Racism, Institutional or Otherwise, in America
Three white men were recently convicted of chasing down and murdering a black man who had the audacity to appear in their neighborhood. A year ago or more they might have gotten away with it.
Today there is a report of another white father and son team shooting at a black FedEx driver at least five times.
Attacks like this by white men on blacks is not uncommon in America; sometimes the attackers are the police.
The question for this forum is why so many Republicans REFUSE to accept the fact that their is wide-spread, even institutional, racism in America. What are they afraid of (they have most of the guns, after all).
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/10/us/missi … index.htmlGood question, I’d be interested in any responses from your fellow American citizens!
Of course, things aren’t as bad across the pond, in Britain, but we do have our own problems; as may be apparent by the resignation yesterday of Dame Cressida Rose Dick DPE QPM (the London’s Commissioner of Police), following Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London) losing confidence in her.
Dame Cressida Dick: Why did the Met Police chief resign? https://youtu.be/ZwAHEEU2dxs
So perhaps, with a new Commissioner of Police for London the endemic racism and other prejudices in the London police force will be shaken up for the better?Arthur, I have been reading accounts from the Pakistanis, who say that they are on the bottom of the totem pole within English Society. Regardless, they were not lynched, had their homes blown up or been denied rights under law as what has occurred here.
What is your opinion regarding this?That’s a good question, and one that I didn’t have an immediate answer to; so I’ve done a bit of my own research (to fill in the gaps in my personal knowledge and experience), which was educational.
According to Wikipedia and other sources the UK is home to the largest Pakistani community in Europe, Pakistanis make up the second largest ethnic minority in England and Wales at 1.17m, 2% of the population (in Bristol, where I live, the Pakistani’s make up 1.6% of our local population). The most concentrated regions of Pakistani communities being in the West Midlands (20.2% of the Pakistani population in Britain), Yorkshire and Humber (20.1%), London (19.9%) and the North West (16.8%).
Apparently the chance of a Pakistani being racially attacked in Britain in a year is greater than 4%, the highest rate of racism in the country, not by ordinary citizens like you and me, but predominantly by far-right fascist, racist and anti-immigrant movements.
For example in 2001, riots occurred in Bradford (West Midlands). Two of the main reasons for the riots were social deprivation and the actions of extreme right wing groups leading to clashes between the Anti-Nazi League and the National Front (far-right fascist group) and the police.
Around that time period (20 years ago) I used to travel to Leeds monthly, for meetings, and some of my close work colleagues in Leeds lived in Bradford; very nice people to work and socialise with e.g. while I was there we’d all meet up in a pub for drinks in the evening, and then go onto a restaurant for a meal after, but the Bradford area was certainly a little run down (lacked adequate rejuvenation investment from the Government)!
Bradford Riots - 20 Year ago. Has Bradford Moved On? https://youtu.be/yZD9Iw5Ah9I
Historically, starting in the late 1960 and peaking in the 1970s and 1980s (but thankfully now something of the past) were violent gangs opposed to immigration who targeted Pakistani’s with frequent attacks, gangs who were inspired by the famous “Rivers of Blood speech” made by Enoch Powell in 1968.
Enoch Powell was an extreme right-wing conservative, and openly racist, MP in Westminster, London from 1950 to 1974; and then an elected Ulster Unionist Party MP, in Northern Ireland from 1974 to 1987; and his political clashes with the Catholics sparked a lot of tension and violence during the Irish 30 years Troubles from 1968 to 1998. Ironically, the Northern Ireland Peace Treaty (Good Friday Agreement) was signed the same year that Enoch Powell died!
I remember Enoch Powell very well, and glad to see him gone.
‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, 50 years on: Setting the scene in 1968: https://youtu.be/r3QC5_efQb0Arthur, thanks for the informative video providing a background.
Mr. Powell reminds me a great deal our George Wallace in Alabama and his rhetoric at about the same period. I think that Governor Wallace died about the same time as Mr. Powell.
Immigration is a hot issue here and its significance to additional stress on society has been exaggerated by the Right, as usual. The fear of a loss of the American Culture, whatever that is, as it changes the day, is just an excuse for their fear that the "Right" people may not remain of control of American society. Because, the current birth rates of citizens can and will make that an eventuality, regardless.Thanks for your feedback Credence. We’ve probably similar problems in Britain, but to a lesser degree!
One of the main issue, which the ‘right’ (Conservatives) are in denial about is the fact that we are an ageing population with a falling birth rate; so we do need immigration to fill the jobs, whether the ‘right’ like it or not.
Back in the 1970s the average UK family had 2.4 children, but over the decades that birth-rate has gradually declined, so the current average is only 1.7 children.
One of the main arguments by the ‘right’ for Brexit was to ‘take back control of our borders’ e.g. as part of the EU, other Europeans could freely live and work in Britain. As a consequent of Brexit most Europeans have returned to their own country, causing chronic shortage of labour across all sectors, including bus drivers, lorry drivers, agricultural etc., including the loss of 100,000 nurses and doctors from the NHS who have returned home to mainland Europe since Brexit (about 7.7% of the NHS workforce).
Since Brexit the UK Government has done nothing to resolve the Labour shortages, just buried its head in the sand.
But ironically, because since leaving the EU Britain has virtually no ‘Trade Deals’ so most of our imports and exports are currently on WTO terms; so the UK Government is desperate for Trade Deals, and in a weak bargaining position. So on negotiating with countries like India for example, India’s demands for agreeing to a Trade Deal with the UK is for its citizens to be able to migrate to the UK freely!
So as things stand at the moment, due to the way things have played out because of the typical anti-immigration attitudes of a right-wing Government, we’ll end up with immigrants from places like India instead of Europeans to fill the gaps in our job market in Britain – which I think has a certain air of irony.It is the civility associated with English culture that kept the more savage examples of bigotry away from your shores.
I still trying to get over the fact that your law enforcement people do not carry a firearm as a standard.
Britain may be taking the attitude that I heard prevailed in Germany, the immigrant labor is supplementing that of the native born which is in short supply.
If you been following the news here, there has been a situation where many jobs are going unfilled, the pandemic being the catalyst, where those on the lower end of the economic ladder are no longer anxious to work under exploitative conditions. They are staying home with mom and dad or going to school and holding for better employment arrangements.
As a result, minimum wages customary for many of these jobs have been going up with some consideration given to providing benefits. I would suspect that the Right rather than surrender profits would scream for a loosening of immigrant restrictions to increase the labor pool and decrease the urgency for them to provide better compensation. I will have to wait and see.Yeah, I did get the impression from the news of all the unfilled jobs and the other issues you mention in the USA post pandemic, and which seems to be part of a worldwide problem adversely affecting the supply chains; and in the UK compounded by the additional trade problems caused by Brexit!
Yeah, one would have thought that the ‘right-wing’ would rather loosen immigration restrictions than surrender profits; but with their new found freedom from the EU (after Brexit) the UK right-wing Conservative Government is intent on tightening immigration laws, not loosening them (basing the new UK immigration laws on the tough Australian immigration laws) – And the Conservative’s public argument is to vindicate Brexit by arguing that the labour shortages will mean that wages will have to rise for everyone, benefiting everyone (supply and demand) e.g. justifying Brexit, and angling themselves to try to win Labour (socialist) votes again in the north of England come the next General Election as a way of trying to stay in power?" ‘right-wing’ would rather loosen immigration restrictions than surrender profits; " - Just goes to show the Right-wing everywhere have the same agenda, destroy economies, lol
Yep, never a truer word said in gest. Following the world financial crisis of 2008/9 the right-wing Conservative Government imposed harsh austerity policy on the UK from 2010 until 2018, which did more harm to the economy than good; and Brexit in January 2021 has further devastated the British economy e.g. because of Brexit many Banks, Insurance Companies and other Financial instructions moved the bulk of their business to either the Republic of Ireland or mainland Europe and the vast bulk of car manufacturing in Britain relocated to mainland Europe, and for the past two years about a third of soft fruits grown in Britain has rotted in the fields because the vast bulk of seasonal farm labourers (Europeans from the EU) are no longer in Britain to help harvest the crops – These are just a few of the examples.
What is happening with your population and productivity growth. In America, it is declining (well growth is slowing) and that will impact economic growth. Over a decade ago, America had to rely on immigration to keep our population continue to grow. Then came Trump and the Trump Republicans making a concerted effort to DECREASE the number of people in America through their anti-immigration policy.
The problem with that is this little formula for GDP growth in the mid- to long-term: Population Growth Rate plus Productivity Growth Rate approximates GDP Growth Rate
That means a declining population generally means a declining economy. Russia knows what that means.What is superior to a growing GDP vs a growing per capita GDP? In other words, why is a growing population, overcrowding the country, a good thing as long as individuals are doing better without it? If per capita GDP rises does it really matter if the total GDP is falling?
Is it because, as a rule, incoming immigrants are at the bottom of the income ladder while producing out of proportion to that income?Yep, exactly the same problem here in the UK; an ageing and shrinking native population, with the birth rate falling from 2.4 children a few decades ago to just 1.7 children per family now.
The only difference was that as part of the EU the shortfall in employment was made up by Europeans from mainland Europe; just like someone from California deciding to live and work in New York. But because of Brexit (separating Britain from mainland Europe) that workforce has gone back to mainland Europe leaving chronic work shortages across virtually all commercial sectors e.g. tourism, retail, agriculture, transport and the NHS etc. e.g. because of Brexit the NHS has lost 100,000 nurses and doctors (7.7% of its workforce) and a third of soft fruits have been left to rot in the field over the last couple of years because the farmer’s haven’t had the Europeans from mainland Europe to harvest them.
The Current Conservative Government, who are anti-immigration, are claiming that employment shortages will force up wages, so that everyone will be better off; although no sign of that yet e.g. figures published yesterday showed that wages ‘in real terms’ have fallen by 1.2% over the past year.
Picking up on a point that wilderness made above; in the UK the same Labour Laws apply to everyone regardless to whether they are British or an immigrant e.g. a shelf stacker working in a food store regardless to whether they are an immigrant from Africa, or a Brit, will get paid the same wage, which at minimum will be the ‘legal minimum wage’, which from April 2022 will be £9.50 per hour, which is just under $13 per hour.
"And the Conservative’s public argument is to vindicate Brexit by arguing that the labour shortages will mean that wages will have to rise for everyone, benefiting everyone (supply and demand) e.g. justifying Brexit, and angling themselves to try to win Labour (socialist) votes again in the north of England come the next General Election as a way of trying to stay in power?"
Interesting strategy, Arthur. Capitalists are greedy though, does not the prospect of paying higher wages and cutting into profits make them nervous?
-----
The Rightwingers here like to give a false impression that their approach and policies benefit the man in the street, nothing can be further from the truth.Yes, it does go against the grain of the right-wing Conservatives (Capitalists) for wages to cut into profits; for sure.
However, there are a couple of distinct differences between the UK and USA that comes into play:-
1. Under British Law; as Regulated and enforced by the Electoral Commission:-
• Industry cannot financially support the Conservatives during an election campaign (or at any other time), and
• An MP has to declare any association they have with any Private Industry, to ensure there is never a conflict of interest in Parliament.
So in Britain, politicians are NOT in the pockets of Industry.
The Electoral Commission is an ‘Independent Government Department’ who are NOT answerable to the Government, but answerable to Parliament only e.g. to avoid an unscrupulous Government from interfering with the Electoral Commission for its own personal (political) gain.
2. For the Conservatives to win a General Election, whether they like it or note, the Conservatives need the support of the working class (traditionally Labour (Socialist) supporters); and in order get that support sometimes means either swallowing their pride and delivering on things that are not naturally right-wing philosophy, such as the NHS (a pure socialist healthcare system); or telling a few porky pies to get votes.
Bearing in mind that political colours are reversed in Europe than they are in the USA e.g. in Europe ‘Red’ stands for ‘Socialism’ and ‘Blue’ stands for ‘Capitalism’:-
In 2019, the most recent General Election, the Current Conservative Government only won a comfortable majority by winning seats in what’s known as the ‘Red Wall’ e.g. a solid line of traditional Labour seats in Northern England. Part of the Conservatives victory in Northern England is because predominately that’s where most English people are pro Brexit, and partly because of a Promise by the Conservatives that if they won they would invest heavily in Northern England (rejuvenation), as part of what they call the ‘levelling up” policy e.g. make the north of England as prosperous as Southern England? Albeit, if the Conservatives don’t deliver on their promise to the people in the North by the time of the next General Election the Conservatives will be in danger of losing the ‘red wall’ back to Labour, and losing the next General Election!
UK PM Boris Johnson tries to break down the ‘Red Wall’ https://youtu.be/Qr8O3X7R1VQ
But yes, apart from the above, the Conservatives do screw the poor to benefit the wealthy at every opportunity they get. A prime example is that to pay for the extra costs to the NHS due to the pandemic over the past two years, in April of this year the Conservatives are raising the tax on earnings by 1.5% for the lower paid only; but not raising it for the wealthy e.g. anyone who earns between £9,564 ($12,970) and $50,268 ($68,170) will pay an additional 1.5% on their earning from April. But anyone earning above $50,268 ($68,170) will not pay an extra penny towards their taxes.
Credence, on the question of ethnicity, below is data from the 2011 Census; I’ve given data for the UK Average as a baseline, and for comparison, the ethnicity of Bristol (where I live), London (the Capital), and Northern Ireland.
I don’t know how this compares with the USA?
UK ethnicity Average Across the whole of the UK (Census 2011):
• White = 87.1%
• Asians = 7%
• Blacks = 3%
• Mixed = 2%
• Other Ethnic Groups (including Arabs) = 0.9%
• Gypsies = 0.1%
Bristol (where I live) ethnicity (Census 2011):
• White = 83.9%
• Blacks = 6%
• Asians = 5.5%
• Mixed = 3.6%
• Other Ethnic Groups = 0.9% (0.3% being Arab)
• Gypsies = 0.1%
London ethnicity (Census 2011): Where there is the least amount of racial prejudice in the UK.
• White = 59.69%
• Asians = 18.49%
• Blacks = 13.32%
• Mixed = 4.96%
• Other Ethnic Groups = 3.27% (1.3% being Arab)
• Gypsies = 0.1%
Northern Ireland ethnicity (Census 2011): Where there is the most amount of racial prejudice in the UK.
• White = 98.14%
• Asians = 1.6%
• Blacks = 0.2%
• Mixed = 0.33%
• Other Ethnic Groups = 0.13%
• Gypsies = 0.07%WOW, I didn't realize the UK was that white.
I hadn't put much thought into it before because racism hasn't generally been a major issue in British Society, so this forum is proving educational for me.
There remains a predominant Anglo population throughout the British Isles compared with the USA.
In the US, it depends on which states you reside in, you will find minorities as a majority in states like Hawaii, California and even Texas. While it is predominantly white in states like Maine, Vermont and Idaho.
Without looking it up, I would say that whites constitute about 65 percent of the American population nationwide.Yes, likewise, in the UK it depends where you live as to the ethnicity mix; for example there tends to be greater ethnicity mix in the big cities than the towns and rural areas. And conversely there tends to be greater understanding and tolerance of different ethnic groups in the big cities than in small towns and villages where the white residence have less close contact with other ethnic groups.
London being a prime example of where less than 60% of the population is white, while having a rich and cohesive cultural mix; albeit the two area of Britain that historical has had racial friction, Birmingham and Bradford, doesn’t fit the above pattern as well, so it just goes to show that no issue is ever black and white (no pun intended). Although I do think it has a lot to do with the level of deprivation e.g. London is a very wealthy city, while Bradford has one of the highest unemployment rates in England.
Below is the ethnicity of Birmingham and Bradford (Census 2011):-
Birmingham ethnicity (Census 2011):
• White = 57.89%
• Asians = 26.62%
• Blacks = 8.98%
• Mixed = 4.44%
• Other Ethnic Groups = 2.03% (1.2% being Arab)
• Gypsies = 0.04%
Bradford ethnicity (Census 2011):
• White = 67.44%
• Asians = 26.83%
• Blacks = 1.77%
• Mixed = 2.48%
• Other Ethnic Groups = 1.48%
Interesting. All countries have race problems for sure. Ours is particularly bad. I do note that England ended slavery and the slave trade 100 years before the Civil War forced American's do so.
What was Khan's problem with her?Cressida Dick was given the position of Commissioner of Police for London specifically to clean up the act - and instead of being part of the solution; she has become part of the problem.
Last week Sadiq Khan (London’s elected Mayor, and a Muslim) said in a statement. “I made clear to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner the scale of the change I believe is urgently required to rebuild the trust and confidence of Londoners in the Met and to root out the racism, sexism, homophobia, bullying, discrimination and misogyny that still exists,”
Cressida Dick has failed to do so, and her plans which she gave to Sadiq Khan, are in his eyes not good enough (she’s had plenty of time to sort things out); and he’s just lost confidence in her.
The issues that as Commissioner of Police she has let happen, and not addressed, including the following:-
1. In 2005 under her watch, the Met (London) Police marksman deliberately shot dead an innocent man (Jean Charles de Menezes) in error.
2. Cressida Dick was involved with investigating a major paedophile ring in 2016, but the courts found that the police had more than 40 failings in their operation, and evidence of a cover-up by Cressida Dick to defend her senior officers in the failed case.
3. In 2019 the Met (London) police failed to respond quickly enough to prevent, or limit, protests by the ‘Extinction Rebellion’ protest groups from closing down a large part of central London for several days; with the heavy financial costs that it caused.
4. Under her watch, the heavy handed treatment by the Met (London) police of defences women having a peaceful vigil in memory of Sarah Edward, who had been murdered by a London Policeman; the only crime by the women was the breach of ‘social distancing’ rules during the covid pandemic restrictions.
5. The fact that a policeman raped and murdered Sarah Edward; a bad apple.
6. Cressida Dick is under investigation by two watchdogs, after an inquiry described the Med (London Police Force) as being 'institutionally corrupt', because she has deliberately covered up evidence to protect her Officers in an outstanding unsolved brutal murder back in 1987.
7. In 2020 fans storm Wembley football arena; the police didn’t do enough to try to stop the stampede, and were criticised when Cressida Dick response was one of denial by saying “I do not accept that the policing operation failed”.
8. Spiralling teenage murders in London under her watch, in spite of the fact that she said that “tackling violent crime was her 'number one priority.'
9. In 2020 two London police officers shared photos on WhatsApp of the dead bodies of two half-sisters who were murdered in a London Park; the two Police Officers were sentenced to two years and nine months.
10. Last week, an investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct found officers were indulging in misogynistic workplace "banter". The investigation showed that the London cops would exchange highly offensive racist, sexist and homophobic messages while bullying and harassing colleagues. It also found a vile set of WhatsApp groups and Facebook messenger chats by the London police that joke about "slapping your missus about" and calling them "daft c**ts" for getting murdered by their boyfriends etc.
11. In recent years multiple charges of racism have been levelled at the Met (London Police); but little done about it.
12. And last but not least, the Partygate scandal, in which Boris Johnson (Prime Minister) is being questioned by the police this week for his role in breaking his own covid laws during the pandemic lockdown. Under the watch of Cressida Dick, the Met Police are being heavily criticised for not only ‘not investing sooner the alleged breach of the law by the UK Government during lockdown’, but also by being implicit in the offences e.g. there is always a police presents outside 10 Downing Street (for security reasons); so at the time the police will have been fully aware of what was happening inside, when the UK Government was breaching its own laws. More so when other (ordinary people) who broke the same law was fined by the police.
What the hell are you talking about? First, why do you incorporate all republicans under one umbrella? Second, last I knew we all are entitled to have individual opinions. Your first three paragraphs are conversation-worthy. IMO your question----
This kind of question was purely meant to antagonize, and cause friction. . And again CNN?
Your Democratic race card game hopefully will not draw comments. Get some new material, the race card is old and overplayed.You are pulling a Wilderness by using the "all" word inappropriately. Why do you insert words where they don't exist?
Why don't you want me to speak the truth?
And there you go - shooting the messenger again. Pretty childish if you ask me. Why do you want to censor what I read?+1000000000000, yes there are some incidents of racism in America, not only Blacks & Latinos, also Asians & some outlier ethnic groups. Blacks aren't the only ones subjected to so-called racism. As there are some Caucasians who commit racial crimes, there are some Blacks who commit racial crimes also. By the way, I am a Black woman.
"yes there are some incidents of racism in America" - Oh give me a break!! SOME?, lol Tell me why most black parents have to give their kids "the talk"? Why are most black drivers in real fear when they get pulled over by a cop, especially in the South? Please climb out of your Trump cocoon and join reality.
Perhaps because they are being taught that they will be murdered by any cop that gets within shooting range?
I suspect some are, but most are being taught on how to act in case they run into the many bad racists cops.who don't need much of an excuse to harm or kill an innocent black person.
Fortuneately for all of us, most cops are good. That said, there enough bad cops out there where even I am fearful of them.
I would not go so far as to say that this affair has a racist motive, even though the scene would indicate as much.
But, look at them, a couple of scraggly looking hillbilly types.
I will say though that there needs to be maximum penalties. People need to be reminded that you better have a damn good reason for threatening someone with a firearm and even a better one for discharging one.
As for the Arbury case, it was only fortuitous that the mother of the deceased asked pointed questions because from what I understood the police initially lied to her as to the circumstances surrounding the shooting. The community was more than content in covering this up.I heard the driver's take on the incident. He had no doubt in his mind it was racial because that was the only possible explanation. No others made sense.
"The question for this forum is why so many Republicans REFUSE to accept the fact that their is wide-spread, even institutional, racism in America. "
Firstly, many conservatives feel that the notion of "systemic racism" is somewhat exaggerated and often misused as a political tool to push a certain agenda. Conservatives may acknowledge that individual acts of racism exist, but they may question the extent to which racism is entrenched in the structures and institutions of society.
