1 edit
@vivify saidThere are shelters for men and women, viv.
Do you get angry at shelters for abused women and call them sexist for not serving men?
There are PC people angry at the men's shelters for not letting women in, as this is discrimination.
But of course, there are many problems like rape and sexual assault that arise when the two are mixed.
So in any event, I don't see your analogy as valid. It would certainly be better if BLM protested when a
white dude was wrongfully killed, wouldn't you agree?? Or maybe not...
@vivify -
POLICE VIOLENCE
U.S. Police Shootings: Blacks Disproportionately Affected
------------------------------------
This need not be explained, only explored.
Afros are 14% of the population. So If blacks make up 40% of the prison population
doesn't that tell us that confrontations with the police should be much higher for blacks than whites?
This should be explored.
@techsouth saidThat's very interesting. Whites, by some magic law of nature, have to be racist.
I've been learning about Critical Race Theory. One of the core tenants is that white people can't NOT be racist. Consequently, it seems the only possible end-game in a world that embraces CRT is genocide. Either blacks annihilate whites, or vice-versa (I advocate neither one). Prove me wrong.
I get the funny feeling I'd rather not explore this CRT. Sounds like racist liberalology to me.
@vivify saidThe fact that none of these "explainers" never blamed God or nature is quite telling, to me. They want HUMANS to blame.
To be clear, I'm not bashing Critical Race Theory, just addressing it's idea of placing blame on the idea of race rather than human flaws for racism.
@Earl-of-Trumps
Maybe, but the cop could have aimed for a leg or something. He didn't have to kill her. For instance, could he have used a tazer instead? Or a shot fired in the air first at least?
@sonhouse saidhttps://www.nytimes.com/article/police-tasers.html
@Earl-of-Trumps
Maybe, but the cop could have aimed for a leg or something. He didn't have to kill her. For instance, could he have used a tazer instead? Or a shot fired in the air first at least?
"Tasers have a reliable range of about 10 feet. . . but beyond that, their effectiveness in hitting a target becomes spotty."
The video made it seem like the cop was about 10 feet away.
Also, given that the cop had just arrived by with barely a few seconds to assess the situation and only a split-second to figure out how to stop the assailant from stabbing and potentially killing someone, deciding to use a taser from an unreliable distance at that moment may not have been option.
Shooting in the leg? Perhaps if the cop had more time to react and aim. A leg is much smaller target than the attacker's back, requiring more concentration.
@sonhouse saidthe cop could have just hollered out stop dat!
@Earl-of-Trumps
Maybe, but the cop could have aimed for a leg or something. He didn't have to kill her. For instance, could he have used a tazer instead? Or a shot fired in the air first at least?
@sonhouse saidIt's possible. But if the shooter guesses wrong, he could be dead, as well as others that he is protecting, too.
@Earl-of-Trumps
Maybe, but the cop could have aimed for a leg or something. He didn't have to kill her. For instance, could he have used a tazer instead? Or a shot fired in the air first at least?
I like to see that expanded on by an expert, which I am not.
@vivify saidI do not see how a shot to the leg will necessarily induce instantaneous incapacity that knife arm only had to finish its forward momentum.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/police-tasers.html
"Tasers have a reliable range of about 10 feet. . . but beyond that, their effectiveness in hitting a target becomes spotty."
The video made it seem like the cop was about 10 feet away.
Also, given that the cop had just arrived by with barely a few seconds to assess the situation and only a split-second to figure ou ...[text shortened]... react and aim. A leg is much smaller target than the attacker's back, requiring more concentration.
@earl-of-trumps saidExactly, and there are specific activists for each group of people (women, Asians, Hispanics, etc.). BLM focus on the violence toward blacks; hence their name.
There are shelters for men and women, viv.
Complaining that activists don't focus on crimes against every single group of people is just as stupid as complaining about shelthers for women.
@vivify saidGenerally agree. Humans can do things very good, and also very bad. With our without a notion of "race", that human inclination won't change. Some of the most horrible genocides I know of have occurred between peoples of which I personally couldn't distinguish via appearance.
CRT teaches that race is a socially constructed idea used an excuse to oppress other people of said "race".
I don't like this idea because inherent in this belief is that racism exists because of these perceived differences, taking blame away from the human tendency to commit atrocities toward one another regardless of any actual differences.
