First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply "charlotte jail protest backs those who were arrested "
runec 
28292 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/2/16

sundin13 wrote:
No, I don't really think its a stretch. We've largely seen it at universities with several BLM groups bullying presidents and staff to resign, which I've always thought made no sense. Now we see here a BLM group trying to bully a mayor and a police chief into resigning when I don't believe that they (or at least the mayor) actually did anything wrong.

Also, yes, bullying people out of power does work to some degree. Like I've said, we've already seen plenty of resignations at Universities. Its just a matter of how much bad PR they can take before either resigning or being pushed out (whether deserved or not).

Also, it wasn't really a dig at BLM (I mean, it kind of was. I do think this behavior is generally fairly silly). I just really don't understand the motive behind it. I don't see them really gaining anything if the president of a school resigns or some mayor steps down. It feels like they are creating scapegoats which is what the accused party often does to make a situation blow over.


I would like to take a moment to point out its a bit of an uneasy a line to equate protesting with bullying. Protesting is a right. A critically important one.

As for universities ( which are, lets face it, the meth labs of democracy for both the left and the right ) thats a far cry in terms of power from a government leader or police chief. You might be able to shame a student president into stepping down or generate enough bad PR around a professor for the rest of the faculty to cut them lose ( unless they're a sports coach anyway ). But the mechanisms for removing someone from a position of power in the government in America are weak. If they don't want to go, they aren't going to go. You're not going to "bully" the police chief of Charlotte ( let alone the mayor ) into resigning because a few hundred out Charlotte's 800,000 citizens are outside yelling for a few nights. Bullying is typically done from a position of power not to one.

As for creating a scapegoat, you're kind of putting forward a no win situation. If individuals ( especially those in leadership ) can't be held responsible for problems then how do you address the problem? The kind of police culture that is the root of most of America's policing problems is not, can not and has not been changed just by sternly sending them off to "diversity training" or similar. If you don't change it from the top down you're certainly not going to change it from the bottom up.

Sure, there is a risk that the rest will cut someone lose as a scapegoat. But if the alternative is that they all get to stay and keep fucking everything up?








13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 10/2/16

runec wrote:


sundin13 wrote:
No, I don't really think its a stretch. We've largely seen it at universities with several BLM groups bullying presidents and staff to resign, which I've always thought made no sense. Now we see here a BLM group trying to bully a mayor and a police chief into resigning when I don't believe that they (or at least the mayor) actually did anything wrong.

Also, yes, bullying people out of power does work to some degree. Like I've said, we've already seen plenty of resignations at Universities. Its just a matter of how much bad PR they can take before either resigning or being pushed out (whether deserved or not).

Also, it wasn't really a dig at BLM (I mean, it kind of was. I do think this behavior is generally fairly silly). I just really don't understand the motive behind it. I don't see them really gaining anything if the president of a school resigns or some mayor steps down. It feels like they are creating scapegoats which is what the accused party often does to make a situation blow over.


I would like to take a moment to point out its a bit of an uneasy a line to equate protesting with bullying. Protesting is a right. A critically important one.

As for universities ( which are, lets face it, the meth labs of democracy for both the left and the right ) thats a far cry in terms of power from a government leader or police chief. You might be able to shame a student president into stepping down or generate enough bad PR around a professor for the rest of the faculty to cut them lose ( unless they're a sports coach anyway ). But the mechanisms for removing someone from a position of power in the government in America are weak. If they don't want to go, they aren't going to go. You're not going to "bully" the police chief of Charlotte ( let alone the mayor ) into resigning because a few hundred out Charlotte's 800,000 citizens are outside yelling for a few nights. Bullying is typically done from a position of power not to one.

As for creating a scapegoat, you're kind of putting forward a no win situation. If individuals ( especially those in leadership ) can't be held responsible for problems then how do you address the problem? The kind of police culture that is the root of most of America's policing problems is not, can not and has not been changed just by sternly sending them off to "diversity training" or similar. If you don't change it from the top down you're certainly not going to change it from the bottom up.