I could argue that the United States has made significant progress in addressing racism and inequality, citing examples such as the election of a Black president and the passage of civil rights legislation.
Furthermore, some conservatives, as I do, may believe that focusing too much on the issue of race can be divisive and counterproductive. I would argue that the country should be focused on unifying people of all races and backgrounds, rather than highlighting differences and promoting identity politics.
I could also argue that policies and programs designed to address racial disparities, such as affirmative action, can be discriminatory against individuals who do not belong to historically disadvantaged groups.
And finally, while there may be differing viewpoints on the issue of racism in America, it is important to approach the discussion with an open mind and a willingness to consider multiple perspectives.
Race-baiting is harmful, and can only work to exacerbate a serious problem that we Americans have been working on for many decades.Could it be conservatives simply don't want to face reality so they make up things to deflect from it - such as " "systemic racism" is somewhat exaggerated and often misused as a political tool to push a certain agenda."?
Are you suggesting that conservatives are so obtuse that they can't see what is right in front of them? That seems to me to the reality.
Is there systemic and institutional racism in America yesterday and today? It is like asking if the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. It is a given and study after study after study (let alone everyday observation) prove this.
There is no doubt America has made progress, albeit very slowly. Slavery existed It took from 1619 - 1864. A of progress was made in giving Blacks the same rights as Whites for the next few years. But around 1874, the conservative Chase Court (sort of looks like today's Court) wiped all of those gains out an effectively put southern blacks back into servitude.
There it stayed until around 1937 when Justice Owen Roberts switched from a conservative position to a progressive one. From then the Court began bring back the rights that Blacks ought to enjoy, but in large part didn't.
The 1950s and early 1960s saw the Black revolution as they sought to free themselves of the virtual shackles the Whites had them in. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964, all the rights the Chase and subsequent conservative Courts took away were restored.
Things were looking up for blacks until the Rehnquist Court in 1987. From that point on, conservatives have slowly but surely been chipping away at the rights Blacks had attained in 1964.
https://fpg.unc.edu/sites/fpg.unc.edu/f … 20Like.pdf
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/population … ed-states/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7778398/
https://cognitiveresearchjournal.spring … 21-00349-3
Is it any wonder that conservatives, given their history, can't admit that institutional racism exists?I find people to be very much individuals. I am a conservative, and I shared my view. A view that came from a lifetime of observing, and learning.
I truely believe (and have said it frequently) most conservatives feel much differently about systemic racism than liberals do. I think many conservatives feel we have made good progress, toward equality, and that yes, more work is needed.
I also feel there is a very different mindset between liberals and conservatives. It seems to greatly disturb you.
You do know there is a pretty good chance that the majority of conservatives would not agree with your thought 100% in regard to systemic racism. We are just wired differently.You keep using the word "feel". They can "feel" all they want, but it only mean anything if that feeling is based on objective evidence.
I can say I feel the moon is made of green cheese. But, objectively, it isn't The same is true if conservatives "feel" institutional racism doesn't exist, yet the objective evidence says it does.
Doesn't that make their feeling wrong and counterproductive? Because so long as they keep denying reality, things won't get better without the oppressed fighting hard for their rights.
If the majority of conservatives do not agree, which is probably true, then the majority of conservatives are simply wrong. It has nothing at all to do with how we are wired. Either institutional racism exists or it doesn't. All Evidence says it does as a matter of Fact, not conjecture.
There is no doubt there is a very different mindset between conservatives and liberals. And to the degree that the consequences of the conservative view is people losing their rights (such as the right to privacy or to vote) and get hurt, then yes, it disturbs me.
It has become very evident from all of these discussions on these forums is a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives are not particularly bothered if people lose rights or are hurt (unless it is family and friends) AND when they are bothered, they are not inclined to do anything about it.
On the other hand, liberals care very much what happens to other people and it is in our DNA to try to make things better for society as a whole.
That is the different wiring of which you speak, not whether one wants to believe an objective truth or not."conservatives are not particularly bothered if people lose rights or are hurt (unless it is family and friends) AND when they are bothered, they are not inclined to do anything about it."
You mean like the right of the unborn to live. The right to bear arms. The right to compete against one's own sex in sports programs. The right to privacy in a changing/rest room. The right to be involved in their child's decisions, including major, life changing permanent surgery or in the decision to abort a fetus. The right to keep what they earn, and the right to a private contract between themselves and their employer. I could go on and on, but you get the point.
I'd have to say the conservatives are very concerned about rights, and do act on it when threatened. The left, on the other hand, appear willing and eager to give their rights to the government.So agree with your sentiment. And one wonders why so few post here.
The right for fetuses to "live"? That may be the only thing they care about. They certain don't care about the mother. For example, Florida forced a woman to carry to term a baby with no kidney's and other problems even though it could have very well killed the mother.
You worry about the fetus who has no rights and I worry about the actual, living mother that has all the rights until viability. Where in the Constitution does it say fetuses have any rights at all? Is there a 2nd amendment for fetuses?
" The right to be involved in their child's decisions, including major," - OH, SO you oppose the Missouri law that takes the right of the parent to decide what is best for their transgender child. I see.
You laid out a lot of things that have nothing to do with the person.
You oppose ANY restriction on owning "weapons" no matter how many "people" die because of them
You for some reason care more about a "non-living fetus" that the "person" carrying it.
Where in the Constitution does it give the so-called right of a person to compete in a sport where the players only have vagina's or penises? (What about men who had reconstructing surgery and now have a working vagina.) While at the same time inflicting great emotional harm on the trans who wants to play on a team of their own gender.
Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to keep what you earn?
And you said it not me - conservatives care about rights and not people.I think that's what I said; you care not for the very life of the unborn, while declaring that conservatives do not care for their rights.
"You oppose ANY restriction on owning "weapons" no matter how many "people" die because of them"
I've asked you before not to lie about what I think, yet you continue to do it. Is there a reason?
"Where in the Constitution does it give the so-called right of a person to compete in a sport where the players only have vagina's or penises?"
You then deny that there are human rights not included in our Constitution? And yet I'm pretty sure you have referenced the international list of "basic human rights"; do they only apply when you like them and use them to support your arguments?
"What about men who had reconstructing surgery and now have a working vagina."
When that male has changed their skeleton, muscle structure and DNA, then you can ask the question. Not even a working vagina turns a male into a female.
"And you said it not me - conservatives care about rights and not people."
No - that is the liberal stance, from people that separate "rights" from "people" in their never ending and futile attempts to provide an imaginary "equity" for all people."Not even a working vagina turns a male into a female." Good point. I guess you have to explain this fact.
What makes a woman a woman?
A reconstructed vagina?
No, an actual nature-produced womb, appropriate hormones to produce pregnancy and birthing abilities.
Not to mention those tattle-tale chromosomes.
XX female
XY Male
(Females contribute the X chromosome only.
The Y chromosome comes from males.)All I can say is you have an antiquated, unscientific understanding of what goes into gender.
BTW, your example is wrong on the face of it. Also In humans there are 6 common sex karyotypes: XX, XY, XXY, XXXY, & XYYY. & there are 4 rare sex karyotypes: XO, XO/XX mosaicism, XY/XXY mosacism, XXY/XXXY/XXXXY mosaicism.
https://genetic.org/variations/
Also, to catch you up on the LATEST scientific knowledge - Two genes alone DO NOT determine gender as was once thought in the 1950s - they only determine, in most but not all, case, your phenotype. It does not determine your genotype.
I am guess that since most conservatives only base things on stuff they can touch, feel, and see it is understandable as to why they think XX, XY is all there is to gender. But modern science has proven them wrong.
An excerpt - Furthermore, despite the binary that is suggested by human reproduction, both sex and gender are fluid. Variations in chromosomes, hormone levels, and reproductive organs result in more than 2 sexes, reflecting complex processes of sex development across multiple levels, and suggesting that sex itself is culturally constructed.14,15 Likewise, individuals transgress normative gender boundaries in everyday life, recasting gender as more than a simple dichotomy of men and women.16 Gender is created and recreated through social interaction that takes place in dynamic cultural and institutional contexts.7
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl … s%20small.". . . suggesting that sex itself is culturally constructed . . ."
". . . you have an antiquated, unscientific understanding . . ."
Surely you don't think those are persuasive arguments to people who think they live in the everyday world—the world that makes babies, right?
Those thoughts are part of the world that says mothers aren't women, they're lactating persons.
GATo be clear, you are suggesting "... you have an antiquated, unscientific understanding ..." equates to "... mothers aren't women, they're lactating persons."
OR are you suggesting that those that "... have an antiquated, unscientific understanding ..." think that "... mothers aren't women, they're lactating persons."?
I reject the former but can agree with the latter.Those were your words. Your suggestions. As a Conservative-minded fellow, I put them together to illustrate how they come across to folks like me: you are saying we have an antiquated, unscientific understanding because we don't understand that sex/gender is no longer biological because new science says it's a cultural construct.
My point was that you're telling 'us' that 2+2 doesn't equal 4 anymore and we're too uneducated to understand why.
That isn't a persuasive argument in your favor.
GANope, didn't say that at all. I said what sex and gender are do not fit the simplistic view conservatives hold. What science now as proven is that sex and gender are a function of multiple genetic and environmental factors and not just the X and Y chromosomes.
Once upon a time people thought an atom was a nucleus made up of protons and neutrons which was orbited by discrete electrons that fell in certain shells. That is what I grew up believing to be true. But then science advanced (and being a liberal, I advanced with it) and determined the atom was infinitely more complex than the simple Bohr model. For example, the electron shell is not discrete electors running around the nucleus like well-behaved planets around a sun. Instead, it is a "cloud" of electrons who position at any given time is a statistical probability.
Well, the science of sex and gender also advanced to a much better understanding of what it comprises. The problem is, most conservatives don't buy it.
It has nothing to do with being uneducated, btw. It has everything to with not giving up a preexisting belief in the face of overwhelming evidence that that belief is wrong.
(Another btw, )in base three, 2 + 2 = 10)Your science support must also be 'Base three' thinking. I'll stick with my Base 10 logic, with the new definition update that sex and gender are different things.
I think most of us could accept that change: sex is biological and gender is psychological. Would that work for you?
GANope, sorry. You would have to throw in biological with psychological for it to work for me. Why? Because at the most simple level, hormones drive a lot of psychological expression.
BTW, it is not MY science. It is THE science. Theology (which is not a science) may have its reasons to disagree as it has throughout history, but it doesn't make it right. You remember reading about the Earth is the Center of the Universe fiasco that got several people killed?
No one is talking about gender, just sex. Neither is anyone discussing those rare genetic malformities that a very small subset of people are born with.
The current discussion is about the conservative war on gender identity. Maybe that is why we are not talking about just sex. The rest is just misinformation.
Only in your mind. A woman is female, by definition, a man is male, by definition Perceived, or desired, gender isn't entering into it or there would not be efforts to compete as the wrong sex or use the wrong bathroom.
From Mirrian Webster (and no, you don't get to change the definition because you, or anyone else, doesn't like it.
woman
noun
wom·an ˈwu̇-mən especially Southern ˈwō- or ˈwə-
pluralwomen ˈwi-mən
Synonyms of woman
1
a
: an adult female personHere is another Dictionary definition of Gender:
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
gen·der
noun
1.
the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.
But I prefer the more scientific and correct explanation -
Sex
Sex is a multidimensional biological construct based on anatomy, physiology, genetics, and hormones. (These components are sometimes referred to together as “sex traits.”)[2] All animals (including humans) have a sex. As is common across health research communities, NIH usually categorizes sex as male or female, although variations do occur. These variations are called differences in sex development (DSD) or intersex conditions.[3]
Gender
Gender is relevant only for research with humans (not other animals). Gender can be broadly defined as a multidimensional construct that encompasses gender identity and expression, as well as social and cultural expectations about status, characteristics, and behavior as they are associated with certain sex traits.[2] Understandings of gender vary throughout historical and cultural contexts.
A person’s gender identity (e.g., woman, man, trans man, gender-diverse, nonbinary) is self-identified, may change throughout their life, and may or may not correspond to a society’s cultural expectations based on their biological sex traits. For example, a person with typical female (sex term) sex traits may or may not be a woman (gender identity). Although gender is often portrayed and understood in Western cultures using binary categories (man or woman) and is often assumed at birth based on a person’s sex traits, many cultures throughout history have recognized a diversity of forms of gender identity and gender expression (how a person communicates their gender to others through behavior and appearance).[2] [/i]Your preferred scientific explanation appears to be saying what most conservatives have been saying. Sex and gender are different things. Sex is biological and gender is psychological (cultural). That makes sense to me. Did I misunderstand that point?
It's a semantics thing. If we simply use the right term the argument would at least be about the same thing. In legal arenas the proper term would be 'sex' and in civil arenas the term would be 'gender.'
GAAgain, it is not MY PREFERRED scientific explanation, it is what is known today.
And yes, science says that Sex and Gender are not identical. What they are saying is that Sex is a subset of Gender. Sex traits is just one of the things that go into the makeup of Gender.
I would argue that Gender has made it into the legal arena for years now. For example, Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)You said you prefer that explanation: "But I prefer the more scientific and correct explanation -".
It was the explanation that followed that I referred to as your preferred scientific explanation. Yet you say it's not the explanation you prefer. Your inference must be that it is the only explanation. Is that also a misunderstanding?
[EDIT]
Your science says sex is a subset of gender, putting the psychological and cultural science(s) as the dominant science. A counter-point, based on 'your' science's definition of sex, can say with equal support that gender is a subset of sex, placing biological science as the correct dominant science.
No wonder you're having such problems with acceptance, ya'll got it backward.
GAYour case reference seems at odds with your accepted science. It says the case was decided with sex and gender meaning the same thing:
"The straightforward application of Title VII’s terms interpreted in accord with their ordinary public meaning at the time of their enactment resolves these cases." and, "The parties concede that the term “sex” in 1964 referred to the biological distinctions between male and female."
The science you promote says they are different. Yet you agree with the court's view. How does that work?
GA
I never understood much of this, but now you having me wanting to determine for myself if there is an objective medical explanation that explain why people are not comfortable in their original anatomical gender designation. So, it is more than just a though put or belief?
I am going to check this out for a better understanding
Thanks....The terms "gender" and "sex" are often used interchangeably, but they actually have different meanings. One is a scientific biological fact. One sex can be that of a woman or a man.
Sex refers to the biological characteristics of an individual, including their reproductive organs, chromosomes, and hormones. This typically includes categorizing individuals as male or female, although there are also intersex individuals who have physical sex characteristics that do not fit neatly into either category.
Gender, on the other hand, refers to the cultural and social expectations associated with being male or female. This includes norms and expectations around behavior, appearance, and roles in society. Gender is not determined by biology, but rather by the individual's self-identification and the way one feels in their own mind. They identify with being the opposite sex. However, biologically they cannot change their sex. Only how they are perceived.
In summary, sex is a biological concept that categorizes individuals based on science, and physical characteristics, while gender is a social and cultural concept that reflects the expectations and roles associated with being male or female.Although gender is often portrayed and understood in Western (i.e. Christian) cultures using binary categories (man or woman) and is often assumed at birth based on a person’s sex traits, many cultures throughout history have recognized a diversity of forms of gender identity and gender expression (how a person communicates their gender to others through behavior and appearance).[2]
If other cultures can recognize this, why can't conservatives? Why must people be hurt and sometimes killed because one part of our culture simply doesn't want to understand that people are different.
Sex is a multidimensional biological (meaning it is NOT JUST X and Y chromosomes) construct based on anatomy, physiology, genetics, and hormones. (These components are sometimes referred to together as “sex traits.”)[2] All animals (including humans) have a sex. As is common across health research communities, NIH usually (meaning Not Always) categorizes sex as male or female, although variations do occur. These variations are called differences in sex development (DSD) or intersex conditions.[3] - And it is these sex variations that most conservatives want to deny to the detriment of those who are different.
The link is above."If other cultures can recognize this, why can't conservatives?"
What makes you think they don't? Because Conservatives also recognize what liberals don't - that sex and gender are not the same?again --- And let me remind you it supports your own link source.
The terms "gender" and "sex" are often used interchangeably, but they actually have different meanings. One is a scientific biological fact. One sex can be that of a woman or a man.
Sex refers to the biological characteristics of an individual, including their reproductive organs, chromosomes, and hormones. This typically includes categorizing individuals as male or female, although there are also intersex individuals who have physical sex characteristics that do not fit neatly into either category.
Gender, on the other hand, refers to the cultural and social expectations associated with being male or female. This includes norms and expectations around behavior, appearance, and roles in society. Gender is not determined by biology, but rather by the individual's self-identification and the way one feels in their own mind. They identify with being the opposite sex. However, biologically they cannot change their sex. Only how they are perceived.
In summary, sex is a biological concept that categorizes individuals based on science, and physical characteristics, while gender is a social and cultural concept that reflects the expectations and roles associated with being male or female.
I would like to bring to your attention that I have noticed a lack of empathy in your comments. It is important to respect individuals' right to express their opinions without fear of being ridiculed or insulted, especially using words to insult an entire group, as you did with conservatives. I observed this pattern in the comment I am responding to, which I found concerning. It would be appreciated if you could refrain from using such language and be more considerate in your interactions.
And you don't insult all liberals and Democrats? Come on, Sharilee.
It seems to me that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Yes, in the 1980s, in the Howard Beach section of Queens, three Black men were attacked by a group of 4 Caucasian teens outside a pizza parlor. One of the Black men, a 23 year old, was killed. while fleeing the teenagers. Three of the four teenagers were convicted of manslaughter. In 1989, Yusuf Hawkins was killed while looking at cars in the Bensonhurst section of Brooklyn. There were protests regarding the Howard Beach & Bensonhurst incidents.
According to Reuters, getting their information from US Department of Justice, 93% of blacks that are murdered are killed by blacks. That leaves something less than 7% of black murders to be committed by whites.
Teaching black children to be afraid of whites seems contraindicated; far better to teach them to be afraid of other blacks, for that is where the killers are found. Unless the children are white, whereupon 84% of the killers are also white. Murder is, by far, a, intraracial affair.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN24I29S/That is an eye opening revelation in itself.
I know that. I was just presenting what happened in Bensonhurst & Howard Beach in the 1980s. Of course, we all know that there are massive crimes in neighborhoods in the South Bronx, East New York, some parts of Chicago(those crimes are intraracial). The South Bronx is so riddled w/crime that I avoid the South Bronx.
But isn't the point of Wilderness's post that because the numbers are small, why worry?
Extrapolating, more than half of that 7% are hate crimes driven by racism. Crimes against black by whites has been on the rise since Trump took office. Is it any wonder black parents give "the talk" to their children?
https://eji.org/news/fbi-reports-hate-c … -12-years/No matter how you look at it, twist it, leave out most of it, the fact remains that the huge majority of black murders are committed by blacks. Why then would you waste your time giving "the talk" about evil white people when the kids are very unlikely to have a problem there (less than 7% probability)? Given the statistics, children would be best off to seek out help and safety from whites, not fear them.
Answer; because it is now almost required to teach the woke philosophy that all whites are evil and all evil comes from whites. Another way to spread division and hate.I find it astonishing that any person believes blacks don't have a reason to be afraid of Whites given the 200 years of sometimes violent oppression of Black by Whites.
But, to each his own I guess.Well, I'd have to guess that it is mostly a combination of ignorance, hatred and/or an assumption that it can never change.
Those that bother to actually look at the facts, those that put aside their hatred as more damaging to themselves than to others, and those that accept that society changes - they all know better.
I don't actually know anyone that experienced 200 years of oppression.
Many years ago, my wife's first husband ran a Winn-Dixie. He hired a lot of black kids from Starke as too many of the white ones would like to go party on the weekends instead of work. He got a dressing down from his management for employing too many blacks and to put a "new face" on the grocery store. (Winn-Dixie was known to discriminate back then)
He was promised to manage a new, much larger store they were building in town. Two weeks before it opened, they reneged. Fast-forward to today. Winn-Dixie took over a store in the little rural town I live in. They have progressed enough to have hired a black manager, but only two other black males (no females) to work in the store.
Did Winn-Dixie improve over the intervening years? I hope so. But anytime sociologists do a study on hiring practices in America they still find lots and lots of discrimination.
From the EEOC From 1997 to 2018 (the last year data was available), there were 1,889,631 discrimination complaints filed with the EEOC. In 2017, a majority of these complaints were categorized as retaliation (49%), race (34%), disability (32%), or sex (over 30%).
Black workers face many obstacles in finding work - https://www.americanprogress.org/articl … good-jobs/In the UK its ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) who deals with race, disability and sex discrimination etc. at work claims. ACAS is a Government Body, and the service is provided FREE.
In 2020 there was a 48% rise in the race discrimination claims; mainly due I think to a rise in discrimination because of the current Conservative Government’s anti-immigration policies.
• In 2020 there were a total of 3,641 employment tribunal cases in the UK related to race discrimination; about two thirds being woman and one third men.
• On average there’s about 1,673 disability discrimination cases in the UK each year, and
The most common discriminating factor reported in the UK is age discrimination, with 11% of the working population saying that age has been a discriminating factor in the workplace.
The second most common reason reported for discrimination in the workplace is gender, with more 5.3% of the adult population reporting discrimination due to their gender." mainly due I think to a rise in discrimination because of the current Conservative Government’s anti-immigration policies." - Which is clearly reflected here as well (although we are fighting hard not to have another Conservative gov't)
Just for curiosity what is race in these stats? I ask because of the earlier post on Pakistani's, In other words are they classified as a race or an ethnicity?
I can’t find any detailed breakdown for discrimination against different ethnic groups, but generally race refers to all ethnic groups including white British, blacks and other minority ethnic groups such as Asians including Pakistanis etc.
But I think that it’s fairly safe to assume that the vast majority of race discrimination cases will be related to ethnic minority groups.
I don’t know if that helps?
Thank you, Esoteric for the most informative article.
As for the racial wealth gap and the relative difficulty of Black folks to get employment and to acquire good jobs, what else is new?
The gap has remained persistent over time. It was only during the late 1960s and early 1970s, my coming of age, did the door of opportunity, that previously was hermetically sealed, open a bit and many of us were able to slip through.
From the article:
"Making sure that Black workers have the same access to good jobs as white workers does not only require labor market policies but also new and innovative approaches to shrinking the racial wealth gap."
This speaks to the need for novel proposals, one of those being free or very low cost community colleges and trade schools to help compensate for the theft of relative wealth and the systemic racism making it impossible for them to acquire it spread of over many generations of history in this country. Before whites decide to virtually have a cow, this provision would be available to all with means testing applied at only the highest income levels.
Only progressive minded politicians have shown the willingness to think outside of the box. Recognizing that we need to invest in ALL of our people if we are, as a nation, to successfully meet the challenges of a future world.
Fortunately, I did not live in Florida many years ago. Here in east central Florida, the Publix's and Winn Dixie's markets seem well represented with a little bit of everybody. I actually have been to one in Melbourne with a black manager. Things have moved forward on that front and I am most pleased. While I have the standard gripes about most supermarkets, this is not one of them.
Hope all is going well in your section of Sunshine State.....
More images of institutional racism in America.
Two boys fighting in a mall, one white, one black. Police arrive and the police separate the two. The female officer moves the white boy to a couch to presumably give him aid and comfort before returning to the black teenager being knelt on on the ground by the other male officer as he cuffs him. She adds her weight to the boys back.
All of the police are white. This isn't in the deep South where you expect such behavior. It was in New Jersey.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/16/us/video … index.htmlInteresting, I have been resisting the idea that racism is an inherent factor in behavior of whites toward Blacks. Yet, this incident is an example of CRT going beyond "theory".
While I aware that there are many confrontations of this type, the fact that this incident was videod and the disparate treatment easily seen was so stark that it is not unreasonable to see a pattern behind it all.
While we get the standard mumbo-jumbo from the authorities and the standard bromides about investigations and such, a video is worth 1000 pictures, as the picture is worth a 1000 words. It appears that under stress flaws in character regarding racist inclinations are readily revealed that I would not be exposed to while getting a cup of sugar from my Anglo neighbor. My theory is that these underlying flaws is behind the massive support Trump continues to enjoy.
The video speaks of a white high school kid picking on a black junior high student. I have yet to hear an explanation from authorities as to why the black kid in the fight had to be restrained and handcuffed, while the white one, at least as equally guilty, was treated as a mere victim. At a minimum, both should have been handcuffed as there was no indication that one student was any more belligerent than the other.
It had better be good......"Interesting, I have been resisting the idea that racism is an inherent factor in behavior of whites toward Blacks." - Personally, I would rephrase that slighting by adding the "many" in between "of" and "whites".
I think studies show clearly that racism and bigotry are Learned traits. It doesn't matter the colors or religions involved, it only matters whether one group is strong and holds the power and the other group does not.
We see examples all of the time of young children that are different from one another get along famously. It is only after the parents have had a chance to infect them with prejudice that they change their behavior. It has also been shown that leaders have a great influence on whether a group exhibits prejudice against others not like them.They are learned traits, in the interest of continued control and power that is, otherwise, unmerited. So, amongst our enlightened society who is training the kids consciously or otherwise to be racist and bigoted? Is this what is behind the fear of the honest teaching of all aspects of American History, good and bad?
1) The parents and leaders like Trump
2) You betcha.
I didn't realize there was such a disparity in ages. No wonder the white guy was getting the upper hand when the racists cops showed up.
I may been in error, here, Esoteric. I have been hearing disputed accounts that the white kid was in high school, while others said that he was in the 8th grade. I will check again
OK, although it doesn't really make much difference regarding the horrible behavior of the white police.
Apparently, the "white" kid (he is supposedly latino) is 15y/o and the other one is 14. Even the 15y/o was surprised he wasnt arrested. After the first kid was arrested, he puts his hands together and asked if he was going to be arrested.
“I knew it was wrong, and I knew there was gonna be problems when they did that,” 15-year-old Joey, who was involved in the fight, said. “They didn’t go for me.”
Tuesday night, he told PIX11 News — with his mother’s permission — that he couldn’t believe he wasn’t also placed in cuffs.
“I didn’t understand why,” the teen said. “I even offered to get handcuffed as well.”WOW. Good for the white kid. It looks l like the cops were racists after all. What does that say about those taking their side?
Have any comments been made by the cops in question as to why they did what they did? Particularly the female cop that "handled" both kids? There is always "the rest of the story", but I haven't heard it yet. Just the one side that looks very bad and is being used to "prove" racism by police without ever getting all the information.
While it would be useful to hear, the video (and the white guys words) speak for themselves. It would be nice to hear those cops say they are racist, that they picked on only the black kid because they PRESUMED he was the bad guy in this, but you know they won't.
I'm sure you would like to hear that.
For myself I would rather hear, in their words, just why they did it. It is possible, thought highly unlikely based on the video, that there is a valid reason. It is also possible that their words could give an insight into something very wrong in that police department. While it obviously isn't to you, it is important to me to get ALL the facts and not just some of them before drawing conclusions.
For me the biggest question is just what the female cop, after taking care of one kid, went and knelt on the other. Just a cop aiding a fellow cop having some trouble or something else?
The police are being given the opportunity to explain their side of the story as part of the investigation.
I am waiting.....Are you? Or have you already drawn conclusions as to the reason for their actions in spite of historically claiming you don't do that?
Apologies. Your previous comments appear to indicate that you have already decided the cause was racist cops, that's all.
"Yet, this incident is an example of CRT going beyond "theory"
" it is not unreasonable to see a pattern behind it all"
"Thank you, maybe you can tell our illustrious man from Idaho that there should be no need to have to decipher the "king's english" for him."
"shows the white cops in a reflex action, much like having your patella whacked during a physical. "Go for the black kid, first".
"If public officials do things properly, there would be no need to make these incidents public." (Obvious inference it was not done properly)
"They <cell phones> shed light on incidents and practices heretofore concealed."
"It appears that under stress flaws in character regarding racist inclinations are readily revealed"
Perhaps I was wrong, but looking back over your comments again, it seems rather obvious that you have made a conclusion, and without ever hearing the other side of the story. And you may be right in that conclusion, but I beg to differ that it is a reasonable method of coming to a conclusion.Yeah, you were wrong. One explanation that should not be difficult to provide by the officers on the scene or the police department would clear this up, straightaway.
An example such as the black kid had a weapon or he was not just set upon but resisted the officer by continuing to fight. Either one of those situation would have justified the difference in how the boys were treated. I am reasonable, but I need answers.
There is the opportunity to demonstrate that the decisions and actions taken by the officers here were based on standard procedures that should feature impartiality as a part of that. What are they waiting for?
Can either of them explain? Their silence is taken as guilt. Are we waiting to have the video and the circumstances 'spun' to relieve certain people of culpability?
You don't have an answer or can't explain, it makes your case and your perspective difficult to support.I think your fatal flaw, Credence, was that you didn't use the words like "allegedly" and "in spite of the obvious video evidence".
You are correct. The language used pretty obviously indicates that a verdict has already been rendered, without ever hearing from the defense.
And that is not how "justice" works.Yet you do it ALL the time, don't you. And without providing any factual back up like a video that, without miraculous intervention, shows what really happened.
While you don't do it yourself, you tell others to suspend thinking until the last note is played.
Aw c'mon Credence. You know very well, just as I do, that those cops have to remain silent until an investigation is completed. You also know, just as I do, that it doesn't matter what they say. It doesn't matter why they did what they did. They are already guilty of racism in the court of public opinion, rendered by people that don't care what the whole story is.
But you're right - that you don't get what is not available yet is all you need to declare guilt.
No, I don't have an explanation. Neither do you. The only difference is you don't need one to find guilt - only a black kid that was treated differently than a white one. That's all it takes to declare racism for you - no other possibility (even though you mention two) will be accepted.
No matter what the appearance, no matter what the possible crime, I will always try for the entire story before rendering a verdict. The closest I will come to a verdict is something like "Well, it certainly looks bad"...which is what I said here.Yes, it looks bad....
I am not sending anyone to the gallows, but it still looks bad.
I am still waiting for evidence that there was a reason for the difference in treatment of the two boys and I don't expect to have to wait until the end of century to get this properly resolved.
Seems to me that if there was a ready explanation, it would have been offered and quickly. What are we investigating?
Your bias is showing, you always believe that the community is always anti cop rather than being anti-bias. Do you know the difference between the two? You keep trying to amalgamate the two and it doesn't work.
But you never need a reason to absolve wrong doing on the part of law enforcement from my perspective. So, you can take that.Again, c'mon. When something hits the news that hard, and people scream that much, there will an investigation. Again, something you know as well as I do.
The community is always anti cop. Remember the cries to defund police and turn us all into a state of anarchy? Remember the big spate of cop killing?
Yes, I know the difference. One is anti-cop, one is anti-bias. Unfortunately, those telling us to be anti-bias are very often the most biased. Particularly against any police action against anyone with dark skin.
That's the point, isn't it? That "wrong doing on the part of law enforcement...without ever hearing from law enforcement and without knowing all the facts. It is very much bias and anti-cop, not anti-bias. It is an assumption of wrong doing, making the bias obvious - as plain as saying more blacks are mistreated by cops only because they are more likely to be criminals. Not much difference I can see, outside of being the exact opposite bias."The community is always anti cop. " - And WHY do you suppose that is? Could it be a lot of bad cops are hired and when they act out, as the will, police leadership ALMOST ALWAYS covers it up? And way too many times, the DA's won't prosecute, regardless of conclusive evidence.
It is only because of videos like this and community protest is something actually starting to be done about this stain on America. Yet, Conservatives keep battling to keep the status quo and kill things like the federal police reform act which is desperately needed.Because they are whipped into a frenzy with lies and exaggerations from the anti-cop league.
Tell me; what percentage of police do you think are "bad cops"? .01%? 50% What would organizations such as BLM have you believe - the .01% or the 50%?
I understand it is videos like this that play a big part in the uproar. Videos without representation from the "defense" can be very disturbing to those that refuse to look for the rest of the story. Credence himself gave two possibilities that could be reasons for the treatment here...and discarded both because they don't fit within the "racist" attitude assigned to the majority of cops. That's how it works, isn't it?
We see a handful of racist actions every year...out of the hundreds of thousands of interactions with police. It is a problem, but a problem that is blown way out of proportion.First of all, Wilderness, I did not discard anything. I was giving you distinct examples where it could be justified to have treated one teen in a different fashion from the other.
The problem with you and your reasoning is that you have a tendency to generalize about BLM and "the entire community is anti-cop", not even giving a second thought to your broad brush, while the stuff you defend you nit-pik over and split hair down to the micron level.
Your biases and preferences are virtually under your nose and are quite evident to anyone looking objectively from the outside. If I recall, it was you that was opposed to body cams on police officers and you probably resist civilian review boards over the police. Your sort always think the same way, for minority groups, police is an occupying force and we would not want to impede them in the exercise of their discretion by holding them accountable for their behavior while on the beat, would we? After all, it's Dudley Do-Right against the hoodlums, right?
A broad brush you use about this idea of yours that police are not suppose to challenge blacks, where did you get that? What does that have to do with the issues surrounding this case? I suppose that Black People can't reason over current events but are "whipped into frenzy"? One racist confrontation with authorities who my tax money pays for is one too many.
People with attitudes like yours is much of the reason the strife continues on. Thus, the cauldron continues to boil......" not even giving a second thought to your broad brush, while the stuff you defend you nit-pik over and split hair down to the micron level." - Well put and nicer than the way I point out the same thing
"Because they are whipped into a frenzy with lies and exaggerations from the anti-cop league. " - Explain to me WHY there is a so-called "anti-cop" league in the first place. You seem to put the cart before the horse.
I told you how many, you just don't read. I said that based on the number of Trump Republicans out there, a minimum of 30%.
I ALSO said, which you ALSO didn't read, is that it is not the bad cops that are the REAL (who knows, maybe capitalization will help) problem - it is the police leadership that almost always covers up their bad actions.
"That's how it works, isn't it?" - That is how Conservatives do it.
You are asking us to be as stupid as Trump Republicans, to not use our eyes and ears and minds.
You are telling us not to believe a bomb went off until the chemical analysis is in even though we saw video of someone placing the bomb and then setting it off.
You are simply being ridiculous in order to not admit there is racism in this country.
This from a man who thinks the Jan 6 insurrection - wasn't, lol.
I think this is the very smartest thing that has been said thus far on this thread. Including my comment... CNN jumped on this story, and at first added the video, and a few words.
I am prone to get very mad if I feel race-baiting. I just feel it defeats progress... Yes, we need to point out acts of racism, but we also need to hear all sides at the same time.
From further reports, the boy that was put in the chair felt the police handled the black youth unfairly and differently than he was handled.
Is our society getting worse far worse? A few years back, I felt we all were on the right path, and progress was being made. Now what?Thank you, maybe you can tell our illustrious man from Idaho that there should be no need to have to decipher the "king's english" for him.
Unfortunately, this incident with the evidence just presented shows the white cops in a reflex action, much like having your patella whacked during a physical. "Go for the black kid, first".
If public officials do things properly, there would be no need to make these incidents public.
I have to wonder, Sharlee, conservative types must hate these cell phone cameras. They shed light on incidents and practices heretofore concealed. The tax payers are going to drawn to pay attention as law suits will drain their municipal coffers dry. Everybody needs to be more careful."Unfortunately, this incident with the evidence just presented shows the white cops in a reflex action, much like having your patella whacked during a physical. "Go for the black kid, first".
Cred, I do agree with this anology, unfortunately, as I have said before there is an innate problem with racism. My point is, how do we ever get past this if we continue bate one against the other?
Does the media help the situation by jumping on an incident before all the facts are known? Does this kind of journalism just stoke an innate fire in some to become more hardened in their beliefs?
We really need to consider how to make progress, not keep a huge fire growing.
My first thought when watched the clip was here we have two young boys having a juvenile type of fight. I even thought if the cops did not show up, the fight would have broken up, and these two would go their separate ways. I felt both cops were overzealous. The one cop slammed the one boy into a chair and I think it scared him pretty good. The other cop did have the second boy under control when the other cop aided him. This was uncalled for in my judgment. This is where I saw a big problem.
The situation was handled when the second cop got into the mix.Getting past it means, first of all, acknowledging that contrary to anti-crt, these innate tendencies are what so many of us mean by whites being given the benefit of the doubt relative to blacks in situations where otherwise all other variables are equal. This problem is always one the perpetrators want to attempt to conceal, but has been an intregal part of American life. You do not have to be virulent racists or card carrying members of the KKK, to have responded naturally to a learned and inculcated behavior. Such, as in this case.
If there were extenuating circumstances explaining disparate treatment, I would have thought that the police officers would offer such an explanation without delay, and not allow the anger within the community to fester, unnecessarily.
1. So, we make progress by being honest enough to admit these problems exist rather than say, as conservatives often claim, that they do not. The continued denial is part of the offense.
2. When it is identified, act on it quickly, apply whatever disciplinary actions are appropriate. Law Enforcement people are professionals that should be trained beyond just acting upon their baser (innate) instincts when doing their jobs. It has to be made clear that the standard must be impartiality applied to everyone at all times, with a valid reason when it is not.
3. The more abusive cases of disparate justice and treatment from officials within our municipal governments are to be subject to civil suits and the emptying of coffers so that there are penalties for being careless and arbitrary in the enforcement of the law and the application of justice.
These are not just "things" we are finding to fuss over, but are the continuation of an old problem as American as Apple pie. It takes effort to rein in your biases and learned tendencies, but in the interests of fairness, we are all going to have to work harder in this regard."The continued denial is part of the offense." And Offensive. IMHO
Who I blame MOST in the police departments around the country aren't the bad actors (based on the number of people who support Trump, I would say the minimum number is higher than 30%), but their supervisors and THEIR supervisors. They are even more culpable because they allow the racism in their departments to fester and grow.
That is why one of the reforms I absolutely go along with (and Conservatives hate) is having independent civilian oversight of police actions. That way police leadership can't keep covering everything up.It is interesting as to why conservatives resist common sense policies, just as the US military is under Civilian control. No one is above the law nor beyond oversight, in my world.
The police departments are not law into themselves. Conservatives must be happy to have to wooly heads beaten without anyone being held accountable.
How could these people or their attitudes
ever be anything that is acceptable to me?
"Does the media help the situation by jumping on an incident before all the facts are known?" - Are you suggesting the media should hide the story until everybody has been interviewed? Or, should they report a terrible story when it happens?
You and I (and my wife) clearly see things differently from the video. Should the cops have jumped in? Of course they should have. But, the female cop (after my wife and I viewing it many times) clearly DID NOT slam the white kid into a chair. Yes, she forcefully pulled him away from the black kid, as she should have. And she might also have placed him in that seat, but certainly didn't "slam" him. And there was no need for her to what looked like pat the kid on the shoulder showing some sort of sympathy, before aggressively placing herself on the prone (and maybe cuffed) black kid.
(I asked my wife to watch it because you had such a starkly different version than myself and I wanted to make sure I wasn't seeing things.)
The male cop clearly throws the black kid on the ground (rather than helping him stand up like he was trying to do) and then maybe punching him in the back (although I couldn't quite tell but that was the impression I got). Why didn't the male cop help the black kid up and put him in a different chair? Why didn't they cuff both boys? Why did they focus ONLY on the black kid. I can answer that won - because he was black.
I am not sure how you feel about it Credence, but today, Kim Potter, the cop who killed Daunte Wright received two years for doing that. I understand 7 years was the max she could receive.
The family, expectedly is outranged at what appears to be a light sentence. That is absolutely understandable.
But, I am not emotionally involved (either by relation or by race) and think - based on what I know - the sentence seems about right. My reasoning goes this way.
- She claimed she mistook her gun for the taser she wanted to use. As a result, she killed Wright. That, in and of itself deserves punishment of some type.
- There are three possibilities as I see it:
1) She is lying and meant to pull her gun, in which case murder would be the correct charge (and the sentence that goes along with it). But based on the total lack of evidence this is the case, I suspect she is telling the truth here
2) She was totally reckless in being confused as to which gun was real and which wasn't. Her reaction to having shot Wright and the fact the prosecution couldn't demonstrate that degree of carelessness mitigates this being the case. Had it been, however, I think 7 years might not be enough.
3) She was simply careless (or not careful enough) which led to the involuntary death of Wright. Now it comes down to the degree of that unintentional carelessness that the judge perceives that would determine the length of time. Could three years be called for? Maybe. Could one year? Probably not, a man died after all.Manslaughter in this case with the maximum penalty of 7 years at a minimum would satisfy me. While this guy, Mr. Wright, was no angel, incompetence and carelessness cost a man his life, needlessly. Even in the urgency of a moment, how could you mistake a taser for a firearm? When you wear that uniform, put on the badge and take the oath, you agree to be evaluated by a higher standard. You simply cannot make mistakes like this.
A lot like that silly police woman who killed a black guy in his own apartment thinking that it was her own residence."Even in the urgency of a moment, how could you mistake a taser for a firearm?" - And there is the rub, isn't it. How do you make that type of mistake? For me to answer that, I would have had to be in the courtroom the whole time. I know the subject came up, but I don't know where it came down relative to HOW careless she was.
Would you think the judge took her past record on the force and her reputation for working to help others into consideration? She seemed to have a very good recond. Judges do take prior crimes into consideration when handing down a sentence. This officer had never committed any other crime?
Could he have just been treating this officer as he would any other citizen that committed manslaughter, considering she had no prior criminal past? It might be interesting to research what sentences are handed out for a first crime, and that crime is manslaughter.
I agree all police need to be held to a higher standard and must be
treated as any other citizen.Of course, it is appropriate to consider her past record as justification for mitigating her sentence. That is why 7 years and a manslaughter charge is appropriate. As an example for the community, her use of discretion or lack there of taints the profession. There is a penalty associated with being careless in this way.
For once we agree. Even the judge was very emotional while stating that the circumstances called for a significant reduction in the sentencing guidelines. Which she did.
I felt we were on the right path as well, but then came the Right-wing reaction to having a black president and then, of course, along came Trump to make it so much worse and give a platform to the white nationalists and their ilk.
Now we have a Conservative Court chopping away at the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. We are quickly moving back to 1950. in my opinion.The point is we are at a point where we need to really take heed of how people are so divided, and hate is breeding quickly. I have no problem with reporting this insolent, but it would be better to have the particulars before reporting a story like this. It very much appears both police officers were overzealous, especially the female, she did not need to jump in, the other officer had this young man subdued.
I in some respects disagree with your sentiment. I feel many of us Republicans crossed over and voted for Obama, I voted for him... I felt and still feel he was a good president, he represented America well in most cases. I respect his intelligence and his charater.
Trump never appeared racist to me in the least. He certainly did not address them differently or did he seem to be able to see the problems of
systemic racism. He appeared to look at problems that affected all American's, and not point out one American from another. And yes most of us do realize we have a problem in America with innate raciums.
I can't agree that the courts are attempting to take away civil rights. I have not seen any real new voting laws that hinder a citizen from voting. I feel this is just another way the Democrats are keeping the hate flowing with race-baiting. This statement is not meant to be harsh... I truly feel strongly that this is what the Democrats are doing with the help of media, and I find it harmful to the progress that we need to make in regard to systemic racism. This tactic has created a deep divide and has a segment of people on both sides angry. Anger feeds hate.Those Republicans which you speak of, with a few exceptions, are not Trump Republicans. Many of them probably voted for Biden in 2020 (illegally of course, lol)
I am sorry, but the Courts already are doing that.
I have to go do some accounting right now, but I will take the time to find the many decisions that support my claim.
Oh, three came to mind - each time the Court upheld the Texas anti-woman law on abortion.You are being overly dramatic the Texas law does not prohibit abortion ...
