Racism is contextual

You are lying. That is not at all what I have said.

But I appreciate your verbal-salad dodge. You cannot quote a single passage from any of the court proceedings which contains a racial justification for the cops actions, which is exactly what you are insinuating. It is disgusting. Viewpoints like the one you are espousing, in which you replace your perspective for the other party in a racial context, is the reason that people can't have honest and open conversations about race. You, sir, are the problem, at least here.

Now if you want to say that the cops shot an unarmed person and the jury found that it was reasonable for law enforcement under the circumstances to kill a man in that particular context, we might have some common ground and I wouldn't say I would necessarily disagree with your assessment that this may be wrong. But you have injected vitriol and racism into what you think others think with no justification or rationale. I will not stand idly by and watch you besmirch others because, frankly, you can't behave rationally. Shame on you.
 
Crawtator said:
You are lying. That is not at all what I have said.

But I appreciate your verbal-salad dodge. You cannot quote a single passage from any of the court proceedings which contains a racial justification for the cops actions, which is exactly what you are insinuating. It is disgusting. Viewpoints like the one you are espousing, in which you replace your perspective for the other party in a racial context, is the reason that people can't have honest and open conversations about race. You, sir, are the problem, at least here.

Now if you want to say that the cops shot an unarmed person and the jury found that it was reasonable for law enforcement under the circumstances to kill a man in that particular context, we might have some common ground and I wouldn't say I would necessarily disagree with your assessment that this may be wrong. But you have injected vitriol and racism into what you think others think with no justification or rationale. I will not stand idly by and watch you besmirch others because, frankly, you can't behave rationally. Shame on you.
Click to expand...

Yes because we have to pretend that race could not have anything to do with this and, he would have panicked on finding out anyone was a law abiding gun owner. They of course didn't frame it like that, they are going to say how threatening this guy was, with out any actual threatening actions on his part or words, what was it that the cop found so threatening that he should kill him. That clearly must be so clear in the records so what was it?

This is why we need to get rid of concealed carry permits, they are perfectly good reasons for cops to kill you.
 
Crawtator said:
That is not at all what I have said.
Click to expand...

You get used to Ponderingturtle after a while. Every conversation with him is functionally:

"I like soup"
"Why do you support beating orphans to death with kittens wrapped in a burning American flag?"
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
You get used to Ponderingturtle after a while. Every conversation with him is functionally:

"I like soup"
"So what you are saying is you support beating orphans to death with kittens wrapped in a burning American flag?"
Click to expand...

What was the terribly threatening thing Philando Castile did that you claim justified the threat in a reasonable observer as found by the jury? It certainly seems that it was much more about who he was than what the video shows him doing that caused the fear in the officer that the jury decided was reasonable to kill someone over.

You contend that race had no part in that, so why did the officer feel threatened?

In a lot of ways being frightened of black people while not a good legal reason to justify the killing of someone does seem to be one of the least bad things you could say about why he did shoot Philando Castile.
 
Belz... said:
Responding to an accusation of strawman with another one. Fractal strawmen, now?
Click to expand...

I'd be happy if he would just argue against strawmen. Strawmen are at least exaggerated caricatures of an actual opinion. He's arguing against strawmen of opinion's he making up in his head.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I'd be happy if he would just argue against strawmen. Strawmen are at least exaggerated caricatures of an actual opinion. He's arguing against strawmen of opinion's he making up in his head.
Click to expand...

I have been very consistent in this threat about how do you talk about a very specific kind of incident that is like the Philando Castile shooting. All I have seen is that you can't talk about it because you can't call a cop who the courts found to have acted appropriately to have had any racial implications in the actions.

You simply attack me instead of ever giving a suggestion on how you think this kind of incident should be discussed. So given that it is clear you simply don't want to discuss it and want it ignored. Because discussing it makes white people uncomfortable and that is the worst thing you can do.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Why do you support derailing passenger trains full of refugees?
Click to expand...

I have been trying to get an answer about this specific question since #110. Yet no one can answer the it.

All you do is distract and redirect and refuse to deal with that question, how do you talk about killing a black man in a situation that a white man wouldn't be killed.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I have been trying to get an answer about this specific question since #110. Yet no one can answer the it.