As a side conversation, I first heard the idea that race was socially constructed 20+ years ago, probably about the time CRT theorists were formulating the idea. I tried to engage in a conversation about it at the time, but proponents of this idea couldn't separate the scientific assertion from the moral dimension. In this case, vivify has not said whether he is a proponent or not of the CRT view that race is just a social construct. So I am not arguing with him, just using the opportunity to think back to debates long ago.
With race, obviously you get no clear, crisp boundaries no matter how you define "race", but at the time I tried to push back and contend that there was more than just a social construct. Sadly, it was not possible then, and it still probably isn't possible now to have the conversation without the adherents viewing themselves as having the moral high ground such that dispassionate discussion won't be possible. The logic kind of goes like this... "The concept of race has been used to justify many bad things, therefore race is not a valid scientific construct." Those with a little training in logic recognize this as an invalid argument. And the proponents will try to dress it up better, but in the end, this is what the argument boils down to because they're always so quick to bring in morality. A true debate over whether "race" is completely a social construct does not require any mention of morality, good, or evil at all.
But here is the best counter-argument I've come up with. About 15-30 years ago, there were a large number of Chinese babies adopted by US families and I know many families than now have adopted daughters from China who are now around 20 years old. These girls in general speak perfect English with an American accent, they dress like Americans, they eat the same food the rest of us eat, they live American culture in every way.
At times they've taken youth trips to South America. Children there immediately recognize the girls as "Chinese" and will point at them and say "China, China" (with a Hispanic pronunciation obviously). Here is my contention:
1. The young ladies can be recognized as Chinese because of some biological phenomenon.
2. That biological phenomenon could be a legitimate focus of a scientific study.
3. One might reasonably use the word "race" in the title for such a study.
4. By proposing this argument, I've done nothing "bad" and am not advocating anything "bad". Nothing I've said can be refuted using a moral argument.
This is all to say that "race" is something more than just a social construct.
1 edit
@techsouth saidI 100 percent agree this is bad logic, which is why I opposed that concept of CRT. Scientists have discovered clear differences in the race beyond just appearance, such as some races being more susceptible to certain disease, having unique genetic traits, etc.
The logic kind of goes like this... "The concept of race has been used to justify many bad things, therefore race is not a valid scientific construct."
Arguing that the concept of race is flawed due to it's use by by bigots is nonsensical. Not only does this go against science, it also makes race the blame for the evils that humans do to each other, rather than deeply flawed human nature and human ways of thinking.
@vivify saidIt's Ok to say "Yeah for my people" in America, but there is a problem in this case.
Exactly, and there are specific activists for each group of people (women, Asians, Hispanics, etc.). BLM focus on the violence toward blacks; hence their name.
Complaining that activists don't focus on crimes against every single group of people is just as stupid as complaining about shelthers for women.
Note that when BLM refuses to protest in cases where a white man is killed by police (TRUE), they send a very
poisonous message to the populace.... only blacks are being killed by the police, and many people really believe this now.
It's pouring gasoline onto the fire. And damn our politicians for not speaking up about it. We could see a race war yet.
@earl-of-trumps saidNo one believes for a second what you say, obviously, since every single conservative on this site keeps on bringing up over and over that "hey, whites are killed too!"
Note that when BLM refuses to protest in cases where a white man is killed by police (TRUE), they send a very
poisonous message to the populace.... only blacks are being killed by the police, and many people really believe this now.
It's pouring gasoline onto the fire. And damn our politicians for not speaking up about it. We could see a race war yet.
This completely missed the point. The problem isn't merely that blacks are being killed by cops just like whites sometimes are, but that blacks are unfairly targeted and discriminated against, and disproportionately abused and killed by cops.
The systemic racism against blacks (that doesn't exist for whites) is the problem and the reason for BLM.
1 edit
@vivify -
... but that blacks are unfairly targeted and discriminated against, and disproportionately abused and killed by cops.
The systemic racism against blacks (that doesn't exist for whites) is the problem and the reason for BLM.
Vivify, this notion you have is hotly contested and I have posted this up in this forum in another thread.
Is the reason for twice as many blacks being the victims per capita than whites because they have many more
confrontations with the law *per capita*, or is it because the cops in america are all white supremacist racists?
Do police respond to where a crime has been committed or do they just go hunting where the Negros are?
This could be a thread in here that would last a long long time.