With the U.S. Supreme Court mum, a new law went into effect in Texas that bans abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy.
A woman has the right to get an abortion. Abortion is much less harmful to the woman when it is done early. Many women have can have severe complications if abortions are done in later trimesters, so this is not all bad for women that choose to abort.Overly dramatic? lol. Women are virtually barred from getting constitutionally protected abortions in Texas. Do you not agree? Most women won't even know they are pregnant when it becomes illegal in Texas for them to terminate their pregnancy. How am I being overly dramatic?
The Supreme Court was hardly "mum". They refused to stay an unconstitutional law three times. That is not being "mum" and you know it.
Based on your last paragraph, you clearly don't know anything about the Texas law.I do know that a woman can get an abortion in Texas up until six weeks, and I also know an early abortion is a very simple procedure, with less chance of complications of infection, and other various problems that can occur with later abortions. I offered an opinion, and that opinion comes with medical experience caring for abortion patients that had complications with late abprtions. Abortions can be complicated, like all medical procedures. What I advocate is if a woman chooses to have an abortion, early abortions are safer.
Now, we get a version of the story from the participant, himself.
That quite a revelation IB, such wisdom from babes. Now, if only the adults can start acting like adults.......
Are you even kidding! First who through the first and second punch. Second who would not calm down enough to stop fighting with the police?
CNN is race-baiting disgusting network. This is why we have so much animosity and hate in our society. Media such as CNN stoking a fire, and people like you find it necessary to spread this kind of reporting.
This was bo more than a fight between two teens, and like I said who threw the first two punches. The white kid stopped fighting when he was slammed into a chair... The black kid decided to fight with the police.
THat's what I saw in this incident. And ya know what with all that is going on in our society you would think this young man would have not chosen to fight with the police.You got to be kidding - who cares who threw the first punch (since you didn't watch the video closely or at all, the black guy batted away a finger that the white guy was angrily poking at him. Then the white guy gave a two-handed shove.
But, like a typical Conservative, you don't see the issue and why normal people are so outraged. Obviously, it needs to be explained to you.
- The cops didn't see what started it
- The cops broke it up
- You can see the white female cop take the white guy to the couch and make sure he is OK.
- You can see the white male cop jump on the back of the black kid as he tried to stand up and start trying to cuff him'
- After tending to the white guy (and not cuffing him as her partner was doing to the black kid), you can see the white female cop go kneel on the prone black kid.
That was not a "slam" by any means (I went back and watched the video several times), you are twisting the facts again. As to the black kid continue to fight, you can clearly see all he was trying to do was stand up when the white male cop SLAMMED him to the ground.
So, tell me, what do you call a person who concocts a scenario biased against the black kid that is clearly not true. The cops need to be fired and prosecuted.
Where our opinions will differ is when the video starts, the white guy was clearly the aggressor. That said, the black guy did "touch" the white kid first trying to get his hand out of his face. The white guy then reacted very violently shoving the black kid hard. So, in total, I think the white kid was the aggressor, maybe getting the other guy to act first, a common habit of bullies.I have heard the explanation of this account from many sources. Change the behavior if you want to be rid of the animosity rather than be content with covering it up or not revealing it.
Don't soil the laundry in the first place then you don't have worry about its hanging out.
The police setting the example within the community of even handedness and impartiality go a long way toward not providing copy for the newspapers.
If you sat one teen down, why not both of them, or if you handcuff one, why not the other who was participating in the melee to the same extent?
Where did you get the idea that the black kid was any more belligerent and resisting than the white kid? That was neither seen nor reported. Where did you get it from? What is this about fighting police, what have you been reading?I can tell you where she gets it from, but I won't. I just found out she doesn't even think the Crimea was invaded by Putin (taking Trump's side again). She thinks Russian led elections are fair and represent the will of the people, lol.
Well, with all of the rigging the Trump Republicans are doing with American elections, she will see first hand what a Russian election looks like (and it ain't pretty)I would like you to quote me where said "She thinks Russian led elections are fair and represent the will of the people". Never said that, ever...
I certainly did state --- And once again Crimea voted to secede and join Russia. And I am very sure Cred nows this to be a fact. It would be you who just can not accept that fact. And your statement "taking Trump's side again" sounds juvenile.
It is clear you are being argumentive.It was implied by your defense of the results of the election Putin held in Crimea. In another forum, you basically said that because a supposed "overwhelming" majority of Crimean's voted for the annexation (or what ever they voted for) then that justified Putin invading Ukraine. What else am I to think. You didn't even call that election a sham - which it was.
Racism is ingrained in America and it will never go away I have spent lots of time there and observed it first hand. Sadly the Christian Church is a accomplice in this ; I won't say anything more.
That IS, unfortunately, very true. I will point out, however, what you claim about Christians applies only to conservative Christians, just as it applies to conservative Muslims, conservative Hindus, conservative (any other religion). Do you see a pattern hear?
The so-called Christian church has been racism's leader and fomenters. What do you think that Christian Right uses as fuel for its Movement, today?
The crimea election was fair and square I don't know why people keep talking about it. Elections in Russia are as good or as bad as America, the only difference is that there is a charismatic leader like Putin in Russia while America has a fumbling old man as the leader
I am sorry, Emge, Western democracies do not murder and jail the opposition so that there is only one choice. Western democracies do not murder protesters and rioters. Western democracies are not supposed to jail non-violent protesters (yet some of our conservative cops do anyway).
All of those things are true in Russia and anyplace it controls. I don't know what it is like in your country, maybe those are the norm there as well as Russia.
While Putin may be more charismatic and stronger than Biden, he is also a murdering dictator (which it seems like you admire) which Biden is not. Biden is just a good leader with the right ideas for our country.I always prefer a "weak" democratically elected leader over a "strong" tyrannical one.
But, again, that's just me.
One of my veteran friends of the US was always of the view that the black is discriminated against and he was loud and clear on it but sadly when his daughter said she was going to marry a coloured Afro American he lost his shirt and threatened to shoot the boy dead.
That is sad, but not unsurprising. Based on the support Trump has, I would estimate at least 30% of Americans feel the same way.
That's speaks to the wishy-washy nature behind so much Anglo thinking in America, today.
They will "parrot" what they really don't believe. That ready duplicitous nature has always confused me.
Eight days later, then-President Lyndon B. Johnson addressed a televised joint session of Congress and beseeched lawmakers to pass expansive legislation to prohibit racial discrimination in voting.
And Conservatives have been fighting to reverse that ever since! With the Robert's Court and the Trump Republicans, it has just picked up steam.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2022/02 … -timeline/I agree with Sharlee a woman's health is very important and it must be looked at from that perspective.
Another example of Institutional Racism in America
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/20/us/doj-b … index.htmlSure sounds like discrimination to me. Either that or a very large failure to do the job right - that the second appraisal, by a different appraiser, came up with a different value would tend to indicate that one or the other is incompetent in their job.
But "institutional Racism"? It would have to be shown that such events are common and spread all over the country, not just one appraiser looking at one house. Possible, of course, but the link gives no statistics or proof of that. Just that housing values in black neighborhoods are lower than that in white neighborhoods, which has zero to do with a discriminatory appraisal.The thing is, study after study show that it is common (let alone the massive amount of anecdotal evidence you see reported every week)
Apparently the suit itself contains sufficient data to get DOJ interested.Yes, there are stories. But some of them don't make sense. For instance, the link within the link cries out that houses in black neighborhoods are appraised for less than those in white neighborhoods.
Setting aside entirely that the objective of an appraisal isn't to give a false value to homes of black people; it is to give an accurate picture of what similar homes in that same neighborhood and setting are selling for.
And then we have the anecdotal evidence, but you know as well as I do what that is worth. Every home appraised for less than expected will be put down to racism...without any proof whatsoever.
So...maybe there is systemic racism and discrimination via home appraisals, and maybe not. Your link, and your story, do not show it to be so. The story doesn't even prove the single case of discrimination that was taken to court, not yet.
I would actually be more inclined to assign racism to the lending institution, because it has been my experience that appraisals nearly always come in a little over what is required for the loan in question. Given that, and historic evidence of lending bias, it seems more reasonable than to think the appraiser was at fault.Thanks Island. Those should change Wilderness' mind - NOT. He simply does not accept ANY evidence that shows his reality is wrong.
Based upon linked that IslandBites so kindly provided we can begin to put a scale on the problem as being more than just that of a single couple. This was an egregious example which will require attention along with a remedy provided.
The only thing thing that I have established in that properties in minority owned neighborhoods tend to be underappraised in relation to contract price more frequently. I will not go far as suggesting a conspiracy as even though a relatively large sample size of appraisers have been sampled, the differences underappraising between white and minority appraised properties have not been terribly significant. Still, when multiplied over millions of dollars and thousands of people, wealth is being siphoned and stolen.
I agree with you about the culpability of lending institutions as playing more than a small role regarding this problem. There has been far more substantiated evidence of systemic racism when it came to lending practices.
Withou further study, it is difficult for a layman such as myself to come to a definitive solution, but the sheer temerity involved regarding stealing wealth from this couple would have me believing that I smell a rat.
If this couple was discriminated against by a white home appraiser, the evaluation and second evaluation, plus the going price of homes in their area, should show a clear-cut case. Both evaluations can be compared to many other comparative homes in that specific area with similar attributes.
It sounds as if the couple did renovations to make their home more valuable. This should be an interesting case to follow. I don't think I will jump to any conclusion as of yet.
They very well could have been discriminated against... Only time will tell.
However, is this not another CNN article that calls attention to the discrimination that might (the key might) not have occurred? It appears the DOJ has taken an interest, and should due to having a Civil Rights Division to combat housing discrimination. I am sure they will have a long look at this lawsuit, and get justice for this couple if they have been discriminated against.
CNN promotes this kind of story, they jump at anything that could be a racist act without any real proof it did... IMO these story's promote racial tension unnecessarily. I think if this couple proves their case, it is very much newsworthy.The question is Sharlee, there has to be a reason why there is so great a difference in the appraisal price simply because a white was shown to be a homeowner rather than the black couple. It is a big story and it needs to be big to put everyone on notice that discrimination in housing is against the law and that those identified as perpetrators will be held accountable.
Let us see how FHA and DOJ read all of this? It does not hurt to be made aware that a case is in the making.
The issue for me is, if you clean it up rather than just cover it up, I won't need to bring it up.Credence, do you have any clue as to why Sharlee likes to sweep unpleasant (to Conservatives) things under the rug? Imagine, blaming CNN for just doing their job and presenting news to people of America (and the world).
I can see your point. But, why not report cases that have been proven to be discrimination, not allegations of discrimination? It is very possible we won't ever even hear the outcome of this couple's case unless discrimination was proven, and they justly win their case. Some people sink their teeth into "if comes" and have quickly jumped to the conclusion that this appraiser, in this case, was discriminating against this couple. Do we know this to be true as of yet? The DOJ has the case, and should totally investigate this couples' claims. This is why we need a Civil Rights Division to investigate discrimination. Right now this couple has claimed they were discriminated against --- Is there no more innocent until proven guilty?
I am not in any respect saying the media should not report discrimination. Just wish they would report it after the act has been proven to be factual, not just an allegation.But, everything we hear on the news is based on allegations and that is fine as long as they report it as allegations and not fact. All the stuff about either Trump or Biden has not ended with convictions and indictments, these men/he or she is just being accused at this point. That is all, and that is news in itself.
There is an ongoing law suit by black franchise owners against MC Donald's for alleged discriminatory management practices. why should this be not presented as news until a final decision comes down? We don't employ this attitude for anything else, if we did the news channels would go out of business."d that is fine as long as they report it as allegations and not fact." - And that is the difference between MSN and Right-wing propaganda outlets. MSN ALMOST (in case Wilderness or Sharlee want to nitpick) always say words to the effect of "alleged". Even on the opinion pieces I read and listen to. That is not often the case with Right-wing propaganda.
This conversation is about a couple that alleges they were discriminated against. The keyword thus far is alleged... The article was from CNN. This couple's claim is alleged, and at this point being investigated.
It is not nitpicking to point out this complaint is an obligation, because at this point that's what it is. I am not programmed to believe allegations, as you seem to be. The allegation is a powerful power, not to be ignored... It denotes facts that have not been presented as of yet. I have no need for allegations, I like facts. IMO allegations muddle the mind.
CNN and MSN are the worst perpetrators of this kind of unprofessional reporting.
"al·le·ga·tion
/ˌaləˈɡāSH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.It is up to viewer, Sharlee, to discern the difference between an allegation and a fait accompli
The presence of an "allegation" is a fact in itself. That makes it newsworthy. We live in world full of claims and assertions, you decide just how much credibility one way or the other you would assign to it, just as other viewers have option to do for themselves.
They ALL do it, Fox News included, it is just that you find it more palatable because they present from a conservative point of view.
Cred, you have made a great point, and it really rings a bell... Yes, the media does at nauseam report allegations about Trump, Biden, and has this kind of reporting not aided in severely dividing the citizens of this country? This kind of news reporting has only gotten worse over the years, and now, in my view has become caustic.
The example you have used in regard to the black franchise owners against MC Donald's is news, it is in court, it is ongoing. Very much worthy of reporting at every juncture... You may not be understanding my point. The couple that filed the lawsuit has every right to do so, and they deserve to be heard in court and receive justice. But, what if after an investigation it does not merit discrimination? Lots of "what if's...
However, have many that read the CNN article walk away with the very thought --- This couple was discriminated against.
Does this kind of reporting help with systemic racism or does it fuel it without cause?
And in my view to address your last thought here --- we should employ this attitude for all situations. Should we care about supporting networks that report more or less what one could call gossip?
This kind of news reporting can do more harm than good in my view. Many hang on allegations that never come to fruition, yet the anger the vitriol stays with them, and only builds with the next unproven allegation.
In my opinion, we now have a certain part of our society that craves sensationalism and could care little about truth in journalism. If it feeds their narrative, they are happy to be satisfied with allegations. Guilty until proven innocent. Punished without cause..."But, what if after an investigation it does not merit discrimination? Lots of "what if's.."
-----
Then I would say, report that and explain why the investigators came to their conclusion.
------
"However, have many that read the CNN article walk away with the very thought --- This couple was discriminated against"
That is not what the article said, you should not walk away with something from an article convinced about something that was not said.
---------
People are informed that the allegation was just that with the result being that the allegation was not substantiated.
I once lived in a world where abuses, alleged and factual, were never brought out to see the light of day from any mainstream source except from rather obscure ethnic publications. I get perturbed over dishonesty and concealment, first and foremost, I will always prefer candor, all information provided and I will sort out what is the gravity of the cases whether alleged or factual.
It is up to people, in a democracy with a free press, to use their discretion and judgement over the vast amount of information available, because the alternative to this is less than attractive.
I would not think that the filing of a law suit in a case where so much money is involved as mere gossip. The only real viable alternative is to switch your TV to the off position."I once lived in a world where abuses, alleged and factual, were never brought out to see the light of day from any mainstream source except from rather obscure ethnic publications. " - And Conservatives want to return to that by complaining the MSM exposes too many bad things.
Or tune your TV to Fox or other Right-wing propaganda outlets who suppress such news.
I've been going through this discussion from the beginning. Everybody agrees that racism is bad, I also say so but what people are missing from the entire point is the psychosis of the white man. I am talking of the majority who will not accept a black as part of the family in other words there will be no social intercourse and there is none in any case except for an odd case here and there. The fact is the black-white divide is insurmountable. it is not physical but it is emotional and will never go away. Not for another hundred years; after all it has been there for the last 300 years. I have already mentioned the case of my veteran friend and his reaction to a black son-in-law. No point in repeating it again here but I do not see how the racial divide will ever go away in America and mind you it is only against the black and not against so many others like Indians who have proliferated in the USA.
So, emge, here is the $64,000.00 dollar question, what is the source of the psychosis and why does a group go to so much trouble for so long to torment a ethnic minority that has never been a threat to Them? Why would someone risk detection only to take something of value from someone they do not even know, was it so crucial? I refer to the appraisal issue.
I think that much of the worse of it is behind us. It now takes a form that is more sophisticated, designed for the specific purpose of not being readily detectable as such.
While your example about the black son and law was one case, I am inundated with mixed couples and their children every time I go to the market. Did not see so much of this just 20 years ago.
These matters people will yield on before confronting the real issues of the distribution of wealth and power in America. The fear of losing an advantage toward that end is where the line in the sand is being drawn by the current dominant culture. This is why the stuff that we all thought we had relegated to the attic or the basement is now being brought to the kitchen table and served as the main course.
Racism and race related strife is part of American life, some groups has had it applied to them more intensely than others. It is as old as the Republic, varying groups have taken their turn: Irish, Southern Europeans, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, indigenous people, hispanics (not Ricky Ricardo, as he passed for white, although Cuban), Blacks.
The changes in demographics combined with time will make it easier to soften the grip regarding retention of advantageous wealth and corresponding power by the dominant culture when they are no longer dominant. For all this to happen, assuming we do not destroy ourselves and planet in the interim, we may be looking toward( based on our present course) the end of this century. Just a guesstimate....I would also like to point out that racism, bigotry, etc is not limited to JUST the whites. It exists where ever there is a dominate culture. Sunni vs Shia; one black tribe vs another black tribe; whatever is going on in Somali and Eritrea; Christians vs Jews; Arab vs Jews; hell, almost anybody vs the Jews; the Jews vs the Arabs. and the list goes on and on.
I am sorry to say, Credence, history is not on your side regarding the equity thing. Inequity today is close to what it was back in the Roaring 20s, when it was at an all time American high. It took a major depression and a world war to bring it back to some kind of normalcy. I hope it doesn't take that again.
I would recommend Capitalism in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty if you are into self-flagellation. It is very long, but to someone interested in economics and inequality, it is worth the read.I hear you, Esoteric. With rare exception such as the "untouchables" in India for example, the American experience with this topic is an egregious one. One notes that that does not have to be a given in an ethnic and culturally diversified society. Arthur says, that while the racism problem exists in Britain it has never descended to the levels of sadism that has been part of the American experience.
No, it is not limited to whites, it is just that America is the one that says that it is "exceptional", yet it gets a major failing grade in this area.
Yes, indeed, we were rescued from the income inequity and labor exploitation by "the crash", FDR, and World War II. I might be overly optimistic in thinking that a rational society would come to its senses and acknowledge that the current trend of more wealth in fewer hands threaten both democracy and capitalism, they to be replaced with alternatives, going backwards, and considerably lower on the evolutionary scale of economic and political systems.
Maybe I watch too many cartoons, much like "The Jetsons", a feeling that even in a future world of flying cars, our social-political structure would fundamentally remain the same.
Racism is a byproduct of economic inequity and those that seek to maintain it, the 1 percent. What better way for them to divert attention from themselves and their activities then to have the people believe that immigrants and minority groups are keep those in the "doublewides" from getting their share of prosperity they deserve. It is a dangling carrot that none of them were ever intended to attain to. Trump and his gold plated allies are part of all of that. The resentment of the masses that feed on Trump and Trumpism is based upon this intended misdirection.
Thanks for the tip, I will check out your recommended title.
A rare day in Southern America - white men found guilty of Hate Crimes. It took continuous fighting by the victim's mother to get the the murder trial, after the city DA tried to cover it up, and then to a federal hate crimes trial.
THAT is why you keep things in the news and not try to hide bad news.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/ahmaud … index.htmlI agree with what you're stating but I have a different point. Punishing one or two white men for crimes against black is really not the solution. My point is how is the mindset going to change? and that is not likely at all. How will you take away the incident about my veteran American friend which I've recounted earlier and people have read about it? How will you change the mindset against the black; that's not going to happen, not for another hundred years and it's already lasted for 300 years.
While it may not be a solution, it is a damned good start.
No one can change anyone else's thoughts but I can control your behavior. With the ubiquitous videos and cell cameras, the errors can be revealed.
Between criminal prosecutions and civil suits being increased as a result, some folks just might begin to get the message. The threats of prosecutions and litigation will also serve as a deterrent for many who believe that they can act inappropriately in this matter with impunity.
I can't be concerned with what you think, but I can certainly have a remedy if those thoughts are translated into action.
The troublemakers can choose to spend time behind bars or have every nickel ciphoned from them....
Well, we knew it was coming. Another assault rifle on the street, another mass shooting. This one is an 18-year old while supremist driving three hours to a Buffalo, NY grocery store where he killed 10 blacks and wounded 3 more.
So long as we make sure anyone who wants an assault rifle can get an assault rifle, this will never stop.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/buffal … index.htmlHere we go again.
The American Right is a totally infected entity, and you cannot be surprised when a chancre erupts every now and then.
They will have excuse for it due to mental illness and such, don't they always? Yet, seemed like a targeted attack with deliberate goals, thus far.
We will see how the rest of the story unfolds. There is also the attack on Asian women Dallas that had been committed by a racially motivated gunman, fortunately no fatalities here."24 People Shot Over Weekend in Chicago, Including 7 in Mass Shooting Sunday" https://news.wttw.com/2022/03/14/24-peo … ing-sunday
What makes these murders any better than the nut job that shoot people today in Buffalo? Where these murders not all killers?
Chicago City data shows at least 446 people have been shot and 102 people have been killed in Chicago thus far in 2022. How many were black, how many white? How many of these crimes were black on black or white on white?
Why have we not been made aware of these outrageous crime stats?
Oh forgot -- this story will promote hate, race-bait, and maybe even cause some riots.
I would say those that can turn away from outrageous ongoing crime in Blue cities a bit more "totally infected":...
It is most likely a fact this 18-year-old had hate in his heart, just like the thugs that kill in our major cities. How does one put a weight to hate to murder?I never look the other way when it comes to murder... I find all killers equal, they took another's life whether it be a white man shooting into a black crowd or a black man shooting into a black crowd, sometimes killing children. Just wired that way. Why not the outrage about the increase in crime, all crime, all murders? If a man picks up a gun and does drive-by, was he not intending to kill? Was there not the same hate as a white man that heads out to kill blacks? Is it I different hate? Is the results not the death of innocent people?