All you do is distract and redirect and refuse to deal with that question, how do you talk about killing a black man in a situation that a white man wouldn't be killed.
Click to expand...

Once again, I'm going to need to to support this assertion. But you won't and your response will contain racist-based strawman-type arguments that will be nothing but founts of emotional outrage that have no factual or evidentiary backing.
 
Crawtator said:
Once again, I'm going to need to to support this assertion. But you won't and your response will contain racist-based strawman-type arguments that will be nothing but founts of emotional outrage that have no factual or evidentiary backing.
Click to expand...

Fine you win, there is no racism, there is no narrative of blacks being more violent that makes people find them more threatening, they totally deserve to be stopped by the police more often because of their innate criminal natures and so on.

We can finally stop talking about race and feel good that the race thing is solved.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Fine you win, there is no racism
Click to expand...

Hey, what do you know? Another strawman! Colour me surprised.

Assuming you're posting what you actually think and not engaging in some sort of performance art, you really do seem to be entirely unable to see nuance. It's either 100% in agreement with you, or 100% in disagreement.
 
Belz... said:
Hey, what do you know? Another strawman! Colour me surprised.

Assuming you're posting what you actually think and not engaging in some sort of performance art, you really do seem to be entirely unable to see nuance. It's either 100% in agreement with you, or 100% in disagreement.
Click to expand...

Not saying I called it, but...

ponderingturtle said:
Fine you win, there is no racism, there is no narrative of blacks being more violent that makes people find them more threatening, they totally deserve to be stopped by the police more often because of their innate criminal natures and so on.

We can finally stop talking about race and feel good that the race thing is solved.
Click to expand...

One of these things does not look like the other. At least be internally consistent with your strawmen.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I have been trying to get an answer about this specific question since #110. Yet no one can answer the it.

All you do is distract and redirect and refuse to deal with that question, how do you talk about killing a black man in a situation that a white man wouldn't be killed.
Click to expand...
For what its worth, I think its based on a false premise. Rmember the study from a few years ago that conservative claimed showed police weren't really racist? What hit seemed to show was that cops were as likely so kill white men as black men when they interacted with them. The reason cops kill more black men seems to be because the interact with black men more frequently.

Most conservatives want to believe this is just because black men commit more crime. That is doesn't appear to explain it all, driving while black is definitely a thing, as long as it is, cops will kill more black men. This would also put lie to the notion that black men are more aggressive with cops than white men.

I'd argue that if we address the reasons why cops are so trigger happy generally, that would benefit black men more than the rest of us.

Of course, I don't really have a problem with calling unconscious bias, racism. We should be clear as to whether we're talking about unconscious vs conscious racism. Those two things have different solutions.
 
JoeMorgue said:
So no, damn me if need be but I'm not particularly interested in purging myself of the Tumblr version of "Original Sin" which this is rapidly turning into. And I don't say that flippantly. That's what this is really, really starting to track as. I'm started to legit get that same creepy vibe off of the "Admit you are racist! Admit it! Admit it and be woke!" thing that I get off of the "Admit you are a dirty sinner! Admit it! Admit it and be saved!" stuff the fire and brimstone crowd plays.

Because... it is sort of the same thing. Some inherent flaw in my self separate from any of my actual opinions or stances that I inherited due to someone else's evils in the past that I have to admit to and surrender myself to, for which the very denial of is sign of me having it, which I require some special elevated class of people to convince me I have and absolve me of it.

I'm sorry I just can't get onboard with that.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I will discuss social bias and the impact of privilege until I'm blue in the face, I'll argue that those biases materially disadvantage women, minorities, gay people, and many other cultural groupings until I run out of breath.

But screw those people if they think I'm going to admit to the "sin" of having bias, and the need for someone else to forgive me the error of my ways and guilt me into pretending that such biases don't exist rather than acknowledging and addressing them in order to alter the culture in which I find myself.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"I just think conceptualizing unintentional biases as 'racism' is not the best way to go forward in discussions about race relations..."

"...therefore I'm completely okay with cops shooting black people."

Okay somebody has got to fill in the blank for me here.
Click to expand...

