to interpret that way.

It is the response to saying All Lives Matter or Blue Lives Matter or even Hispanic Lives Matter that creates the problem. Physical attacks, if possible, labeling as racist if more remote. Anything more universal than BLACK lives is racist, it seems.

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

(06-09-2020 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 09:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 09:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  He was protesting oppression, and to the extent that would include police brutality toward black people, I guess it could be included, along with housing discrimination and Starbucks baristas being impolite. But nobody is protesting those things separately. How did PB become the face if the movement?

Did you read the transcript? It's pretty clear why "PB" become the face of the movement - Kaepernick talked about it extensively and explicitly.

Quote:Adopting it as the public issue is just a smoke screen. It was not the issue when he sat the first time. It is an easy thing to get support for.

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!

Quote:As I have said many time to deaf ears, I oppose police brutality. Who the hell doesn't? I don't think even white supremacists like police brutality. maybe Antifa. So it is an easy way to get people to stand with you. If your rallying cry is "this is an oppressive country", maybe it is a bit tougher. I will stand in unison against PB, if it is made clear we are talking about ALL PB, not just the stuff that sometimes happens to blacks. I am against police beating up people, all people, any person, not just police beating up black people. I think All lives matter, not just Black ones. But I am told that is racist.

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.

(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:  

(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!

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.

(06-09-2020 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl 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. This line of thinking suggests that there should be no special causes, because focusing on a special cause is anti-all other causes. Should we not support Rice football because we have other sports that also need support?

So we shouldn't have cancer specialists because other diseases and illnesses matter. We shouldn't have farm aid, because urban aid matters too. It's a rhetorical tactic meant to diminish the concerns that affect black lives.

Should we support track if we will be attacked and called antifootball if we do?

Track Lives Matter does not mean Football Lives don't. But the football crowd chooses to interpret that way.

It is the response to saying All Lives Matter or Blue Lives Matter or even Hispanic Lives Matter that creates the problem. Physical attacks, if possible, labeling as racist if more remote. Anything more universal than BLACK lives is racist, it seems.

Does this help?

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