I look at anyone that sets out to purposely kill a murderer. I feel it is a phenomenon that some black people can excuse black-on-black murder.There is nothing unreasonable about your point of view.
Crime is crime as you say, and n one of us are excusing it in our most crime infested areas. But, Bonnie and Clyde is one thing and Adolf Hitler yet, another. Being murdered at random by a racist or religious zealot solely because of skin color or religion is always a damn site lower. That, too, is recognized and is enshrined in Federal Law. Is it not there for a reason?Credence, as a right-winger, she will never understand it. As she said, she is not wired that way.
Disgusting.
You had to post a March news article to do what? Your points are absurd. Who said those murders (btw, 24 people shot, not even half dead- not that is a good thing anyway) are better or that the shooters were not killers?
Also, do you know if those were left-leaning killers? democrats? or even blacks? (yes, because that was the real implication).
But we do know this white killer did this not just because he is a criminal. It wasnt a drug related crime, it wasnt a crime of passion, it wasnt a debt related crime, and so on. It was a racially motivated crime. He livestreamed the mass shooting. He left a manifesto. There are forums were he shared with like-minded racists, white supremacists.
Why the need to jump? SMHThe man who allegedly shot 10 people dead and injured three more at a Buffalo, New York, supermarket Saturday likely planned out his racially motivated attack for months, authorities said Sunday.
Police pointed to the roughly 180-page manifesto the alleged shooter, 18-year-old Payton Gendron, posted before going on his rampage. The rambling text included a detailed plan of his assault on the Tops Friendly Market, which he drove to from several counties away, according to police.
Gendron identified himself as a white supremacist in his manifesto, detailing at length his fears that white people are being replaced by other races.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/buffalo-gend … -manifestoOH, and these below-mentioned crimes are fine. No problem, they were not racially motavated, so no biggie?
"But we do know this white killer did this not just because he is a criminal. It wasnt a drug related crime, it wasnt a crime of passion, it wasnt a debt related crime, and so on. It was a racially motivated crime. He livestreamed the mass shooting. He left a manifesto. There are forums were he shared with like-minded racists, white supremacists."
My point --- the media do not point out race until they feel it is a hate crime... I believe all crimes where someone picks up a weapon and kills is a hate crime. Just funny that way.
And it matters little to me if it was a nut job that hates blacks or a black man that hates another black person... Murder was committed period, we have people dead.
In regards to all the types of murder that are acceptable to you -- the types of murders that that media rarely reports race or even why the crime was committed. I find these murders horrendous, I find a society that so easily accepts them as something "different" disgusting. Disgusting? Right back at you, and add hypocritical.
Thus far this is what I know as factual ---
May 15, 2022 -- The US Department of Justice is investigating the mass shooting "as a hate crime and an act of racially-motivated violent extremism," according to a statement from US Attorney General Merrick Garland
.
"The Justice Department is committed to conducting a thorough and expeditious investigation into this shooting and to seeking justice for these innocent victims," the statement said.
Maybe it would just be smarter to wait and see what the FBI and DOJ report."Yet media did in the Buffalo report, within 19 minutes of the crime point out the race of the shooter, and victims.."
Speaking just in terms of this case, I feel it was pointed out by media due to the fact it was quickly identified as a hate crime. He was live streaming his rampage onto his Twitch account which was immediately identified for its racist content and affiliations. This kid didn't look like he was trying to hide anything in terms of his radical beliefs. He had postings as well as floated plans across various sites.Sharlee, there are homicides all across the nation, much facilitated by the proliferations of firearms. If it is not the Hatfields and McCoys in the red states, it is the South Central LA or Bronx in urban area blue.
Mass shootings bring out mass media, Columbine and other school shootings, the killer of children in Connecticut, the nuts in Las Vegas and Orlando. They were not necessarily race related. We all know that. So, do you expect a race based massacre like occurred at the synagogue, or Walmart or a church to be just ignored or just be blended into thousands of smaller scale gun related homicides, while numerous, not of the same extent or magnitude? How often are massacres, and this qualifies as one, expected to be ignored by the press?
Sorry, only Right winger have the ideological credentials to commit such atrocities, being perfectly sane, while filled with race bigotry.I in no way feel that these race crimes not be covered or not stand out as a hate crimes in no respect. I have pointed out I feel all murders are a problem in our society. Do we not need to address our lack of caring about the increase in crime? what does this say about our society.? We naturally become very concerned with hate crimes when they occur. However, do we really care about crime itself?
Yes, how often does such a massacre occur? On the other hand, how often does murder occur? The numbers are outrageous.
Should we be outraged at crime in general? Are we?
Yes, we should never see such a hate crime. Or should we be so accepting of all the murders in our society?
This kind of acceptance, In my view, says so much about our society.
I must ask --- Where did you feel my comment showed race bigotry?None of your comment had racial bigotry. I am not speaking of you specifically, it is just that the vast majority of assaults of this nature come from the political right end of the spectrum. There is no "bothsidesdo it" analogy.
Crime has been with us since the founding, nothing new there. No one is accepting of crime, but in America it is reality just like the sunrise.
Violence fomented solely due to someone being of another race is worse than violence resulting from other crimes, in my opinion."No one is accepting of crime, but in America it is reality just like the sunrise."
Sadly, I have to disagree here. Crime in America is accepted on a daily basis, and is too often not only condoned but cheered.
One has only to look at the riots a couple of years ago, with virtually no response. One has only to look at illegal aliens entering the country by the millions, without response from America. One has only to look at gang slayings, with the gang members cheering every death. Illegal drug use is rampant...so we have cities providing those same drugs, "safe places" for it's use, needles, etc. One has only to look at the "wrist slapping" given young criminals starting their career to understand that if we cared we would make an effort to stop it rather than tacitly approving with our lack of concern.
I do agree than racial violence is worse than some other crimes though. Solely because of the tremendous fight we have had over the years to eliminate such racism, but because of a very real fear it will rise again it is presumed (and is) worse.Yes, Wilderness, yet there is all kinds of crime, white collar etc. I don't know if anyone is condoning crime, we live in a competitive Capitalist economy where stark differences between have and have nots are possible and exacerbated. There have always been bad guys from Jesse James, John Dillinger, etc. Let us not forget corrupt municipality from Boss Tweed in New York in the 1880, to Al Capone virtually owning Chicago during the 1920s. There are no societies on earth free of crime, there is just more of it here. While there are plenty of platitudes from politicians about controlling crime, many of them are involved (insider trading), we just as well be chasing the wind.
The focus of most crime is material gain at the expense of others. I do appreciate that you recognize that this sort of massacre is different and speaks negatively about the true nature of intolerance and its power. How many more of the senseless attacks from those that embrace people like Carlson and his theories, are waiting in the wings?"There are no societies on earth free of crime, there is just more of it here. " - And THAT brings us to the root question- "Why is there more violent crime in America than almost any other industrialized nation in the world?" What is it about our society and laws that lead to this outcome?
That, Sir, is the $64,000.00 question.
I will say though that intolerance is a big contributor to it. An intolerance that I have not seen in other Western based societies to the same extent.I think you're right on the intolerance. No, we don't see it elsewhere...but then most countries (all?) are much, much more homogenous than we are. Not only in ancestory but also in culture, religion, and even philosophy.
Given that, and the nature of the human animal, I don't find it surprising that America shows more intolerance than most other countries. That we show the tolerance we do might be the surprising thing!I don't know if I can accept heterogeneity in a society as an excuse for why intolerance is a bigger problem.
There are plenty of societies that are at least as heterogeneous that avoid the extremes of intolerance that is part and parcel of American life.
Without tolerance there can be no real America as it currently exists, tentatively. America just needs to continue to do better.
Good question, and one that no one appears to wish to address. Personally I put a lot of it to our fascination with violence. Movies, video games, sports - everywhere we look we find violence.
"Violence fomented solely due to someone being of another race is worse than violence resulting from other crimes, in my opinion."
This is true in many ways. But I was trying to point out it seems our society has become a too compartmentalized crime of murder. We seem very much to brush off a drive-by where several were killed or someone killed in their home during a break-in.
Are we become conditioned to only care about what society now dictates us to be upset about?
I am in no way trying to tale away from a hate crime sure as what occurred yesterday. Just pointing out an oddity in our present society.I think the majority and society care about crime overall. We are talking about two very different types of crime here. Different motives and certainly different ways to address them. Is anybody really interested in doing that? Mass media focuses on the story of the day whether it be hundreds of shootings in an urban location or a mass shooting elsewhere.
Will the social media and personalities that fuel the radicalization of young men be addressed? I doubt it. Will programs that have been shown effective through research and data be implemented to reduce the number of shootings in major cities? I doubt it. Again people are really more interested in just crafting a left or right narrative. Solutions be damned. What would people have to argue about? To me, this is the saddest commentary on our society. None of us benefit when all we do is try to build up "wins" for whichever party we represent. I don't know when people are going to catch on to that.
The fact is, we can have safety and justice at the same time. We can reduce violence and promote reform simultaneously. We can be tough when the circumstances call for it and be empathetic and supportive to achieve our goals as well. We have to reject either/or choices and insist on both/and options. We have to remember that it’s about solving a deadly serious problem, not winning an abstract argument. It’s about bringing people back together, not pulling them apart.The only thing that will bring down death from guns is doing everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of people who are responsible enough to have them.
'
The data CLEARLY shows that the laxer a state's gun safety laws are, the higher the RATE of death by gun (let alone in absolute numbers).
I believe, without checking again, that the shooters in mass shootings are split on how they procured their weapons (almost always assault-type rifles). Some procured them legally, some got them from friends, some slipped through the system, some got them at gun shows or the Internet, but none, as far as I can recall, stole them. Some who got them legally shouldn't have because of poor state gun safety laws.Our politics is also the main impediment to another aspect of the challenge: millions of guns, many of them falling into the wrong hands. Although I do believe the majority of Americans support reasonable restrictions on guns , Congress and many state legislatures have been unable to pass such legislation. This isn’t about bans; it’s about adopting some of the same commonsense requirements we all meet to drive a vehicle. A requirement of minimal training. A permit indicating we’re in good mental health and so on. If anything, many states are moving in the wrong direction: last year, six more states (now 21 in total) passed “permitless carry” laws, undoing requirements that citizens secure a permit before carrying a concealed firearm in public. The boy in Buffalo was held at one point in the hospital due to mental health issues.
Unfortunately, we’ve learned over time that no single strategy, whether led by police or community members, can stem violence all by itself. While certain anti-violence programs can succeed in isolation, violence citywide typically remains stubbornly high because no intervention is strong enough to resolve it on its own. For large, sustained declines in violence, cities need a collaborative effort that leverages multiple strategies at once. And because of the toxicity of our politics, many cities struggle to mobilize and sustain a multi-dimensional response that depends heavily on collaboration.
While saving lives begins with curbing violence, it also requires us to address the ugly legacies of segregation and disinvestment that lead to violence in the first place. As we work to help impoverished communities achieve a measure of safety and stability in the short term, we must also help them thrive with investments in education, employment, health, housing, and transportation over the long run.
We can do better if we put politics aside and follow the right roadmap."I do believe the majority of Americans support reasonable restrictions on guns , " - Even, as it turns out, a majority of NRA members. Go figure.
"While saving lives begins with curbing violence" - You would think so, wouldn't you. But, at least as of 2013 when I did my study, there is only a weak correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. Is there a correlation of course, but it doesn't rise to the level of significance I like to see.
Also know that 50% of death by gun is from suicide. Now there, you DO have a statistically significant correlation between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of death by suicide. Basically, it boils down to the more guns that are available, the higher the rate of death by suicide. The strongest correlation, however, was between how weak a states gun laws are and the rate of gun ownership in that state. (Guess who had the highest suicide rates?)
Now consider that during the pandemic, people started buying guns at an astounding rate, flooding the streets with guns as a result. Hence, a lot more dead people from guns.Just as you say, there is no statistically significant correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide (as opposed to suicide) rates.
How do you then jump to your last paragraph, where people bought guns during the pandemic and "Hence, a lot more dead people from guns"? Where those all suicides or are you drawing a conclusion (more guns = more bodies) that you, yourself, say isn't there?Obviously they are all not just suicides. I didn't say there was NO correlation.
The rule I try to use is like the "beyond a reasonable doubt" theory. My data at that time didn't reach that bar.
It did, HOWEVER, reach the next threshold of the "preponderance of the evidence" or the "more likely than not" comment a judge recently made.
It is YOU saying I said it "isn't there". I actually said no such thing because it is obviously is there.Shall I quote you? Again? You found no statistically significant correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates. That you feel there is one anyway is why you found that "preponderance of the evidence", not that is actually anything there.
Just like you, a few years back I studied the problem and found exactly what you did - there is no significant correlation between the two. In fact, if you give me any two (industrialized) countries showing a correlation (more guns = more homicides) I can show you two more for each of your two that show the exact opposite. There is NO correlation. Not enough for beyond a reasonable doubt, not enough for preponderance of the evidence, not enough to say "well, maybe there is but I can't find it"."There is NO correlation." - That is a provably false statement. There is PLENTY of correlation, just not at the 95% confidence level. Lower that threshold to 90% and the hypothesis is true.
On a different note. How do you bring people together when one side just bald-facedly(?) denies the facts, believes in conspiracy theories and lies, and won't let the truth persuade them they are wrong..
Once mass shootings become a daily occurrence like the others you mention, and people see nobody cares enough to try to stop it, they to will just become noise in the background.. The same is true of hate crimes.
Intolerance is a separate problem which can take many forms and goes beyond violence associated with crime for material gain. It comes from nowhere, and can touch people that are otherwise not expecting it. This buffalo neighborhood had issues with crime as it was. I don't see armed security guards anywhere I shop. The guard that was killed anticipated problems that necessitate his being there. But how could he defend himself against an 18 year old white racist dressed up in combat gear that comes to him from hundreds of miles away to target him and his, specifically.
Regardless of some here that want to ignore the ideological foundations for such violence, it is worse than the crime violence associated with acquiring material gain.
This is reflecting a mood and attitude of intolerance in this society that the Right and only the Right from their extremist flank is responsible for.
And I would dare to say, that this teen is just an over exuberant example of attitudes and values increasing found within the GOP mainstream.
So, conservatives need not feign surprise or shock. With the CRT thing and Great Replacement Theory playing to a packed house on the Right, the seeds for a Buffalo type massacre was just a matter of time and have already been sown.I knew that living in a high crime area often times means the possibility of becoming a fatality, collateral damage, simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Gangs are nothing new to the American experience. But neither is intolerance. While one is a unpleasant feature of urban life the other has the potential of unraveling this society.
So triggered.
Suure. Whatever you say, lady.
Maybe it would just be smarter to wait and see what the FBI and DOJ report.
This part is hilarious.
There you go again minimizing hate crimes.
I won't have you or anyone else here saying I am minimizing this crime. You posted your first comment (the one I wilderness, and I responded to) within minutes after the crime was reported. You claimed it was the work of a white supremacist, did you not?
I pointed it was misinformation... At that point it was.
I did not in any respect minimize the crime. In fact, I went on to vilify all murder in a following post...
You see I look at the murder of any kind horrendous. I am not wired to look at one murder differently than another. White on white, black on black, and so on... Hope this clears that up.
I am just as disturbed when I hear about weekend murders in Chicago, where children are killed. I don't politicize murder as many do these days.
I find any sicko murderer black or white equally as loathsome.
Just don't step up on a bandwagon to stream about one over the other. I will leave that up to others.
Tell a black mom that lost he child in a drive-by that this Buffalo white man was far worse than the thug that killed her child.You are right, both are equally appalling. The shooters in each have different motivations. Can we address these motives as a society? We don't seem to be doing a great job. Also, hate crime seem to be on the rise. It is undeniable that certain media and online communities are stoking them. We need to start attacking the roots of violence. But what will happen instead? People, as usual, will prefer to fight over making it a red problem or a blue problem. Far too many will be satisfied with that. I don't know why people today are more interested in the fight over right or wrong than they are in actual solutions to the problem?
We are getting nowhere due to a media that is hell-bent on making problems and keeping the temperature high.
The roots of violence are not even addressed, and the ideology is hey look at this crime it's race-related, but ignore the children that are being killed due to drive-bys.
Many get mad at me for not jumping in and screaming --- ANOTHER WHITE SUPREMACISTS killed black people!
Time for more to say - Hey we have out-of-control crime and murders in our large cities every week! In my opinion, one killing does not win out over another.
Last year - Total police killed in Line of Duty Deaths: 617 2021
2022 -- Total Line of Duty Deaths: 105
Chicago reached at least 800 homicides in 2021, a level not seen in 25 years
Major Crimes Up 38% in NYC So Far This Year, NYPD Says
780 killed in homicides in LA 2021
I could go on and on
WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?
You have posted misinformation
I have read all the lengthy articles CNN has posted thus far. I see no mention of the word "white supremacists".and it has been reported the assailant used a rifle, not an adult weapon.
Do you feel it prudent to make such an allegation, when no one in law enforcement has ?
And as long as people spread misinformation, we will never know who or what words we can trust.
Hate is easy to cultivate with misinformation. I think we could wait and see what the FBI and Homeland Security report in regard to if this man identified as a white supremacist.Then you clearly missed something and should become more informed. Here, let me help. (BTW, the FBI uncharacteristically already came out and suggested this was a hate crime)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mass-shoot … permarket/
https://nypost.com/2022/05/14/buffalo-s … manifesto/Please note the date and time of the article you posted. In that given article there was no mention of the word "white supremacists". My comment was posted in regard to that article. I did not miss anything, your post was posted within minutes of the report. You were jumping the gun in my view.
I see that as of late last night and this morning the man is being accused of being a white supremacist, and he referred to himself as such.
I see this morning reputable sources are using the term, and that the DOJ is looking at this crime as a hate crime.
Last night my point was that CNN jumped out front within 19 minutes and reported the crime listing the are of the shooter and the victims.
I found them too quick to point to race as the motive. AS it turns out it appears, and I do use the term appears to be racially motivated due to the racially charged social media accounts this man posted.
The DOJ is investigating the crime, and I am sure will offer a report on this crime.I Had my hypothesis in 10 minutes, the standards and circumstances that I already knew were involved in this case made it more than a just possibility that a virulent rightwinger was to blame for this crime.
I just waited for the preponderance of media outlets to confirm what I had already suspected
Seems that you are more concerned about the messenger over the message?Yes, I put two and two together quickly too.
I too wanted to wait to see a bit more reporting before using words like white supremacist, and what form of a gun was used.
My initial post was to ECO 20 minutes after the shootings occurred.
Yes, 20 minutes in I was concerned over the messenger. You certainly as you said did not jump the gun. I really object to so quickly condemning anyone before we learn some facts.
The media is very good about spreading misinformation, and 20 minutes in...
This morning I have gleaned more information. It is being labeled a hate crime by a self-proclaimed white supremacist.
My feelings are with many Americans - I am upset and horrified once again we have such a racially motivated crime.I already knew yesterday evening because the reporting I listened to going to and from Taco Bell last night covered all of the things Sharlee now admits are true but slammed me when I reported it on this thread.
1. there was a manifesto
2. he said he was a white supremacist
3. the FBI and other law enforcement was already surmising this was a hate crime
4. that the weapon was an assault weapon (new was that he scratched the N-word on the rifle)Could you offer a quote from the article you posted 19 minutes after the shooting that named the shooter to quote your comment --- White supremacist, and that he used an "automatic rifle"?
I was just pointing out misinformation. I did not slam you I pointed out at that point you posted misinformation.As I said, I LISTENED to CNN reporting on it, so no, I can't give you a quote. They also didn't release his name at the time, which is why I didn't report that either.
None of what I put out was "misinformation". As you have since admitted, it was correct information.
Saying untruthfully that I put out misinformation IS slamming me, don't you think.
After hearing on TV that he used a "rifle" I went looking. Reading through an even dozen reports, not a single one mentioned your fake "assault rifle". Not even your link did; for all it had to say it could have been a squirt gun filled with nerve gas.
I did get a giggle out of the "military style execution" from the governor, though. I was unaware the military carried out executions at grocery stores, let alone that there is a specific style for such a thing.
Are you just making up the assault rifle in order to scare people or were there other reports that actually DID report on what gun was used?
Nor was I able to find anything saying 10 blacks were killed, with 3 more wounded. The closest thing I found was 13 victims, 10 dead, 11 were black, two were white. Did you make that one up, too, or did you find other information than your link?"Nor was I able to find anything saying 10 blacks were killed, with 3 more wounded. The closest thing I found was 13 victims, 10 dead, 11 were black, two were white. Did you make that one up, too, or did you find other information than your link?"
You will find this within 19 minutes after the shooting these ambulance chasers had to make it racial. I have no idea if that is true. But CNN race baits, such a vile rag.Boy, are you naïve.
BTW, you seem to hate any news outlet that reports truths you don't like.
Like I suggested to Sharlee, you need to read more than right-wing propaganda.
Here is picture for you. It was easy to find.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 79200.htmlPerhaps you should simply learn to read instead of making things up. There is absolutely no mention of an assault rifle in this link, either. Apparently you just made it up, just as the news crew did when they said it was racial.
While both are likely true, that is not a reason to claim they are until facts are known. Facts, not assumptions that fit your personal bias.
This time, though, the link does make a lie out of your statement that 10 blacks were killed and 3 more wounded. Of the 13 victims, only 11 were blacks."Stephen Belongia, special agent in charge of the FBI's Buffalo Field Office, said the case is being considered a hate crime and a case of racially motivated violent extremism."
I dunno, Wilderness, seems more like fact than bias to me, spin is not going to make it for you this time.