That blank is where the fairies and bigfeet live.
 
Mumbles said:
Doesn't matter if you're completely okay with it - the point is that both are obviously racist. Better to recognize what it is and nip that sort of thing out early...
Click to expand...

Really kind of depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If you're trying to change cultural norms and sunset meaningless stereotypes, then discussing social biases is probably more likely to get you progress than telling everyone that they're racists.

If, on the other hand, your objective is to gain some sort of elusive virtuous superiority by highlighting the assumed moral failings of other people... then I suppose that always referring to it as racism will fill that emotional need quite well.
 
JoeMorgue said:
You get used to Ponderingturtle after a while. Every conversation with him is functionally:

"I like soup"
"Why do you support beating orphans to death with kittens wrapped in a burning American flag?"
Click to expand...

What baffles me is the prevalence of ponderingturtle's disruptive derails that are consistently overlooked and allowed to stand.
 
Belz... said:
Hey, what do you know? Another strawman! Colour me surprised.

Assuming you're posting what you actually think and not engaging in some sort of performance art, you really do seem to be entirely unable to see nuance. It's either 100% in agreement with you, or 100% in disagreement.
Click to expand...

The answer lies within the question...
 
As Obama once said, "there are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator."

Ponderinturtle has a valid point. The police are no different. They're only human. They're going to assign a higher risk to a black guy, just like the people that lock their cars do. How many times have we seen unarmed blacks killed by cops? Way too many times.

Unarmed black guy with a cell phone? Shoot off 20 rounds. And turn the bodycams off right afterwards. Disgusting.
 
ahhell said:
For what its worth, I think its based on a false premise. Rmember the study from a few years ago that conservative claimed showed police weren't really racist? What hit seemed to show was that cops were as likely so kill white men as black men when they interacted with them. The reason cops kill more black men seems to be because the interact with black men more frequently.

Most conservatives want to believe this is just because black men commit more crime. That is doesn't appear to explain it all, driving while black is definitely a thing, as long as it is, cops will kill more black men. This would also put lie to the notion that black men are more aggressive with cops than white men.

I'd argue that if we address the reasons why cops are so trigger happy generally, that would benefit black men more than the rest of us.

Of course, I don't really have a problem with calling unconscious bias, racism. We should be clear as to whether we're talking about unconscious vs conscious racism. Those two things have different solutions.
Click to expand...



The problem of police use of force policies and the militarization of police departments has been a topic among conservatives for decades now. The problem is that conservatives don't necessarily leap to RACISM!!!!1111!!!!* as the cause of every single problem so they can't get any traction with progressives on the subject. As long as progressives keep trying to jam the round peg of racism into the square hole of the problems with police militarization both sides are going to continue talking past each other without any progress being made.

For instance, here's a great article about police use of force policies that will never be acknowledged by progressives because it doesn't mention race.

National Review


*Before anyone strawmans that I'm claiming that racism is never the cause of police shootings, I acknowledge and understand that some police shootings have racial components, but not all them.
 
cmikes said:
The problem of police use of force policies and the militarization of police departments has been a topic among conservatives for decades now. The problem is that conservatives don't necessarily leap to RACISM!!!!1111!!!!* as the cause of every single problem so they can't get any traction with progressives on the subject. As long as progressives keep trying to jam the round peg of racism into the square hole of the problems with police militarization both sides are going to continue talking past each other without any progress being made.

For instance, here's a great article about police use of force policies that will never be acknowledged by progressives because it doesn't mention race.

National Review


*Before anyone strawmans that I'm claiming that racism is never the cause of police shootings, I acknowledge and understand that some police shootings have racial components, but not all them.
Click to expand...

Yes, and in congress, there's Rand Paul.

But then you get to Jeff Sessions, and to Dolt 45. Again, there's a perfectly good conservative case to make for police not being trained as "warriors" and laying siege to a town like Ferguson. This is notably the opposite of the case that the overwhelming majority of prominent republicans make, however - although they were happy to see Cliven Bundy's pals openly point guns at federal law enforcement.
 
I think it's generally true that the topic of the need for more police use of force and more militarization of police departments has been a hot topic among "law and order conservatives" for decades now.

Is that basically the same thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom