6 ms·

This standard is not equally applied. For police, “a few bad apples” defends the majority as “good people.” For protestors, ANY property damage is seen as inv

This standard is not equally applied. For police, “a few bad apples” defends the majority as “good people.” For protestors, ANY property damage is seen as invalidating the whole movement as “violent extremists and lawlessness.” This despite police having supposedly extensive training on what is lawful and protesters being regular citizens.

eloff 6y ago
Honestly the whole movement is leaderless, aimless, and senseless. Right off the bat making it a race issue is divisive and misleading - when the statistics show people of color are no more likely than anyone else to be a victim of police violence, when considering the number of police interactions. Blacks and latinos commit more crimes. That's the uncomfortable truth. Then they have no serious or well thought out plan to improve things - so what do they hope to gain from protesting? Abolish the police is pure nonsense. Awareness of the issue is the best they can hope for.
- filoeleven 6y ago
  You didn’t address anything I said, so I’ll refrain from rebutting your statistics.
- sjtindell 6y ago
  Per your statement about race; look into that statistic you listed more, there are good explanations. Imagine this chain - the system is rigged in deep ways against a young man of color. He probably grows up in a broken home, a poor neighborhood, with low access to schooling or opportunity. As a result, he is driven to commit crime. So police patrol his neighborhood more, so they learn to associate his kind of people with crime, so he has more police interactions. And then that statistic lands on your news feed. Do you think the system is more fair for all people regardless of skin color? Or that crime has little relation to poverty? Or that people of color are inherently more likely to commit crime whether by genetics or culture? Then you won’t be able to follow that chain. There are a lot of interacting systems. Not questioning as an attack, just pointing out that the logic makes lots of assumptions. Consider the problems with our algorithm for determining recidivism rates. The data shows people of color return to crime more when released. So the algorithm assigns them higher jail time before parole, which means more time out of society and among criminals, which leads to more crime when released! That statistic, “people of color commit more crime” is a self-fulfilling prophecy or recursion of some sort, it’s harmful unless we’re using it to determine a “why” that isn’t just “because of their skin color or culture”.
  - jlawson 6y ago
    If that's true, your complaint isn't with them police at all, but with the fact that "the system is rigged in deep ways against a young man of color". To justify these protests, you would have to make the case that it's police conduct that causes black people to commit so many more crimes. But even in your post here, you're pointing to sentencing, not policing. (Also worth noting that this doesn't explain differentials in first offense rates at all).
    - sjtindell 6y ago
      I’m merely talking about one statistic the poster stated. Not protests. I also only brought up sentencing to demonstrate the point that these statistics themselves lead to policies and processes that in turn feed the statistics.
  - eloff 6y ago
    Well I hope you didn't think I was implying that black people are inherently more prone to being criminals from birth. Of course it's dominated by poverty and a lack of good options for young black men especially. The US is actually the developed country where the American dream is most dream-like. Social mobility in the US is behind almost all the other developed nations. This is a real societal problem that needs to be addressed. But all the solutions are "socialist" and deeply unpopular in the US. However, that there's a good reason for it doesn't change the statistics. Police violence against black people seems to be a non issue by the numbers. Police violence in general is an issue, making it racial is counterproductive. The protest would be better focused on things that are real, like poverty, or poor social mobility. And instead of people just aimlessly letting off steam, it should have leadership and clear goals that can actually be implemented - then maybe there's a chance they could get congress to listen to them. Right now they're accomplishing nothing and this whole movement will fade away without any real change just like the Occupy Wall Street movement.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      > Of course it's dominated by poverty and a lack of good options for young black men ... In the United States poverty in Black communities is a consequence of systemic racism, which continues to this day. W/the “drug war” examples further below, there’s a direct link between systemic racism and police behavior in black communities. Which admittedly cannot be blamed entirely on the police. But they certainly don’t help. Look at redlining in the 50s: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/371439/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article... Or the response to the opioid epidemic - prevalent in white communities - as opposed to how they responded to the crack/cocaine epidemic (prevalent in black communities) in the 80s. A medical response for white people - a criminal response for black people. https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/resources/article/criminal-justice-or-public-health-crack-cocaine-opioid-media-comparison https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/resources/article/crimina... Or the sentencing disparities between crack (prevalently used in poorer black communities) vs cocaine use/dealing. https://www.aclu.org/other/cracks-system-20-years-unjust-federal-crack-cocaine-law https://www.aclu.org/other/cracks-system-20-years-unjust-fed...
- adamsea 6y ago
  How many whites people get knees on their necks and choked to death on video?
strken 6y ago
> For protestors, ANY property damage is seen as invalidating the whole movement as “violent extremists and lawlessness.” This is not a universal opinion, nor is it universal among people who think most cops aren't murderers. When you say the standard isn't equally applied, who is the person or group applying it?
- filoeleven 6y ago
  Primarily, the police and the federal government, who both have the power to enforce the law or not based on their biases. The vast majority of police exhibit and act upon this bias, as shown by numerous incidents of sousveillance.
- jonny_eh 6y ago
  > This is not a universal opinion Just the narrative pushed by the political party in control of 2.5/3 branches of the US government.
edbob 6y ago
Arson is in a whole different category from normal "property damage", but we don't need to go there because there are enough murders being committed by BLM protesters: 24 year mother killed after responding with "All Lives Matter" to a "Black Lives Matter" group: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2020/07/23/jessica-doty-whitaker-what-we-know-shooting-along-canal/5486333002/ https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2020/07/23/jessica... BLM murders a man because they think he's a Trump supporter and celebrates it: https://nypost.com/2020/08/30/blm-activists-celebrated-as-trump-supporter-killed-devine/ https://nypost.com/2020/08/30/blm-activists-celebrated-as-tr... That's what "violent extremists and lawlessness" look like. This is what the Democrat-controlled Ku Klax Klan looked like when it had power, and this is what the National Socialists looked like. I hope you're proud.
- filoeleven 6y ago
  No. I do not condone violence or murder. I am curious about your criteria though. What’s the differential on “enough murders” to discount the BLM protests vs the police murders that fuel them? Also, saying that the KKK was “democrat-controlled” makes me think you’re trolling here. It hasn’t been true since the 60s, and using “Democrat” as an adjective instead of “Democratic” is a signal that you’re just repeating Republican talking points. That’s not even delving into what the KKK’s goals or actions were about. What do you think of Kyle Rittenhouse and the president’s support of him?
  - edbob 6y ago
    I don't think I understand what you mean by "discounting" murders. If you mean to "excuse" (i.e, to condone) the murders, then I would say that there is no excuse for murder by either BLM or the police. But you say that don't condone violence, so I'm really not sure what you're asking. If you truly don't condone violence, then I appreciate that immensely. But the majority liberal position seems to firmly excuse the violence, minimizing it and blaming it on others, and your initial post seemed to come out of that position. It still reads like that, since no mention is made of the widespread violence and arson. I also mentioned the National Socialists of the 1920's, as I was comparing the present violence to violent political movements of the past. The KKK hasn't been relevant since the Democrats abandoned it, except for leaders like Robert Byrd who stayed in power as Democrats for decades. I don't feel like the Democrats have changed enough since that time in their methods, only in their stated goals. I don't think it's relevant if this happens to be a Republican talking point. Facts aren't any less true if someone we don't like says them. I also don't know what significance saying Democrat-controlled vs Democratic-controlled has - what am I missing? I don't want to commit to a position on Rittenhouse because I'm sure that we will be much better informed after a trial. From the initial video, it looks like he was running away as fast as he could but was shot at, which would make his actions self-defense in a lot of jurisdictions. Some states have stand your ground laws, but many require you to try to flee and he clearly did so. But there are all sorts of details that could change that, like it being illegal for a minor to have a rifle in Wisconsin, and IANAL.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