------
"This time, though, the link does make a lie out of your statement that 10 blacks were killed and 3 more wounded. Of the 13 victims, only 11 were blacks"
Out of 13 victims ONLY 11 were blacks, 10 of those were killed an another wounded. So, what is your point? 6 and half a dozen are the same.
This story is just as it presented, why are you questioning authorities in this matter?Cred, we both were not in any respect disputing what kind of crime this was, it certainly appeared almost immediately to be a hate crime. We were pointing out that ECO did not have his facts straight. The article, he posted there was written 19 minutes after the crime was committed. The article was misquoted by ECO, he misquoted what kind of gun was used, and he made the claim the shooter was a white supremacist.
I was just saying to ECO "cool your jets".
After all, this is how misinformation spreads. In this case, it works out the man appears to have referred to himself as a WS, and his social media makes it clear he is. But we did not know this 19 minutes after the shooting.True, the guy confessed being a white supremacist but from his MO and approach, I did not really need to wait for him to say so to know that that was what he was.
That article was posted this morning. They took time to at least do some leg work. Most news outlets have taken the time to put together what facts are known so far. And the DOJ is investigating the crime as a hate crime. They put out a statement this morning.
In my view, CNN got the jump on dishing up a hate crime, with little information 20 minutes after the crime was committed. And people wonder why we have so much hate and division.
"Glad Im a not them"
Hold up -- the article you posted was posted this morning... So back up... We both were commenting on your comment that was made within minutes of the shooting.
Again making a merger attempt to insult another user. Do you ever stop?
The answer is not politics and whether or not Republicans are more racist than others. it is a more deep-rooted problem that the white man has not accepted the black as an equal though slavery was abolished 150 years back. America somehow has not gotten out of its iconoclast ideas of race and color. You may make any number of laws but unless the concepts and ideas change racism in all its forms will continue in America. In that respect, America is not the land of milk and Honey.
You say that is if all other nations have. News Flash, they haven't.
In America, it happens to be white racism against, well most anybody not white.
In Iraq, it is Shi'as against anybody one Shi'a.
In India, it is the highest class against everybody else.
In Africa, it is the predominate black subgroup against other minority black subgroups.
In Arab countries, it is Arab's against Jews.
In Israel, it is Jews against Muslims.
America has never been the land of milk and honey, far from it. (oops, I live in Florida and may have just broken a critical race theory law) What sets us apart from many other nations, however, is we strive to be.
To the liberals, including the ones that created America, the ideal of "all men (update that to people) are equal" and have a right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness is something we want to achieve.
We have gotten along way toward that goal in spite of conservatives trying to reverse course like they are today.Well damn. ★ ★ ★ ★ (or 41/2 if I knew how to do a half-star)
It could have been 5 stars without the unnecessary and distracting "conservative" jab at the very end.
GAThis is a true statement, but I should not expect less from America, vaunting itself as the world's greatest democracy. Sort of hard to criticize others over human rights violations, a sty, while you have a rafter in your own eye. But, I give America that much credit for attempting to resolve a problem that stubbornly seems beyond solution. The forces of the Right only desires to take this progress back and as such, they must be brought to heel.
It never can be eradicated completely, I just want those incredulous people to recognize what you explain here as the source and who it is that Is making it difficult for us all to get along.
The Buffalo massacre Is part of a rising tide of white supremacy. In this case the shooter was operating under the theory "The great replacement" and it is shamelessly stoked by Tucker Carlson at Fox News as well as a growing number of Republicans.
The one thing that stands out to me is there was an armed security guard. Yes, he was valiant and condolences to his family. But, where is our society if there is a perceived need for an armed security guard at a grocery store. Why? Sad . . .
Such a good point. I would think it could be due to people stealing or the possibility of robbery. yes, very sad, and very much overlooked by our society.
Can we overlook some crimes, but become drawn into a crime of race?
Race crimes are certainly not something we deal with daily, but we deal with an increase in all crimes in the US at this point. And we seem to care little. The stats last year in regard to crime and murders are staggering.
Yet, are we up in arms? No, we just hire more security guards."Race crimes are certainly not something we deal with daily" - Really? I suspect there are many Blacks, Asians, Jews, Native Americans who will disagree with you.
Any non-triggered non-apologist conservative:
We definitely have a problem with emboldened fringe elements in our side. It doesnt help that we give a platform to bigots and racist under the excuse of free speech without consequences. We should denounce them more often. Nothing should excuse this hate crime. We as conservatives have some soul searching to do to understand what is happening and how can we help.
Why some people get so defensive when a white supremacist commits a crime and is denounced? I wonder.
I guess if it quacks like a duck...The 'quack' analogy? You know better.
I recognize the writing of your blurb, it must have been written by one of my alumni. If they return for the post-grad course they will qualify for the Big "C" promotion to [C]conservative.
GA
The shooter's manifesto includes dozens of pages of antisemitic and racist memes, repeatedly citing the racist “great replacement” conspiracy theory frequently pushed by white supremacists and quite often by Media star Tucker Carlson.
The effects of the great replacement theory have already been felt, with a long list of lives lost to the hateful fiction.
On an uncomfortably regular basis, the host of the most-watched cable news show on television comfortably recites its tenets. Is this just setting the stage for the next act in a seemingly neverending play of violence?
https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-car … ationalistAnother day and another mass shooting. This time in a church on Orange County, CA. Not a whole lot is known at the moment.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2022/05/1 … ng-vpx.cnnThis is a strange one. It actually classifies as a terrorist act because it seems the attack was of a political nature - and not Red vs Blue either.
The working theory right now is the killer, an old Chinese American with American citizenship, was pissed off at Taiwan for standing up to mainland China. Not sure why he picked on the gathering of equally old Taiwanese people, but he did.
Like the kid in Buffalo, his attack was preplanned and well thought out. I guess one contingency he didn't account for was the people he was attacking would fight back and actually hog tie him with an extension cord.One thing caught my eye on the reports of this (not the action itself) - it is again being touted as a racist crime. Not sure when Taiwanese became a race, but apparently it has.
A mass shooting last Wednesday in Orange County as well. A semi-automatic handgun was used and the assailant and victims were apparently acquainted with one another.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/us/orang … index.htmlThis conspiracy theory, the so-called "Replacement Theory" which is promoted by Fake Fox News is one of the main ingredients behind the rise in Right-Wing violence and Republican laws banning the teaching of certain parts of American history.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/16/politics … index.htmlIntolerance is the root of America's problem and may well contribute to its undoing.
With this I fully agree. We are probably the most mixed nation on earth - racially, ideologically, culturally, in almost every way we are an extremely mixed group.
If we do not learn to live together in peace and harmony, accepting differences and compromise, we will surely go down in flames. Quite likely literally.Yes, as I pointed out with our rising crime, and murder rate. We only look when we want to... The majority of the crime problems we ignore as insignificant. Intolerant views prevail. And yes, many look past racist crimes that are done out of pure hate.
Maybe, we need to dig deeper into why that hate is relevant in our society and start there.
Until we do, we will have people that are racist enough to kill. These crimes are not new, why have we made no progress in stopping such crimes?Probably because we make little to no effort to find the roots of the violence, instead spending the time trying to disarm the people of America.
So agree. We are a county that handles problems with bandaids. Get rid of all guns, and we will have no crime. This is some mentality. Guess they never heard of knives, bats, vehicles., and more.
"Get rid of all guns, and we will have no crime." - [i]You do know that is a creation of the Right, don't you? It is basically a lie to support a false scenario. Very few Americans, politicians included, want to disarm other Americans. They just want to make sure weapons do not fall into irresponsible hands. You, it seems, and the NRA leadership (not its members) want anybody who wants one to have a gun.
You know that is the truth yet you keep spreading the lie that "Get rid of all guns, and we will have no crime.". Why is that?" You, it seems, and the NRA leadership (not its members) want anybody who wants one to have a gun." "again causing me of spreading a lie."
IT is my opinion that if one truely wants to kill they can choose another weapon. You may not like my opinion, but how dare you call it a lie.
This kind of statement shocks me. It is so far over the line, and to be honest, reflects a true lack of social skills. One can disagree just by saying "I disagree". You should realize we all have different opinions, I shared mine. If you don't like it, that's your problem. I will step away, you don't want to discuss you want to insult. I find this so distasteful.
I fully support the second amendment.So, are you asserting that your statement ""Get rid of all guns, and we will have no crime." -" is the Truth? It isn't, it is lie, onw your side makes all of time about my side.
You deflected. What does "IT is my opinion that if one truly wants to kill they can choose another weapon...." have to do with "Get rid of all guns, and we will have no crime"??? I wasn't talking about using other weapons, was I?
I am sorry, but when someone tells an untruth (whether as a opinion or a statement of fact as yours was, I am obligated not to stay silent about it. So, if it is a lie, then I will call it such. You don't get a pass.
I fully support the second amendment, as written, and even with what that activist Justice Scalia appended to it.
And besides, even your deflection isn't necessarily true. The same claim is made about people who kill themselves with guns. "If they didn't have a gun, they would use something else.". Well, the data CLEARLY shows that is not true either. While a FEW will find other means, MOST will not. That is why stronger gun laws WILL reduce suicides.The problem is that assualt rifles are very efficient killing machines, as one person, I can't kill 10 people in a matter of seconds by throwing knives and skillets at them.
The idea that people would just kill with other implements is a specious argument that conservatives use and detracts from the true nature of modern firearms and their capacity to kill many quickly and efficiently. The danger of proliferation of such tools of death, cannot be overemphasized."I can't kill 10 people in a matter of seconds by throwing knives and skillets at them."
You cannot, even given your ridiculous choice of weapons for a mass murder.
But you can with a car or truck. You can with a bomb. You can with poison, you can with fire, you can biological weapons. When Australia took away those awful semi-automatic rifles mass murderers there turned to other weapons, primary among them matches. And the death toll kept right on climbing without ever slowing down.Alright Wilderness, let's assume that you are an 18 year old kid that is planing mayhem in an area 200 miles from where you live, in a peaceful Anglo domicile.
So if you begin with a car or truck, perhaps you would want to run the car into the storefront? No guarantee that you would get 10 or more fatalities from this, have you got enough clearance to get the car or truck going fast enough?
How do you kill 10 people that you target with poison in a matter of minutes? Have to have a little knowledge of toxicology and lethal doses and such, and the victims are not simply going to volunteer to take the potion.
I don't know many adults, beyond experts, that know how to manage biological sort or weapons, let alone an 18 year old.
You could toss in a "pineapple" but I understand that that they are military ordinance and not publically available.
You could throw Molotov cocktails, but where is the assurance of fatalities?
My point is that there are always alternate ways to kill, but what is easier, requiring less preparation, less technical knowledge aside the ability to load and pull a trigger than a firearm when it comes to the art of killing? Such that a stupid 18 year old kid can easily have a devastating effect, single handed, of a small army at a community super market?18 is too young to own a weapon. Hell, 21 is too young. I think the age ought to be set at 25 or 26. That is when the brain finally stops growing (in males, I think the age for females is more like 22) and is able to think more rationally.
In any case, 21 should be the minimum age to own a weapon (and to drink)18 is too young to own a gun, except when the government puts one in your hand and says go kill someone, right?
GA"In any case, 21 should be the minimum age to own a weapon (and to drink)"
-------
I may have to part ways with you on this one, Eso.
I have always had problems with the Second class citizenship for those between 18-21. Either you are a minor in the eyes of the law or an adult. In my time, I was at the vanguard of the struggle. Well, until I became 21.
We need to define that at 18 or 21, but we need to be uniform and consistent. There are a lot of people too immature for a lot of things, adults included. Since we entrust the 18 year old with military defense and the ballot, it would not be fair to deny him or her rights, privileges and obligations in other areas.As I mentioned to GA, we entrust the 18 year old with military defense AFTER he has received training and discipline and is following orders from more mature adults. That is a world of difference from an immature 18 year old male running into a store to buy a gun and do who knows what with it..
For example, the right to drink at an early age is demonstrably a bad idea - for the drinker and those around him or her. As a rule, getting drunk does much more physical damage to an 18-year old than it does to a 21 year old. Even less damage is done to a 27-year old male when the brain is fully mature.
I think the military argument is a false one.
The ballot makes more sense to me because you can't kill someone with a vote because you were too hot-headed and immature. Besides, 18-year olds just finished school and theoretically at least, should be more knowledgeable about who to vote for.
I don't think it is an "all or nothing" affair when rights are involved, especially rights that can lead to harm of other people. Getting a right should be based on the ability to exercise that right in a mature manner.
I have never forgotten sitting in the school parking lot to pick up my grandchildren after Sandy Hook. And realizing just how easy it would be, with the yard and sidewalk full of children just yards from the parking lot, to run a car or truck through them.
So don't make up foolish scenarios for weapons, scenarios that you know won't work, while leaving out those that will. Poison a water supply, for instance. Toss a few gallons of Chlorine gas into a classroom and block the door from the outside. Talk to Timothy McVeigh about "pineapples" and how to get around the problem with fertilizer and diesel fuel.
The point is that guns are not the only weapon, and not the most effective at killing large numbers of people. Heck, there are more murders with clubs than the dreaded "assault rifle"! Give murderers a reason (take away their gun) and they will find another way.I have never forgotten sitting in the school parking lot to pick up my grandchildren after Sandy Hook. And realizing just how easy it would be, with the yard and sidewalk full of children just yards from the parking lot, to run a car or truck through them.
"So don't make up foolish scenarios for weapons, scenarios that you know won't work, while leaving out those that will. Poison a water supply, for instance. Toss a few gallons of Chlorine gas into a classroom and block the door from the outside. Talk to Timothy McVeigh about "pineapples" and how to get around the problem with fertilizer and diesel fuel."
--------
But, none of "your scenarios" work either. We are talking about immediate, on the spot, Wilderness. Killings like the Buffalo or Root killings need not be so involved. The more difficult you make something to accomplish, the less likely it is to occur. No one or very few has the either the time or intricacy to mess with stuff you are talking about.
Who has the time to handle to handle gallons of toxic chlorine? Locking kids in classroom, all while authorities look the other way?
The St. Valentine's Day massacre was not done with fertilizer, fuel oil or chlorine. It was done in the surest and quickest method available, the tommy gun.
The other scenarios you mention takes time and planning, and present risk variables of discovery just based on cumbersome approaches when there is a better way. How much of that is necessary to just go in and start shooting?That is why guns are the weapon of choice for those wishing to do harm to themselves or others.
No, the point is that a gun makes it WAY too easuy to kill. While your other methods, as far fetched as some of them are, can kill, it is much less certain and a lot less frequent than with using a gun.
How many times a year are chorine gas filled canisters tossed into a school room. Compare that to how many times in a year some with a gun mows down lots of people. Which one would you focus your energy on? Gas canisters or guns.
I go with guns.I know you go with guns. I know you are not alone. And you and I both know it won't stop the carnage.
Personally I go with figuring out why the American psyche is so violent, and attacking that "why" rather than wasting my time attacking the Constitution or any other inanimate object. They are not the problem.I just don't understand why some people won't lift a finger to do things that will reduce the carnage. It seems inhuman to me.
"Personally I go with figuring out why the American psyche is so violent," - But let the carnage continue unabated while you try to figure that out.
"I know you go with guns. I know you are not alone. And you and I both know it won't stop the carnage." - I guess that is the difference between you and me. If you can't stop 100% of it, then the way forward is to stop none of it. Me, on the other hand, would like to stop some of it."I just don't understand why some people won't lift a finger to do things that will reduce the carnage. It seems inhuman to me."
I agree. It is almost inhuman. But we continue to glorify violence in far too many aspects of our lives and no one seems to care. Or think that it might, just maybe, go beyond the MMA ring, the movie screen, the hockey rink or even the video game.
You know, there are dozens of ways we can save lives in this country...and we do none of them because the cost (financial, moral, political or otherwise) is unacceptable for the return. Just a few:
Reduce speed limits to 25mph and limit cars to that speed mechanically and electrically.
Put a trillion or so dollars into self driving cars and prohibit those that don't have the tech.
Put breathalyzers in every car; it won't start for a drunk.
Outlaw opioids of any kind, prescriptions included
Outlaw smoking
Execute anyone caught selling illegal drugs
Shut down riots as they happen, with deadly force as needed. It will cost lives in the short term, save many more in the long term.
Get rid of the gangs, again using deadly force as necessary.
Disarming the country, violating the constitution as we do so, isn't worth the lives saved. We've paid in blood for our rights and you will NOT take them away on a wild goose chase hoping to save a handful of lives per year.
(Have you ever looked at the results of Australia's gun confiscation? Homicide rates went down in the years after they took away all the semi-automatic guns in the country...at the same slow pace they had been declining for years. It was only after nearly a decade (and more work on the violence front) that their homicide rate decrease showed any change, even though the program took place in just one year. No result, then, after grabbing all those guns. Nor did it change their homicide rate for mass murders; there were actually a few more people killed in massacres <the Aussie term for mass murders> after their Great Gun Grab. The killers merely exchanged their guns for other things. Notably matches, but poison as another big one.)Since "Disarming the country, violating the constitution " isn't even on the table, why do you insist on disseminating this falsehood. In my eyes, it diminishes you. You appear to be a smart and thoughtful guy and then you publish that line of BS.
Also, when President Biden got the assault weapon ban passed decades ago, there was a significant decline in deaths from that source as well as being the beginning of the reduction in violent crime over all - until Trump came along.
Whatever there was to go wrong and awry, Trump was behind it.
Trump set America back 150 years in race relations. His acceptance and blind neglect of the threat that white supremacists pose had a lot to do with the radicalization of the kid who mowed down so many innocent black lives in Buffalo.
AS always do not follow the thread and jump in with some form of off-the-wall accusation. Here is the comment that gives context to what wilderness and I discussed.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/354 … n-america?
page=11#post4244218
WILDERNESS WROTE:
Probably because we make little to no effort to find the roots of the violence, instead spending the time trying to disarm the people of America.
Sharlee Response -- So agree. We are a county that handles problems with bandaids. Get rid of all guns, and we will have no crime. This is some mentality. Guess they never heard of knives, bats, vehicles., and more.
The rest of your comment makes no sense in any respect to the conversation wilderness and I were having.
""Get rid of all guns, and we will have no crime."
Now why would you say that? No one has ever made the claim that the left thinks that way, OR that it is true.
They HAVE said that the left believes that "if we get the guns the body count will fall drastically" - something both your research, mine and that of other honest researchers give the lie to.Sharlee said """Get rid of all guns, and we will have no crime."" - Take it up with her. That is also a standard theme from almost all right-wing fanatics.
"something both your research, mine and that of other honest researchers give the lie to." - [i]No, my research DOES NOT show that. It clearly shows that the preponderance of the evidence makes it more likely than not that the body count will fall significantly with a total ban on guns, especially when suicides are included. Add suicides in, then we pass the "beyond a reasonable doubt threshold". I am sorry you didn't understand what my analysis presented.
"Probably because we make little to no effort to find the roots of the violence, instead spending the time trying to disarm the people of America."
Is there an answer? America has always been a violent society, a certain amount of violence was necessary to steal vast amounts of territory and labor.
The American economic system plays are role, like the Oklahoma land rush, everyman for himself and take it before someone else does.You are chasing the wind. The "Wild West"mentality has never been grown out of , as it has been in Europe. You just as well ask why the sun rises to east and sets to the west. While we know the answer to that, finding a root solution to that question is just as futile.That was such good timing that it must be fate telling me to do it. I had this ready for another reply and then decided not, but it's still on my 'clipboard', so . . .
"I would say we already know the root of the problem, but it's too hard to tackle, so instead, we try to cure the symptoms and ignore reality. The gun issue you mentioned is a good example.
(It's changing human nature, in this case, it's a 'disease' of two of our most primal 'isms': tribalism and 'otherism')'
Tagged to your comment I would add that your whole thought relative to mentalities; American Wild West vs. a Europe that never had one, (like ours), to grow out of.
The easiest place to start would be the age of nations. Also, consider how those nations were founded, compared to our founding. That is probably the best comparison because it is supported by history, and when you tie in the time both nations have been at it a trend can be seen.
But you're right about comparing it to the sun rising. It's all about time.
GAAn oversight on my part, true, Europe did not have a "Wild West". Maybe a better comparison would be either the Canadians or Australians. Can we say that either of their societies approach ours in the levels of violence currently? Both dealt with a frontier, influx of Europeans and displacement of natives.
Those seem to be closer comparisons but might still follow the European example. For instance, and just to be the contrarian, (and I haven't asked my friend Google), I have the perception that Canada was formed from French and British roots and is primarily a mix of those two cultures. Also, Canada's founding was not the same 'fought and bled for' settling of new territory. I guess I should know more but I don't think there are many similarities. I will have to think about the Australian comparison.
GAWhy did we have to "fight and bleed" and the Canadians did not, as we are on the same continent?
America has British and German roots, why are we so different from Canadians with French and British roots?
Just a question or two to ponder...I think I have enough answers for my perceptions, although more pondering could always help. I was only speaking generally and from perception, not from arguable fact. Besides, we would be sidetracking the topic. ;-)
Just for kicks, check out Canada's Wikipedia page. I was worried by your response so I peeked before replying. The agreement of the four provinces to form a federation is the thought behind that quote.
GAI don't know the answer, so I'll ask it. We also have strong Chinese roots, strong African roots, strong Hispanic roots, strong roots from other countries now part of the UK. We also have very large numbers of (real) immigrants from all over the world.
Does Canada have such a wide variety, or is the large majority from just the two countries?
"Europe did not have a "Wild West"
One of the things that impressed me most when we visited Scotland was the glorification of war. Scotland was at war for a thousand years or more - if they weren't fighting the Vikings it was the Romans. If not Romans then England or Ireland. If not them then they fought themselves.
Scotland is a place that was founded and grew out of violence of the worst sort. The big difference is that they have had half a thousand years to grow out of it, while we've had a hundred.