Sure, there is a risk that the rest will cut someone lose as a scapegoat. But if the alternative is that they all get to stay and keep fucking everything up?


Protesting is fine (although rioting and general hooliganism is not so fine), but protest what you are protesting. If you are protesting that say, an individual was found innocent, I think protesting the judge (assuming it wasn't a jury trial) makes sense, but saying "we don't like that a black person was shot so the mayor should step down" makes me scratch my head a bit. Hold people accountable for their own actions, but don't hold people accountable for the actions of other people. When there is a problem, address the problem specifically. What is the problem here and how does the mayor resigning address that problem?

I think that outlines two of my big problems with BLM. The first being that BLM does a poor job identifying problems. It seems like they often protest or get outraged about justified, or reasonable shootings. The second being that they do a poor job of outlining the solution. It doesn't seem like they are taking the steps that lead towards a certain goal, but more that they are taking steps and just hoping that it brings them to the goal. There often doesn't appear to be direct causality.
runec 
28292 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/2/16 , edited 10/2/16

sundin13 wrote:
Protesting is fine (although rioting and general hooliganism is not so fine), but protest what you are protesting. If you are protesting that say, an individual was found innocent, I think protesting the judge (assuming it wasn't a jury trial) makes sense, but saying "we don't like that a black person was shot so the mayor should step down" makes me scratch my head a bit. Hold people accountable for their own actions, but don't hold people accountable for the actions of other people. When there is a problem, address the problem specifically. What is the problem here and how does the mayor resigning address that problem?


I scratch my head a little at the mayor as well ( the police chief makes total sense ). But then, it wouldn't be as "good" ( ie clickbait ) a story if they went into the crowd and found the most reasonable person there.



sundin13 wrote:
I think that outlines two of my big problems with BLM. The first being that BLM does a poor job identifying problems. It seems like they often protest or get outraged about justified, or reasonable shootings. The second being that they do a poor job of outlining the solution. It doesn't seem like they are taking the steps that lead towards a certain goal, but more that they are taking steps and just hoping that it brings them to the goal. There often doesn't appear to be direct causality.


Here, I think, the problem is partially the media. As highlighted earlier in the thread. Whenever a black person is shot there are two competing narratives that generally emerge in the media. The "black man shot by police for doing nothing" narrative and the counter "look how horrible this black guy shot by police was" narrative. Both of them then go trawling twitter and facebook for opinions and "Witnesses" they can just straight rehash as news.

In the middle, you have a police mentality that is almost always protect our ass first, find out actually happened later. Even if we didn't screw up, still act like we did and fight tooth and nail to prevent any evidence or footage from being publicly released in a timely manner. So we look guilty even when we did everything by the book.

So if you're related too, know of our part of the community of where a shooting occurs you turn on the TV and half the news media is essentially saying your father/son/neighbour, etc deserved to be shot just because he was a terrible person. The other half saying its not clear why he was shot ( or that he was unarmed when he was shot ). Then you have the cops going "He was shot because x. No you can't see video. Just trust us. Even though we've really not given you much if any reason too lately".

The entire thing is a recipe for ongoing and repeated disaster.

As for solutions, let me flip that one around: Why is it the protester's responsibility to put forth a plan to fix the problem? They are not running for office. They're not legal experts or political scientists. They don't work for the Department of Justice. Protesting is there to voice dissent and/or draw awareness to a problem. Not to crowd source a solution. You wouldn't ask an anti-war protester to submit a strategic plan to withdraw from Iraq or an oil pipeline protester to solve global warming. So why would the responsibility of fixing racism and police brutality in America fall on BLM?

As for direct causality. Again, anger generally isn't sensible. But in this case in particular if America can't figure out what to do about this ( or doesn't care to do anything about it ) how should the protesters be expected to know? The whole reason you have protests and riots is because nothing else has worked.











13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 10/2/16

runec wrote:


sundin13 wrote:
Protesting is fine (although rioting and general hooliganism is not so fine), but protest what you are protesting. If you are protesting that say, an individual was found innocent, I think protesting the judge (assuming it wasn't a jury trial) makes sense, but saying "we don't like that a black person was shot so the mayor should step down" makes me scratch my head a bit. Hold people accountable for their own actions, but don't hold people accountable for the actions of other people. When there is a problem, address the problem specifically. What is the problem here and how does the mayor resigning address that problem?