eloff 6y ago

Honestly the whole movement is leaderless, aimless, and senseless. Right off the bat making it a race issue is divisive and misleading - when the statistics show people of color are no more likely than anyone else to be a victim of police violence, when considering the number of police interactions. Blacks and latinos commit more crimes. That's the uncomfortable truth. Then they have no serious or well thought out plan to improve things - so what do they hope to gain from protesting? Abolish the police is pure nonsense. Awareness of the issue is the best they can hope for.

filoeleven 6y ago
You didn’t address anything I said, so I’ll refrain from rebutting your statistics.
sjtindell 6y ago
Per your statement about race; look into that statistic you listed more, there are good explanations. Imagine this chain - the system is rigged in deep ways against a young man of color. He probably grows up in a broken home, a poor neighborhood, with low access to schooling or opportunity. As a result, he is driven to commit crime. So police patrol his neighborhood more, so they learn to associate his kind of people with crime, so he has more police interactions. And then that statistic lands on your news feed. Do you think the system is more fair for all people regardless of skin color? Or that crime has little relation to poverty? Or that people of color are inherently more likely to commit crime whether by genetics or culture? Then you won’t be able to follow that chain. There are a lot of interacting systems. Not questioning as an attack, just pointing out that the logic makes lots of assumptions. Consider the problems with our algorithm for determining recidivism rates. The data shows people of color return to crime more when released. So the algorithm assigns them higher jail time before parole, which means more time out of society and among criminals, which leads to more crime when released! That statistic, “people of color commit more crime” is a self-fulfilling prophecy or recursion of some sort, it’s harmful unless we’re using it to determine a “why” that isn’t just “because of their skin color or culture”.
- jlawson 6y ago
  If that's true, your complaint isn't with them police at all, but with the fact that "the system is rigged in deep ways against a young man of color". To justify these protests, you would have to make the case that it's police conduct that causes black people to commit so many more crimes. But even in your post here, you're pointing to sentencing, not policing. (Also worth noting that this doesn't explain differentials in first offense rates at all).
  - sjtindell 6y ago
    I’m merely talking about one statistic the poster stated. Not protests. I also only brought up sentencing to demonstrate the point that these statistics themselves lead to policies and processes that in turn feed the statistics.
- eloff 6y ago
  Well I hope you didn't think I was implying that black people are inherently more prone to being criminals from birth. Of course it's dominated by poverty and a lack of good options for young black men especially. The US is actually the developed country where the American dream is most dream-like. Social mobility in the US is behind almost all the other developed nations. This is a real societal problem that needs to be addressed. But all the solutions are "socialist" and deeply unpopular in the US. However, that there's a good reason for it doesn't change the statistics. Police violence against black people seems to be a non issue by the numbers. Police violence in general is an issue, making it racial is counterproductive. The protest would be better focused on things that are real, like poverty, or poor social mobility. And instead of people just aimlessly letting off steam, it should have leadership and clear goals that can actually be implemented - then maybe there's a chance they could get congress to listen to them. Right now they're accomplishing nothing and this whole movement will fade away without any real change just like the Occupy Wall Street movement.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    > Of course it's dominated by poverty and a lack of good options for young black men ... In the United States poverty in Black communities is a consequence of systemic racism, which continues to this day. W/the “drug war” examples further below, there’s a direct link between systemic racism and police behavior in black communities. Which admittedly cannot be blamed entirely on the police. But they certainly don’t help. Look at redlining in the 50s: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/371439/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article... Or the response to the opioid epidemic - prevalent in white communities - as opposed to how they responded to the crack/cocaine epidemic (prevalent in black communities) in the 80s. A medical response for white people - a criminal response for black people. https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/resources/article/criminal-justice-or-public-health-crack-cocaine-opioid-media-comparison https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/resources/article/crimina... Or the sentencing disparities between crack (prevalently used in poorer black communities) vs cocaine use/dealing. https://www.aclu.org/other/cracks-system-20-years-unjust-federal-crack-cocaine-law https://www.aclu.org/other/cracks-system-20-years-unjust-fed...
adamsea 6y ago
How many whites people get knees on their necks and choked to death on video?