If finding a solution is futile then we are condemned to remain a violent land, for taking the preferred weapon will accomplish nothing.
On the other hand, honest politicians may come along one day that insist we take a hard look at the problem and find answers...answers that might work instead of simply shifting the blame from on inanimate object to another.You know as I do, that is not true. It is provable that in nations that ban or strictly limit them have a much lower violent death rate than America does. They DON'T find other ways to kill people, they just stop killing.
Now, I am NOT one of the very few proponents of disarming America, I support the 2nd Amendment as written and with the Scalia addendum.
BUT, I am a proponent of making the vetting of who can own a weapon more thorough so as to keep more guns out of irresponsible hands. The ironic thing is that most of the NRA members agree with that idea. It is the leadership who wants everybody and their brother to own several AR-15s.Well, Wilderness, that may well be the case. As for honest politicians, that is a contradiction in terms, I would not hold my breath waiting.
We have politicians fanning the flames. They are, along with certain media digging these theories out of the darkest corners of the internet and bringing them to light. How many will the latest conspiracy theory radicalize?
The fact that so many ridiculous conspiracy theories are seriously considered by so many is in my opinion comes from intolerance as its base and fear of "the other". As such to the point where people no longer think rationally. As long as I have been around I have never seen stuff like this. The politicians are led by this mob rather then they setting the example by what they advocate and support.
Fortunately, unlike the previous generations, the Millennials and even more so, the Gen Zers are proving to be much more tolerant than your or my generation.
It may be racists are now dying faster than they can be replaced.I would like to think so, Esoteric, it is just that these massacres seem to be committed by young white males.
Has this new generation really learned anything from the past, or are they just that more vulnerable to manipulation by sinister forces?That would be interesting to look at. Obviously, the Buffalo one was young, as was the Florida school shooting. So was Root, in South Carolina.
But the guy in Las Vegas wasn't nor was, I think, the guy at the El Paso Walmart.
I will have to go look.They are more vulnerable, partly because that manipulation has become much more sophisticated. Partly because they can now always find kindred souls online. Partly because media presents violence to us every day.
There are many reasons for violence.Are people really that dumb? Where do people so young learn such behavior and attitudes, it has to come from somewhere? Someone or something bigger than them are feeding it to them and larger society is basically indifferent to the message. Who is that someone, parents, media?
Here's a thought: Yes, we are all born that dumb, but our 'upbringing' and lived experience make most of us less dumb as we go along. I say the young learn it because everyone wants to belong to something. It's another of those basic human traits that living usually tempers with reason, but Google has short-circuited that 'tempering' period.
For weak folks, search engine is an apt term. For the weakest or most deranged or most evil, it is an engine that can hook them up with kindred souls in .43 sec.
So you see, it's all Google's fault.
GAThanks for reminding me, I guess most of us would be dumb at 18. I certainly wasn't the brightest star in the heavens. That, without all the technology that is prevalent today. I just hoped that they would better and stronger.
I don't think most of us were as "dumb", (weak, lacking self-esteem), as this 18-year-old shooter. But the point is right.
I'm still an optimist. I think technology has made most of the generation we are talking about smarter and more self-confident. I bet for every fringe nut like this guy who makes the news, a hundred thousand weren't like him and didn't make the news. Technology also gives the 'weak' the same benefits
The missing part of those improvements is the 'upbringing' part. For these folks, the amplified megaphone and instant connection switchboard of the internet have left the upbring part in the dust.
GA
We can hope so. I do believe it to be true.
Gunman Payton S. Gendron of Conklin, New York, posted that he selected a particular ZIP code in Buffalo because it had the highest percentage of a Black population close enough to where he lived.
In his posts, initially written on the chat app Discord and shared on online forum 4chan, the suspect said he visited the Tops Friendly Markets three times on March 8 to survey the layout, as well as at the times of the day when there were the most customers. He planned his attack for mid-March, the posts say, but delayed it several times.
Gendron was at the Tops Friendly Market on Friday, the day before the shooting, "doing reconnaissance," Buffalo Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia said.
An operations manager at the market told ABC News that she saw him at the store on Friday evening and told him to leave because it looked like he was bothering customers. Gendron, sitting on a bench outside the store wearing the camouflage he would wear Saturday, left without an argument, Shonnell Harris Teague told ABC. Teague's brother, the Rev. Tim Newkirk, told The Buffalo News that Gendron was "posing as a beggar," and Teague told him he couldn't panhandle there.
The suspect had other "target locations" down the street, Erie County Sheriff John Garcia said. Authorities found another rifle and a shotgun in his vehicle, said Garcia
A year ago, the suspect landed on the radar of police as a student at Susquehanna Valley High School, officials said. Gendron had turned in a high school project about murder-suicides, leading to a state police investigation, said Garcia, the sheriff.
The Susquehanna Valley Central School District referred to it on Monday as an "ominous" reference to murder-suicide through a virtual learning platform in June.
Gendron wrote about the investigation in a January post on Discord. He wrote it ended when he told investigators his writings were just a stupid thing he'd done.
"Another bad experience was when I had to go to a hospital's ER because I said the (words) "murder/suicide" to an online paper in economics class," the post reads. He claimed he "got out of it because I stuck with the story that I was getting out of class and I just stupidly wrote that down."
"That is the reason I believe I am still able to purchase guns. It was not a joke, I wrote that down because that's what I was planning to do," the post reads.
Just an angry teen.
We were talking about racism is not just an American problem. As an example I used India's Hindu - Muslim divide. Here is an opinion piece on that subject.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/19/opinions … index.htmlI can see that in India the problem is even worse than it is here, and I always believed that America was among the worse. But are we reverting toward a society with the intolerance levels of today's India? I have to wonder.
Me to. The more that MAGA insinuates itself into our society, the more like Russia and India we will become
I wasn't sure which forum to put this in, but since the black population is over represented in our prisons, I thought this one would do.
The Conservatives on the Supreme Court made justice even harder to obtain in America. It is well documented that many, many innocent people are wrongly convicted - just look at the huge success rate of the various "innocence" projects.
Well, apparently these Conservatives don't like convicted people getting off, even when they are innocent. But, I guess that is typical of the conservative mind-set.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/23/politics … index.htmlI can follow, understand and sympathize with both sides of the court on this one. There are inmates that had insufficient representation.
But that does not mean that they should have 50 years of court trials, and unending court case, to put off their sentence. It doesn't mean that if evidence comes to light that it was automatically the fault of representation to not find it years before.
Perhaps a better answer is to quit giving the accused a brand new lawyer because it's cheaper for the state. Instead, ensure that an experienced, quality attorney is provided. Recall the furor over Clinton getting someone off? She did her job, did it well, and we should all recognize that attorneys that represent the accused are there because we guarantee adequate representation and expect them to do their best to get off rather than burning an attorney that wins a case for someone we don't like at the stake."But that does not mean that they should have 50 years of court trials," - Isn't a lot of that due to how inefficient the justice system is and how resentful prosecutors and judges are at being proven wrong.
Also, I don't quite know what you mean by "put off their sentences". These men have already been sentence and incarcerated. Also, I haven't heard of very many accused being able to stay out of jail for 50 years.
"It doesn't mean that if evidence comes to light that it was automatically the fault of representation to not find it years before." - [i]Is anybody saying it this is the case? But, often people do get bad representation and it shouldn't be impossible, like these conservative Justices are making it.
"Perhaps a better answer is to quit giving the accused a brand new lawyer because it's cheaper for the state. " - Totally agree. Also, the gov't needs to provide sufficient funding to hire enough defense councils to handle the load.
Was she part of a state paid public defender's office?"Also, I don't quite know what you mean by "put off their sentences".
Sorry - I was referring to any death sentences. I'm well aware that there are only a minute handful of those compared to the numbers of other sentences.
At this point, I don't think Clinton was part of the defenders office, though I could easily be wrong. I think she was just an attorney the court appointed to defend; I believe some states do that, picking from attorneys in private practice. Again, could easily be wrong.
Either way, though, she did her job and did it well; it was wrong to degrade her for doing that just because her client was unsavory (and probably guilty to boot - she got him off on a technicality).
Another legacy of conservatism in America.
And lynchings were not only bloodthirsty events, they were also jarringly festive. White parents routinely brought their children to spectacle lynchings of Black men and women as family entertainment.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/29/opinions … index.html
During Juneteenth, White Conservatives used machine guns and a biplane to mow down innocent blacks in Tulsa, OK. This will also be part of my book.All of that has been documented and was horrific having occur just over 100 years ago. And Tulsa's current municipal managers have been reluctant to speak of reparations as it was so long ago and there are only a handful of people who were alive in 1921, still living. What about the effect upon their immediate descendants, how much did that savagery cost them?
When you look at the graphic nature of the spectacles and photographs of same during the period, it is no wonder that today's conservative whites recoil in horror and cry "CRT" in defense. But nothing can change the fact that these crimes were actually committed by their collective forebears.How about this. Put black-face on DeSantis and time-travel him back to 5:08 AM in the Greenwood District on June 1, 1921 and see if he will still insult Americans with his opposition to CRT.
I am reading a great article in the Smithsonian on the massacre. Also, I run the Twitter account for our county DEC, so I just started posting excerpts from the article until the day of remembrance.
"But nothing can change the fact that these crimes were actually committed by their collective forebears." - ]i]who have many descendants today with the same mind set. A lot of them are called Trump voters. And that's the truth.[/i]I find the attitudes of denial and dismissal more annoying in some sense than the actual crimes committed.
It is hardly a flash in the pan. Fox's top rated mouthpiece, Tucker Carson, has been adding fuel to this fire. And I have to wonder, if people tell me they are not on board with any of it, why does he always play to a packed house and getting top ratings.Keep in mind, some 47% of voting Americans voted for Trump. That is a sad commentary on racial attitudes of so many Americans. Why? Because to be able to vote for Trump, you have to set aside any moral code you might hold.
It would not be hard, in my opinion, for America to turn into another 1937 Germany, or Russia, or Brazil, or even Venezuela from the Conservative point of view. We are nearly there today.I won't even say that too many Americans are racist. But I will say that too many are willing to ignore or accommodate those that are out of apathy, ignorance or selfishness. In many ways, that makes them just as bad as the practitioners, themselves. The overwhelming support that Trump received in 2020 attests to that to large extent.
You may not, but I will say too many Americans are racist. The blind support for Trump by 45% is testimony to that. The way I view it is if you are not actively racist and/or find it objectionable, you won't support Trump.
What I might agree with is not too many Americans are bigots, which in my mind is racism in action.
On a slightly different angle, I agree with the pastor that everybody has some racism in him or her, I certainly know I do. But to be a good person, you first have to recognize that, determine where that exists in you, and then actively suppress the feeling.I would have doubted that Trumps support was based solely on race based issues, I would like to think that this was not the case. I disagree with you to the extent that Racism does not explain all of the Trump phenomena, all though it has to do with a large part of it.
Some people would support any Republican candidate just because they are not Democrats. Look at the partnership between the Christian Right and Trump. They embraced the dirtiest example of any man to promote their agenda, regarding this Christian nation of theirs ruled by the most immoral, amoral man on the planet. Just as I pinched my nose and cast my ballot for Joe Biden when there were other candidates that I would have preferred, to avoid supporting any Republican, particularly Donald Trump, it has to be possible for Republicans to vote for Trump as not the most desirable but only alternative available to them.
Yes, while we are all subject to human nature, the reasoning and defined portion of our psyche should be consciously brought to the forefront while the ugly instinct stuff is kept on a bridle. That comes with being adult and not "expressing" as a child does."I would have doubted that Trumps support was based solely on race based issues," - I agree, but I am taking the negative approach. To wit - virtually nobody who is sensitive to racism wouldn't vote for Trump. The universe that is left are the racists and those who aren't racist, but don't have problems with somebody who overtly is.
Now, the population I am considering are those who voted for him in 2020. Few people had a real sense of what he was in 2016.
How come you held your nose for Biden? Was he too centrist for your liking?
That is a trick I picked up in probability theory classes. The question is "in a class of 25 people, what is the probability that at least two people were born on the same month and day. You can't solve that directly, but have to work from the negative - "what is the probably nobody was born on the same month and day." Then it is easy to solve. If I remember correctly, even though there are 365 days in a year, the answer is over 50%.I agree with your assessment as to why people voted for him and the distinct categories you defined.
Yes, Biden was much too centrist for my liking as his biggest appeal for me was that he was not Donald Trump. The problems I saw with America went far beyond Trump and his policies. The fact that a Trump could rise as far as he did and attract so many was a reflection on a society taking a direction that I was not pleased with, in general.Would you vote for a Biden second term if there were a non-Trump Republican candidate?
GAFor me, I have to say I don't know of one. Save for Mitt Romney and people like Cheney, they all sold their soul to Donald Trump. That is an automatic disqualifier - mainly because they have no courage and a kowtower shouldn't be leading America.
Cheney's politics, while honest, are an anathema to how to continue to grow freedom, liberty, and the economy.
Romney's politics are not as bad as Cheney's but in many respects take America in the wrong direction.
That said, I don't want a Sanders or Warren-type and definitely not an AOC-type. Ironically, if it were an AOC vs Romney fight, I would have to do a lot of soul searching. (I suspect Credence will disagree with that last statement, lol)I wasn't asking with a desirable candidate in mind, it was an 'any candidate' question.
Neither do any names of desirable candidates, for either side, come to mind for me.
GAThat is OK, Esoteric, its a free country and we are not going to agree on everything.
I will put it this way. I will take a scalding cup of hot coffee, that I can make palatable by adding an ice cube or two, over a warm cup of pee that is well served.
That is my attitude about those on the extreme left Democrat of the political ledger relative to ANY Republican.
Yes, while pinching my nose. I can only hope that he has a few more wins between now and Nov. 2024.
I have a fundamental disparity with Republicans that go far beyond the candidates that they offer.
A very influential Evangelical pastor has come out with a book saying his sect has lost its way. It has put Trump Republicanism over people. He realizes that be doing so, his church is alienating over half of America's population and therefore are failing to deliver their message. He is taking a lot of flak over that position. It led him to say this truth in a recent interview.
"There are people who said I'm slowly trying to lead the church to be more woke. Two or three people said, Andy, in that sermon, you called me a racist. No, I just said there's probably a little racism in all of us, including myself. We should examine our hearts and in the cultural moments like what happened with George Floyd. I think you pause and say, 'How does that make me feel?' If there wasn't something heartbreaking about that, regardless of what you think, politically or pro-police or anti-police, you got some work to do."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/04/us/andy- … index.htmlI know most cops are good cops, but it is hard to find stories to show that. Black encounters with white cops are very fearful events in America and way too often turn out badly. This one did not.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/11/us/troop … index.htmlI was stopped in Gainesville, Florida years ago by a Black Policeman and was given a ticket for running a red light. I tried to explain that the dump truck in front of me stopped under the traffic light and I could not see it. When he moved--people were honking at me to move and I did. Then, I was stopped in front of the police station. I tried to explain what happened and all he would say if, "May I see your license."
He listened, but did not comment. Some White policemen came out of the police station and just watched. I asked the Black policeman if he had a card. And he gave me his card.
The ticket was for $90.00 and this ticked me off. I went to the chief of police in my hometown since I did not live in Gainesville, I only worked there.
The chief said to pay the ticket that it was cheaper to do than contest it. Well, I thought--there goes the shoes I wanted to buy.
The Black policeman was very professional and polite--I was in the wrong although it was not my fault entirely-- I was following the dump truck too close. If you have never driven in Gainesville, Florida then you cannot relate to how closely everyone drives behind the other.
Bobbi PurvisI understand your situation and I know what you mean about those tall trucks. Although it was only $90, I bet if you had gone to traffic court, you might have won, based on your circumstances.
I was in a five-car pile up on a freeway near D.C. I was the second car and ended up rear-ending the car in front of me. I was cited for being too close. The situation was hugely complex but the real culprit was a bit of road rage in front of the car I hit. I explained what happened and why I ended up close behind the other car (my lane was ending due to construction that wasn't really there) so I was forced to merge).
The judge understood and let me go.
Idaho police and the FBI helped prevent a riot by a "small army" of white supremacists (the most violent and dangerous movement in America) at a Pride parade.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/11/us/31-pe … ndex.html.And that's how you do it. You don't let them take over part of the city (like CHAZ), you don't let them riot and burn for months (like Portland). You don't allow the occupation of police stations (an "insurrection" by definition as it is part of government).
You stop it, dead in it's tracks. And you stop it whether it threatens powerful politicians or the mom and pop grocery corner grocery.But here is the difference you don't appreciate. There are normal, non-violent protests (protest which you seem to equate with riots) going on (which you just suggested ought to shut down) on the one hand and a peaceful Pride march on the other.
In the first case, you had other people (a few from the Right, btw) intent on violence that were not particularly organized taking advantage of the situation. On the other hand, you have a largish group of people, organized and cohesive INTENT, apparently, on rioting AGAINST peaceful marchers.
While not anywhere close to an excuse, the former rioters were attacking symbols of oppression and harm to the black community.
That said, had the rioters during the Summer been cohesive like the white supremacists are and were something the police could actually target, then I absolutely agree with you. But, that was not the reality - a reality you chose to ignore."While not anywhere close to an excuse, the former rioters were attacking symbols of oppression and harm to the black community."
Sure they were. That's why they burned small businesses (and large). Because they cause so much harm to the black community. That's why they took over blocks of residential neighborhood - because homes cause harm to blacks.Again - You are being Obtuse as you cherry-pick damage in a chaotic situation in order to deflect from the real truth.
And you say systemic racism doesn't exist in America, lol. A black couple applied for a loan on their house in a white neighborhood, they didn't hide the fact they were a pair of Black professors. It came back valued at $472,000.
They went to another appraiser but this time hid all indications the home was owned by a black couple. The appraisal came back at $750,000! Almost $300,000 higher. They sued.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/19/us/black … index.htmlI heard about stuff like this before, Eso. It the kind of thing people think that they can cleverly conceal.
I have to be guard on this when I plan to sell my house.
The good news is that the DeSantis anti-woke initiative has been put in mothballs by the courts.As well you should. I hope it stays that way, but the appeals court is conservative.
The current HUD Secretary talks about his experience with racism.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/202 … tn-vpx.cnnI saw the video, Eso, thanks.
Why people believe that they have to deprive others of what is fair and equatable remains beyond me.
I say sue, sue, sue, litigate, set an example by hitting the offenders in the pocketbook and I mean hard. Set an example that reminds everyone that engages in these activities, if you get caught.....
If we take this approach each and every time, somebody might begin to get the message.How about a Texas-style law that let's any individual who sees an act of racism sue the perpetrator and anyone who helped them. What is it? They can sue for $10,000 and court costs and can't be sued back if they lose?
Institutional Racism is alive and well but does suffer occasional defeats such as this one.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/us/black … index.htmlAnti-Semitism is on the rise again among white supremacists in America and it has been ever since 2017. Hopefully, it will never get this bad again.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/30/europe/m … index.htmlInstitutional Racism never stops does it. Tennessee has a racist law that despite the evidence, you can't call a crime a "hate" crime until there is a suspect. This family needs to try to bring the FBI in on the case as a civil rights violation. Given the circumstances, common sense says this is probably a hate crime.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/18/us/tenne … index.htmlThat and several interesting articles within the article, thanks....
Just from your info, if the perpetrator is of the persuasion of the hate crime attribution is it still a hate crime?
GAWho knows, it might be since it is a mixed-race couple. But given the many epitaphs that are being used against them, it is pretty obvious who did it, if it is arson (I don't know if they have ruled out an accident yet).
I think you said "if the perpetrator was black, is it still a hate crime?" Not a racial hate crime. It could be a gender hate crime or a homophobic hate crime if those were the circomstances.
What about a lefthanders hate-crime, is that as valid as a gender hate-crime?
GAOnce upon q time that used to be a thing among fundamentalist Christians. But, I haven't heard or read about them persecuting left-handers recently.
Also, did they actually "hate" left-handers or just think that was the sign of the devil and needed to be eliminated or changed?It was a sign, of course, just like the other signs you originally mentioned. Hate crime charges are simply declarations of moral indignity.
GAI'm not sure "moral indignity" really describes active bigoty that leads to the harm or death of the party to whom your "moral indignation" is directed.
It just doesn't stop, does it!! White cops injuring or killing Blacks willie-nillie. This time it was punching a Black women in the face and head hard enough to send her to the hospital. Hopefully, she brings a civil suit.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/20/us/ohio- … index.htmlTwo cops try to escort her out of a store where she is trespassing. She begins to scream and becomes violent, resisting the efforts of police to remove her. She is warned to quiet down, which she does not do. She gets hit.
Bottom line is that had she behaved herself and treated the police with the respect she demands for herself none of it would have happened. Can't say that I have a whole lot of sympathy...if that is the whole story. It usually isn't.Was you description of her actions from an independent witness or caught on video? Or are you simply taking the offenders word for it?
Bottom line there is NO excuse for repeatedly punching a women (or a man for that matter}, in the face. And why are there no reports of white women being so abused by cops (although I will admit there have been occasional reports of white women being raped by cops)? Are black women the only ones who put up a fight.
Is beating a person senseless part of their police training? I think not."Was you description of her actions from an independent witness or caught on video?"
Took it from your link. Do you take your (obvious) description of her complete cooperation from her or from video?
"And why are there no reports of white women being so abused by cops "
Really? You have to ask that? When it doesn't sell to the public, when it isn't PC to report it, when it doesn't support the liberal agenda, it doesn't get reported.
On top of that, I would guess (purely from poverty and poor neighborhoods) that the average black woman (or man) is far more likely to resist police than the average white. Partly because of poverty, partly because of poor living conditions and partly because they are being trained that the police are then enemy.