I scratch my head a little at the mayor as well ( the police chief makes total sense ). But then, it wouldn't be as "good" ( ie clickbait ) a story if they went into the crowd and found the most reasonable person there.



sundin13 wrote:
I think that outlines two of my big problems with BLM. The first being that BLM does a poor job identifying problems. It seems like they often protest or get outraged about justified, or reasonable shootings. The second being that they do a poor job of outlining the solution. It doesn't seem like they are taking the steps that lead towards a certain goal, but more that they are taking steps and just hoping that it brings them to the goal. There often doesn't appear to be direct causality.


Here, I think, the problem is partially the media. As highlighted earlier in the thread. Whenever a black person is shot there are two competing narratives that generally emerge in the media. The "black man shot by police for doing nothing" narrative and the counter "look how horrible this black guy shot by police was" narrative. Both of them then go trawling twitter and facebook for opinions and "Witnesses" they can just straight rehash as news.

In the middle, you have a police mentality that is almost always protect our ass first, find out actually happened later. Even if we didn't screw up, still act like we did and fight tooth and nail to prevent any evidence or footage from being publicly released in a timely manner. So we look guilty even when we did everything by the book.

So if you're related too, know of our part of the community of where a shooting occurs you turn on the TV and half the news media is essentially saying your father/son/neighbour, etc deserved to be shot just because he was a terrible person. The other half saying its not clear why he was shot ( or that he was unarmed when he was shot ). Then you have the cops going "He was shot because x. No you can't see video. Just trust us. Even though we've really not given you much if any reason too lately".

The entire thing is a recipe for ongoing and repeated disaster.

As for solutions, let me flip that one around: Why is it the protester's responsibility to put forth a plan to fix the problem? They are not running for office. They're not legal experts or political scientists. They don't work for the Department of Justice. Protesting is there to voice dissent and/or draw awareness to a problem. Not to crowd source a solution. You wouldn't ask an anti-war protester to submit a strategic plan to withdraw from Iraq or an oil pipeline protester to solve global warming. So why would the responsibility of fixing racism and police brutality in America fall on BLM?

As for direct causality. Again, anger generally isn't sensible. But in this case in particular if America can't figure out what to do about this ( or doesn't care to do anything about it ) how should the protesters be expected to know? The whole reason you have protests and riots is because nothing else has worked.


I can certainly agree that the media helps make everything a big clusterfuck.

Anyways, why is it a protesters responsibility to put forth a solution? I think there are three parts to this. First, we have the issue that solutions are being posed (like "make the mayor resign"). If you put forth a solution, it should be a good solution, otherwise you might just end up creating a scapegoat and not accomplishing anything. Second, you have an issue when the problem isn't being brought across well. Say hypothetically a group of BLM supporters were protesting the death of a black man who was shot by police while he was shooting at police. I'm not saying that has happened, but when you have a poorly defined problem, you get a response of "what exactly do you want us to do?". Third, when you are dealing with concepts like "implicit bias" which don't really have a solution, you again run into the response of "what exactly do you want us to do?".

Finally, yeah, anger isn't sensible, but that doesn't really excuse the misdeeds committed out of anger or make me want to stand beside the angry. As they say "cooler heads prevail". I think people who hold influence over the BLM community should be doing everything in their power to cool everyone down and have a sensible conversation, not stoke the flames of hate.
33510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 10/2/16

runec wrote:

Yes, if you're dealing with a group that is already upset and distrustful you really should, you know, exercise some journalistic integrity before you rush ahead and throw gas on the fire.

Yes: Buzzfeed the epitome of journalistic integrity.
25145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Beyond The Wall
Offline
Posted 10/2/16
I wish I had the time to sit around all day and protest bullshit.....But I have a job... Maybe they should get one.
35982 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Georgia, USA
Offline
Posted 10/3/16

dragontackle wrote:

I wish I had the time to sit around all day and protest bullshit.....But I have a job... Maybe they should get one.