strken 6y ago

> For protestors, ANY property damage is seen as invalidating the whole movement as “violent extremists and lawlessness.” This is not a universal opinion, nor is it universal among people who think most cops aren't murderers. When you say the standard isn't equally applied, who is the person or group applying it?

filoeleven 6y ago
Primarily, the police and the federal government, who both have the power to enforce the law or not based on their biases. The vast majority of police exhibit and act upon this bias, as shown by numerous incidents of sousveillance.
jonny_eh 6y ago
> This is not a universal opinion Just the narrative pushed by the political party in control of 2.5/3 branches of the US government.

edbob 6y ago

Arson is in a whole different category from normal "property damage", but we don't need to go there because there are enough murders being committed by BLM protesters: 24 year mother killed after responding with "All Lives Matter" to a "Black Lives Matter" group: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2020/07/23/jessica-doty-whitaker-what-we-know-shooting-along-canal/5486333002/ https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2020/07/23/jessica... BLM murders a man because they think he's a Trump supporter and celebrates it: https://nypost.com/2020/08/30/blm-activists-celebrated-as-trump-supporter-killed-devine/ https://nypost.com/2020/08/30/blm-activists-celebrated-as-tr... That's what "violent extremists and lawlessness" look like. This is what the Democrat-controlled Ku Klax Klan looked like when it had power, and this is what the National Socialists looked like. I hope you're proud.

filoeleven 6y ago
No. I do not condone violence or murder. I am curious about your criteria though. What’s the differential on “enough murders” to discount the BLM protests vs the police murders that fuel them? Also, saying that the KKK was “democrat-controlled” makes me think you’re trolling here. It hasn’t been true since the 60s, and using “Democrat” as an adjective instead of “Democratic” is a signal that you’re just repeating Republican talking points. That’s not even delving into what the KKK’s goals or actions were about. What do you think of Kyle Rittenhouse and the president’s support of him?
- edbob 6y ago
  I don't think I understand what you mean by "discounting" murders. If you mean to "excuse" (i.e, to condone) the murders, then I would say that there is no excuse for murder by either BLM or the police. But you say that don't condone violence, so I'm really not sure what you're asking. If you truly don't condone violence, then I appreciate that immensely. But the majority liberal position seems to firmly excuse the violence, minimizing it and blaming it on others, and your initial post seemed to come out of that position. It still reads like that, since no mention is made of the widespread violence and arson. I also mentioned the National Socialists of the 1920's, as I was comparing the present violence to violent political movements of the past. The KKK hasn't been relevant since the Democrats abandoned it, except for leaders like Robert Byrd who stayed in power as Democrats for decades. I don't feel like the Democrats have changed enough since that time in their methods, only in their stated goals. I don't think it's relevant if this happens to be a Republican talking point. Facts aren't any less true if someone we don't like says them. I also don't know what significance saying Democrat-controlled vs Democratic-controlled has - what am I missing? I don't want to commit to a position on Rittenhouse because I'm sure that we will be much better informed after a trial. From the initial video, it looks like he was running away as fast as he could but was shot at, which would make his actions self-defense in a lot of jurisdictions. Some states have stand your ground laws, but many require you to try to flee and he clearly did so. But there are all sorts of details that could change that, like it being illegal for a minor to have a rifle in Wisconsin, and IANAL.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]