Many protestors, not just BLM, are paid.
So technically it IS their job.


25145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Beyond The Wall
Offline
Posted 10/3/16 , edited 10/3/16

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


dragontackle wrote:

I wish I had the time to sit around all day and protest bullshit.....But I have a job... Maybe they should get one.

Many protestors, not just BLM, are paid.
So technically it IS their job.




Soros needs to fucking die off. Seriously
18722 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Online
Posted 10/3/16

dragontackle wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:


dragontackle wrote:

I wish I had the time to sit around all day and protest bullshit.....But I have a job... Maybe they should get one.

Many protestors, not just BLM, are paid.
So technically it IS their job.




Soros needs to fucking die off. Seriously


runec 
28292 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/3/16

sundin13 wrote:
Anyways, why is it a protesters responsibility to put forth a solution? I think there are three parts to this. First, we have the issue that solutions are being posed (like "make the mayor resign"). If you put forth a solution, it should be a good solution, otherwise you might just end up creating a scapegoat and not accomplishing anything. Second, you have an issue when the problem isn't being brought across well. Say hypothetically a group of BLM supporters were protesting the death of a black man who was shot by police while he was shooting at police. I'm not saying that has happened, but when you have a poorly defined problem, you get a response of "what exactly do you want us to do?". Third, when you are dealing with concepts like "implicit bias" which don't really have a solution, you again run into the response of "what exactly do you want us to do?".


But again, that is demonstrating the problem is complex. So again why does it fall on the protesters to put forth a solution? Especially to a problem that has gone on for *this* long and continues to remain essentially because of a lack of will to change the status quo? If your car keeps breaking down over and over you'd probably smack the Ford rep if he told you "Well you tell me how to fix it". If any other solution had worked by now you wouldn't have riots in the first place.

Neither of us is disenfranchised and/or living in a poor inner city community that's been on the receiving end of generations of racism and police abuse. We have the luxury to sit here calmly on a web forum comparing numbers and pronouncing intellectual judgement like twats. These people don't have that luxury and expecting them to put themselves in our shoes instead of the other way around is both unfair and kind of weird.



sundin13 wrote:
Finally, yeah, anger isn't sensible, but that doesn't really excuse the misdeeds committed out of anger or make me want to stand beside the angry. As they say "cooler heads prevail". I think people who hold influence over the BLM community should be doing everything in their power to cool everyone down and have a sensible conversation, not stoke the flames of hate.


I'm not saying violence should be excused. I'm saying we need to understand *why* there is anger instead of using the anger as a justification to dismiss the problem. BLM is not a recent thing. Its just the latest thing. No one listened when there was still a sensible conversation to be had. The problem is too large ( and thus the movement has grown to large ) for anyone to cool everyone down.

We're not watching a recent problem unfold. We're watching the end result of years, decades, even generations of problems that have been ignored coming to a head. Thats the problem here. They've tried sensible conversation and no one has listened. Someone pretends to listen every now and then in an election year. But then everything goes back to the status quo afterwards.

I mean its "Stop rioting and protesting so we can talk" vs "You only want to talk now because we're rioting and protesting".





runec 
28292 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/3/16 , edited 10/3/16

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:
Yes: Buzzfeed the epitome of journalistic integrity.


Oddly enough, they can be when they want to be. But dem clicks man.
13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 10/3/16

runec wrote:

But again, that is demonstrating the problem is complex. So again why does it fall on the protesters to put forth a solution? Especially to a problem that has gone on for *this* long and continues to remain essentially because of a lack of will to change the status quo? If your car keeps breaking down over and over you'd probably smack the Ford rep if he told you "Well you tell me how to fix it". If any other solution had worked by now you wouldn't have riots in the first place.

Neither of us is disenfranchised and/or living in a poor inner city community that's been on the receiving end of generations of racism and police abuse. We have the luxury to sit here calmly on a web forum comparing numbers and pronouncing intellectual judgement like twats. These people don't have that luxury and expecting them to put themselves in our shoes instead of the other way around is both unfair and kind of weird.

I'm not saying violence should be excused. I'm saying we need to understand *why* there is anger instead of using the anger as a justification to dismiss the problem. BLM is not a recent thing. Its just the latest thing. No one listened when there was still a sensible conversation to be had. The problem is too large ( and thus the movement has grown to large ) for anyone to cool everyone down.

We're not watching a recent problem unfold. We're watching the end result of years, decades, even generations of problems that have been ignored coming to a head. Thats the problem here. They've tried sensible conversation and no one has listened. Someone pretends to listen every now and then in an election year. But then everything goes back to the status quo afterwards.

I mean its "Stop rioting and protesting so we can talk" vs "You only want to talk now because we're rioting and protesting".


"Neither of us"? I don't think you know me well enough to really say that.

Regardless, again, I understand the anger. I understand the protests. I get it. I really do. But I don't get why it matters. The question is "do you stand with BLM" and the answer for me is no for the reasons I have already explained. Their anger changes nothing and I don't see why it should.

You might be right that no one would listen if people weren't rioting and killing cops. (Or maybe not. Change tends to be slow and I think that its difficult to deny that this country as a whole has changed a lot in terms of race relations in the last 20 years.) That doesn't mean I'm going to start supporting the rioters.

Its boils down to the philosophical question "do the ends justify the means" and I personally don't think they do (generally). I do not think that injustice leads to justice or that hate leads to love and even if we get to a better place when this is all said and done (which is questionable), it will always be difficult for me to say that this was the right path.
5071 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/3/16

runec wrote:


Emtro wrote:
None of those, not even the mistaken repost by Eric Trump are comparable to the Mainstream Media camera play at Hillary speeches.


Ah, right, the Mainstream Media(tm). My apologies, I didn't see the tinfoil.

Carry on.



I apologize for sourcing brietbart but that doesn't make the following untrue.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/09/photos-embarrassing-turnout-hillary-clinton-keynote-speech-baptist-convention/


If you don't think the media has been bending over backwards for Clinton this year and last then you haven't been paying attention.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/26/dr-drew-show-canceled-days-after-his-negative-speculation-about-hillary-clintons-health/

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/298622-media-and-fbi-bias-for-clinton-disgusts-voters

http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/
runec 
28292 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/3/16

jugrnot007 wrote:
I apologize for sourcing brietbart but that doesn't make the following untrue.


You should apologize seeing as brietbart is one of the main sources of this shit for the opposing camp. >.>



jugrnot007 wrote:
If you don't think the media has been bending over backwards for Clinton this year and last then you haven't been paying attention.


So, the Dr Oz conspiracy thing ( would you like some tinfoil as well? -.- ), a literal blog post and a Fox News contributor lambasting the "largest broadcasting networks" yet oddly not mentioning Fox ( Which is the largest of them all ) or the fact Trump has netted over 2 billion in free air time from said broadcasting networks?

You should pay a little attention yourself.



runec 
28292 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/4/16

sundin13 wrote:
"Neither of us"? I don't think you know me well enough to really say that.


If I am wrong then by all means correct me. It would help me understand your perspective on the issue.



sundin13 wrote:Regardless, again, I understand the anger. I understand the protests. I get it. I really do. But I don't get why it matters. The question is "do you stand with BLM" and the answer for me is no for the reasons I have already explained. Their anger changes nothing and I don't see why it should.


I'm not asking you to stand with BLM or support it or rioters or what have you. I just want people to understand why its come to this and why dismissing the problem because people are upset over it helps no one. An irritating amount of people I talk to who bring up BLM in a negative light do so from a position of seeming bafflement. They treat this like its a recent thing that just suddenly appeared and everything was totally fine before this. Instead of the end result of neglecting problems for decades.

There's a similar attitude running parallel to the police issue as a whole. I suppose, ultimately, I find it frustrating that the people least affected by a problem are attacking the people most affected by the problem instead of the problem itself. Which just ensures this shit will keep going on if not get worse. And I mean that for both issues, regardless of which one you think is more pressing.


First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.