"Is beating a person senseless part of their police training? I think not." Is tasing a person senseless part of their police training? Yes. Is shooting a person dead a part of it? Yes. What makes you think that fists are not a part of it too? Simply because the liberal way is to coddle criminals and turn them loose with a wrist slap?"Took it from your link. Do you take your (obvious) description of her complete cooperation from her or from video?" - Why do you keeping making these false statements up?
Also, you didn't answer the question again. Who was it in my link that provided your description of her resistance. Was that the police's story or an independent witness??
The police beating anybody senseless is a headline. It just seems it only happens to blacks and other minorities.
"when it doesn't support the liberal agenda, it doesn't get reported." - You and I both know that is pure BS.
Do you have any facts to back up "On top of that, I would guess (purely from poverty and poor neighborhoods) that the average black woman (or man) is far more likely to resist police than the average white. " OR is that just your stereotyping coming into play? I also have another name for that type bias against blacks.
"partly because they are being trained that the police are then enemy." - If true, but the teachers are the actions of the police
"What makes you think that fists are not a part of it too? " - Didn't you leave something out such as "... fists used to smash in someone's face are not a part of it too"
It also looks like she is handcuffed in the picture. Was that before or after they beat her?
Mc Donald's is at fault for instigating with an unnecessary call to police. Once they made the woman's order correctly, and she accepted the refund, I did not see anywhere that she was unruly and had to be forced from the restaurant.
I can't see how two grown men could not subdue an unarmed woman short of bashing her in the face? It is the same stuff I see about handcuffing and manhandling eleven year old girls over a altercation at school. It is hard to say that excessive force was not used.
But there the issue of driving while her license is suspended, and the open container of alcohol in the vehicle. If she were not intoxicated, she might just have received a citation, presuming that this is a first time offense.....
I say that is a stereotype to presume that blacks on average are hostile to police. If those attitude exist they are more socio-economic rather than racial.
The verdict: the police is out of line, 2 of them unable to subdue a woman short of battery and assualt. Where is the requirement that she has to identify herself? Once she resolved her issue with McDonalds, on what basis was she compelled to have to leave the restaurant?
Talking about PC and liberal coddling is just more of the biases that put me off toward rightwing reasoning.
While this instance is not one of white police officers killing black men, it is one of way too many showing the reckless behaviour of rogue cops. Because of the volume of violence some cops show towards those they are sworn to protect, it is clear something must be done to reign in cops turning people, especially of color, into human piñatas.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/26/us/tyre- … index.htmlAll of these officers were terminated and charged quickly. I'm imagining the body cam video is absolutely heinous.
It's incomprehensible that a citizen could be beaten to death over a traffic stop with five officers involved. We need better screening/training in this country for police officers.They were part of a "special unit" called the Scorpions who were initially organized to put a stop to the reign of murders in Memphis around 2021. Those units, which required very experienced cops and supervisors when they went out, were undercover and in plainclothes.
In this case the most experienced officer was only 6 years on the job and there was no sergeant at the scene.
One of the charges against them is kidnapping which apparently indicates the initial stop is without probable cause.The video was horrendous. That was murder. We have a real police brutality problem in this country. Reform is desperately needed. The culture of policing needs to be disrupted.
Seems like some politicians would rather focus on banning books, micromanaging, vilifying teachers/ doctors and other "anti-woke' pursuits. Police reform is just another area too tough for them to tackle. Oh and they may lose votes also. We all know that's the only thing that drives them. Meanwhile the police can continue brutalizing people as they deem fit. Apparently there was not even a justified reason to make the traffic stop on Mr. Nichols.If Tennessee has a death penalty, this would be the perfect case for it. It would not be hard for me to imagine those politicians you mention (Soviet/Nazi throwbacks) will find ways to minimize or excuse those officers actions.
They would probably criticize the police chief and DA for moving too fast."Apparently there was not even a justified reason to make the traffic stop on Mr. Nichols."
That was certainly not evident on the video (that I saw, anyway). Where are you getting that information?"Memphis Police Chief Cerelyn J. Davis told CNN Thursday morning that her department has not found proof of Tyre Nichols driving recklessly — the reason police officers used to pull him over on January 7.
"We've looked at cameras, we've looked at body-worn cameras, and even if something occurred prior to the stop, we've been unable to substantiate that at this time," Davis told CNN. "We have not been able to substantiate the reckless driving."
In any event, the video clearly shows the car being stopped and the officer immediately, physically and violently pulling Mr Nichols out of the car.
https://www.businessinsider.com/tyre-ni … ays-2023-1Also, that is apparently why they are being charged with kidnapping.
That one could be interesting. If they arrested the guy, then they did not kidnap him. Might be false arrest, but not kidnapping (under laws I'm halfway familiar with, anyway).
Then they chased him down and detained him (kidnapping if they made no arrest) but then put him in an ambulance.
Could be interesting. My bet is on dropping that charge unless one of the cops has no other charge against him.Under Tennessee law, kidnapping requires that a person “knowingly removes or confines another unlawfully so as to interfere substantially with the other’s liberty.” The kidnapping charges against the officers may indicate that at least in the eyes of prosecutors, Mr. Nichols traffic stop itself had been illegal.
“For the district attorney to charge the officers with kidnapping Tyre Nichols during the arrest is such an unusual move that it’s almost astounding, but it likely reflects the fact that the officers had little to no justification to apprehend him in the first place,”
In any event there were other documented issues with this scorpion unit and senseless brutality. One of the officers was involved in a lawsuit that involve the beating of an inmate yet this officer was later hired by MPD.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/le … idnapping/I would surmise from some of my research that this form of brutality is not new, and has been ignored for a long time. Seems unimaginable but appears could be evident.
I ascertain in the next weeks we will see many citizens come forward that were brutalized by MPD officers. Lots of videos to prove the problem in the MPD are not new. This recent man was not lucky enough to live due to his beating. I think in the very near future we will become very acquainted with what was being ignored in Memphis. What a world...
https://wreg.com/news/investigations/re … is-police/I bet it doesn't stop there as there are MPD-type units all over the place in law enforcement - protected by the "Code of Silence".
Even shows like Chicago PD seem to glamorize this kind of behavior.
On the other hand, I think shows like Law and Order: Criminal Intent seem to do a credible job of presenting the fine line police have to walk to catch really bad guys.
It was effective when created - but then, as with most things like that - it morphed into something very bad.
If every traffic stop results in either a conviction or a charge of kidnapping we're going to have some problems. I was stopped a few weeks ago and detained for 20 minutes or so while a ticket was written. Later, I beat the charge in court - was I "kidnapped" during the episode?
It's things like this that make me say the charge will be dropped; it appears to be just something to fall back on in a last resort if everything else fails.The question is, did they have "probably cause" to stop you and write the ticket?
In the Memphis case, the DA says he doubts there was enough probably cause (already a very low bar) to make the stop.Sounds right. "Probable cause" sounds very subjective when it comes to reckless driving, though. And I heard, in the videos, the cops discussing how he was weaving across the road, running people off the road and almost hitting the cop. Pretty sure it was all lie, but there is certainly "probable cause".
I think the DA says the cops need to prove that is what they really saw. He is not going to take them at their word as normally happens.
In any case, for that part of the trial, the DA is going to have to try to prove the cops lied. Won't be easy.
Yeah - I caught that pulling him out as well. Hard to imagine a reason why.
But I don't get that reckless driving bit. "...even if something occurred prior to the stop, we've been unable to substantiate that at this time..." What does that mean, anyway? I get that they have not been able to prove reckless driving but what does "even if something occurred prior to the stop" mean? That they can't find a reason for yanking him out like that? Why would they look at body cams for something that happened when they were turned off? It sounds like a total case of waffling to me - trying to sound reasonable while saying nothing. Which might actually be the smart thing to do given what the cameras do seem to show.
Why does it take the public display of a violent beating death of a black man to get people to move to make sensible changes to protect the public from rouge cops and institutional racism?
Why are Republicans still fighting against needed reform at the federal level?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/07/us/memph … index.htmlMore evidence of systemic racism in America.
"Black college students have lower six-year completion rates for any type of degree or certificate program than any other racial or ethnic group because of racial discrimination, the high cost of higher education and a multitude of external responsibilities, according to a new Lumina Foundation-Gallup 2023 State of Higher Education study."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/09/us/black … index.htmlOhio police go after another black man, this time a reporter. The issue here isn't violence but the fact that the arrest happened at all.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/m … onference/In all fairness, Eso, was the reporter interrupting an address by a speaker?
If I did that, I would expected be asked to quiet down or leave the facility.No, he was at the back of the venue where Gov. DeWine was speaking and speaking in low tones. When the cops asked him to shut down his live feed, he did so immediately. Apparently, that wasn't good enough. Down on the ground he went to be handcuffed. He is charged with disturbing the peace and trespassing.
Even DeWine is highly upset over this.More to the story. The Ohio National Guard Adjutant General gets involved by pushing the reporter (allegedly because the reporter "moved toward him in a threatening manner"). They were in a heated argument.
Lambert kept insisting he had a right to be there (he had stopped reporting by now) but apparently they didn't like Lambert insisting on his rights and hauled him out of the venue and then arrested him.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/10/us/newsn … mera-videoIt was interesting to note that the Governor was unaware and would have disapproved of how the reporter was treated. So, who made this National Guard fellow a God in himself?
Who knows. I don't know if the police started and the general joined in or the other way around.
Will America ever stop being discriminatory toward others (the answer is no)? This case is about sexism and the fact that America is the only country that charges two different tariff rates for ... underwear. We charge a 35% higher rate for women's panties than we do for men's shorts. I guess I am not surprised since we still pay women less money for the same job who have the same qualifications as their male counterparts.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/13/economy/ … index.htmlHumans are still intensely tribal. It is the ingroup vs outgroup mentality. Sadly, humans will never evolve beyond tribalism.
"Sadly, humans will never evolve beyond tribalism."
Now, now. Give it a few hundred thousand years and we will likely not be nearly so tribal, or at least the tribes will be worldwide.
Or we will have killed ourselves off. Always a possibility!
Studies are now showing our latest generation "appears" to be more tolerant of others than past generations. I hope they are right.
https://www.amadorvalleytoday.org/9884/ … n-history/I do think that is true - on the whole, on the average. Americans (can't speak for other cultures) seem to be more tolerant.
At the same time that tolerance is forever being tested and stretched. It sounds like great intolerance when we here of this "stretching" that isn't well accepted, but that's because we now ignore where the tolerance is shown and given. There is also the problem of the "squeaky wheel", or the loud voice, being taken as norm when it is not.
As long as there are ingroups and out groups, no one will be able to find peace. We all must sleep with one eye open. The desire to subject others to control and domination will always cost the perpetrators as much as the objects of such control.
Most humans are at the sheeple level. This is an unfortunate state of affairs. Most humans are quite insular. Only a minute percentage of humans are evolved & universal in scope. The average human mentality is me, mine, & ours. Humans look out for those who in their immediate circle only. Anyone outside that immediate circle is suspect & viewed as outsiders.
Most humans don't care about outsiders. This has been demonstrated historically through ethnic, racial, & religious conflicts. This has been further demonstrated by genocidal behaviors. It will take about 5-7 centuries for the majority of humans to evolve beyond the me level. Most humans exist at the animal level. Only a few evolved humans can see beyond the mere animalistic level. The human mindset has unfortunately not evolved to the level which should be expected, given modern times.
For example, the 20th century was an example of humankind acting at the most primitive level e.g. Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Treblinka, Tulsa, Rosewood, etc. It seems to be getting worse instead of better. There are more homeless people in America. There shouldn't be any homeless people in America. The class divide is becoming more pronounced with a widening gap between rich & poor- middle class is being squeezed out through inflation.Au contraire, there are people that would be classified as toxic. These people elect to be in dire circumstances, complaining yet refuse to uplift themselves educationally & socioeconomically. They want others to give them a middle class lifestyle. People have to be taught to help themselves & to be mature & proactive in their lives. People have to save themselves, not expect others to save them.
They are passive unless you continue to take, the takers are not going to be made to feel comfortable. As the fallacy of the "happy slave" indicates.
The human condition still embraces biases and bigotry, some elements of this culture may embrace it more than others.
Economic uncertainty exists in a way for the middle class that was not the case a coupl of generations ago. So, what the general rule associated with class stability has gone by the wayside. Now, everyone is vulnerable. With the exception of the super wealthy, that is the new normal.Can you believe a "happy slave" was a popular argument among conservatives to justify slavery? Amazing.
Yes, and they went so far as to brainwash audiences of such through popular entertainment through out much of the 20th century. “Gone with the Wind:” was a prime example.
It is no wonder conservatives go out of their way to ban information(books and literature) to impressional minds in fear of their embrace of a truth other than the propaganda and lies. Such a despicable bunch with a despicable objective cannot be allowed to prevail.
Where did you get this attiude that sentient human beings are fundamentally animals?
The first three examples Auschwitz, etc, were the product of war, the last two was the product of an enduring American racism. I wouldn't use either sets of example to paint a broad brush on humanity.
As to being "insular". My unreasoned reaction is to agree, so I went looking - asking the question are most people uninterested in cultures, ideas, or peoples outside one's own experience.
Only ChatGPT gave me a '"no" answer. Trying to google it led to - nothing. Only references to articles about insularism but no polls or studies.
Sadly, you are correct. We see it every day in our country and in the rest of the world.
I do agree with that, but is that any reason to stop trying to make it a better world? By instituting laws that make it a crime to exhibit or practice the worst parts of tribalism? To teach our kids to at least tolerate and not discriminate others who do not look like them or have the same religion.
Studies show that tribalism is a learned trait, we are not born with it."Studies show that tribalism is a learned trait, we are not born with it."
That's interesting - what I have seen is that fear of anything different or new is built into us from birth. Wonder which one is true.
Florida (of course) Christian college, a private institution that apparently teaches thangs Christ would be ashamed of, cancelled a famous signing group because one its members has the wrong "lifestyle". It would seem these so-called Christians think God makes mistakes.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/15/us/kings … index.htmlIn a discussion of tolerance, this is not a good example for two reasons. First, it IS a Christian College, with administrators that find that lifestyle to be very, very wrong and one that shall not be presented to its student body for fear of losing their everlasting souls. Do not forget that its primary purpose is not to educate in general (that's strictly secondary) but to teach what they think God wants.
Secondly it absolutely pales beside mainstream universities that refuse to allow conservative speakers even as they promote themselves as bastions of diversity and tolerance.I don't deny these administrators find particular lifestyles very wrong. What I am pointing out is that is very unchristian, a view which Jesus would condemn them for.
The whataboutism in your second paragraph doesn't apply, even if true.
BTW, what are some examples of "conservative" speakers that were cancelled?Are you a Christian, specifically a part of that institution or the church that runs it?
If not you are in no way qualified to determine if their actions are Christian or not. Nor are you qualified to debate those people on what Jesus would have done. Either one can only be determined by them, not you. Not the pope, not the Dali Lama or anyone else (except one, but he died 2,000 years ago)."If not you are in no way qualified to determine if their actions are Christian or not. " - [i]Oh, Give me a break. What an absurd claim. You must think everybody but you is chained in a cave watch what goes on in the world from reflections on the cave wall. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave)
Well, I am sorry to inform you that is not the way the world works
BTW, how many times have you read the Bible all the way through? For me, it was twice before I was 15 and once sometime after that. Yeah, I have right to talk about Jesus and Christianity.
As to whether I am a Christian or not, I am not. I have the study of the Bible to thank for that.You certainly do have the right to talk about Jesus.
But you do NOT have the right to tell Christians that their beliefs about what (the Christian) God wants are wrong, for no one knows. Least of all someone that is not a Christian themselves. If you do not understand this, I might suggest visiting several different Christian sects and delving into what they think God wants, and what they think of other sects that do not agree with them."But you do NOT have the right to tell Christians that their beliefs about what (the Christian) God wants are wrong, for no one knows. " - Of course I do, just like you can tell me I am wrong or I don't have the right to say they are wrong. A basic precept of Christianity is that God is never makes mistakes by creating defective humans. When a "Christian" church like this one says that he did, I can say they are wrong. It only makes sense.
It may make sense to you; it does not to them. Every strong Christian I have ever known doesn't care about "making sense"; they care about what they have been taught that God wants. And if you disagree then you are wrong. It's that simple.
Well, taken that way, you are correct. (I won't bring Trump supporters into this, lol).
I truely suspect that you were not a Christian. The ideologies you have shared, in my view, mirrored that you do not follow the Christian faith.
In America, we have wonderful rights that offer free thinking.
I value being a Christian, I would suppose as much as you value not being a Christian.
Everybody knows that standard rightwing bigotry hides behind Christian religion far too often.
I would argue they hide behind what conservatives want Christianity to be - which is very different from what Jesus taught.
What I don't get is that it seems so obvious that a child can discern the difference. Just how dumb do the evangelizers think that their flocks are?
How dumb do you have to be to drink the Kool Aid?
That is a great example of how dumb evangelicals are, thanks.
That is why I make the comparison with those who drink Trump's message.
ESO, here is another interesting story
https://news.yahoo.com/gop-congressman- … 57962.htmlI am not surprised. While racism is ubiquitous, it appears to be endemic to the Republican Party and its right-wing off-shoots the White Supremist and Christian Nationalists.
Gooden should be added to the list of Republicans being investigated by the Ethics committee.
More proof that racism is ubiquitous. I would place a bet that Scott Adams is a conservative.
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/here-ar … 22/514702/
I wasn't aware that the phrase "It's OK to be White" (with a capital W) was a White Supremist thing (it started in Australia with a law one of them tried to get enacted). I wonder how many black people realized this when responding to Rasmussen's vague poll question that so upset Adams.
I would have responded strongly agree. I would have also strongly agreed with the statement "It's OK to be Black" or "It's OK to be Asian", or ...Your link doesn't seem to go where you intended it to?
But yes, racism is ubiquitous and getting worse. When the President of the country exhibits overt racism and sexism and is applauded for it we have a very real problem, and it isn't excessive tolerance. Unless that tolerance is for racism and racists, of course.Damn!
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/25/business … index.html
We all know which president you are talking about - Trump.
I have read where right-wing media conjured up this fake idea that what Biden, the most unracist white man I have seen, has said. But isn't that what right-wing media does - make things up? Find ghosts where there aren't any? Propagate election lies? Unlike MOST mainstream media, right-wing media has proven they cannot be trusted to tell the truth.You will disagree of course, but when a person (Biden) refuses to consider any race but one for a job it is racism. When he refuses to consider only one sex for a job it is sexist. And when he goes public with his action, touting it as a great thing, it simply redoubles the racism inherent in his disgusting display of discrimination, racism and sexism.
Something Trump never did, even as you claim he was racist and sexist.Sure of what? That Eso will disagree? Yes.
That Biden made that action? Yes.
The Trump did not? Not that I've heard.How about putting only WHITE Conservatives on the bench and considering nobody else.
Yep, that was racist too, but we don't do that anymore.
GAAnd you know who was considered, how? Your crystal ball again?
Biden made it crystal clear that no white and no male would be even considered, let alone placed there. From the first moment his racism and sexism was open for all to see...and applaud.WILDERNESS
Biden uses dog whistles in regard to race, and gender frequently when he campaigned, and in his speeches since becoming president. I always look at his age and party. he follows the old ploys Democrats have used for years. Add in - "They are going to take away your SS and medicare... He is a huckster, and actually a very obvious huckster.
Biden made it very clear even when picking a VP, he was only considering women --- Biden says he will pick a woman to be his vice president
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/15/poli … index.html
"“If I’m elected president, my Cabinet, my administration will look like the country, and I commit that I will, in fact, appoint a, pick a woman to be vice president,” Biden said at the CNN-Univision debate in Washington, DC."
Aug 30 2019 Biden says he would prefer a person of color or a woman as his vice president
"Whomever I pick, preferably it will be someone who was of color and/or a different gender, but I’m not making that commitment until I know that the person I’m dealing with I can completely and thoroughly trust as authentic and on the same page [as me],” Biden said while speaking to a roundtable of black journalists."
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/28/poli … index.htmlYes, that's the agenda I referred to. Biden used racism (and sexism) to buy votes; something that is, IMO, very unethical and immoral.
We simply do not need more racists in our government. What we need is color blind people to govern, not someone making decisions based on sex or color.So agree
Read this article this morning, and found Elon's view one you may be interested in. It strays a bit from our conversation, but I think he hits the nail on the head with his bottom line --- Simplistic but true -- "Maybe they can try not being racist," Elon Musk.
However, your line, " racism (and sexism) to buy votes; something that is, IMO, very unethical and immoral." Politicians are hell-bent on dividing the country in the most despicable way, racism, and gender politics.
AOL -- " (Reuters) - Billionaire Elon Musk on Sunday accused the media of being racist against whites and Asians after U.S. newspapers dropped a white comic strip author who made derogatory comments about Black Americans.
The Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and USA Today were among newspapers that canceled the cartoon "Dilbert" after its creator Scott Adams said Black Americans were a hate group and posted racist comments on his YouTube channel on Wednesday.
In replies to tweets about the controversy, the Tesla and Twitter chief executive said the media had long been racist against non-white people but are now "racist against whites & Asians."
"Maybe they can try not being racist," Musk tweeted.
In response to an account that said white victims of police violence get a fraction of media coverage compared to Black victims, Musk said the coverage is "Very disproportionate to promote a false narrative."
Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Musk's views on social issues have been increasingly under the microscope since he took over Twitter in October."
https://www.aol.com/finance/elon-musk-a … 51713.htmlSorry, given how you guys give Trump a pass on all the bad things he did, you have zero credibility in passing judgement on Biden.
As usual you don't seem able to distinguish between "giving a pass" and requiring the law to declare guilt rather than your hanging mob.
As you do not allow a person to use their experience and common sense to form opinions based of facts. That is why it is hard for me to find you credible in your denunciations of one side while you applaud the other side for the exact same or worse behaviour.
There is a word for that.So? When did Trump announce he would not consider a woman for SCOTUS? Or anyone but Whites? Link, please, to Trump announcing he would only consider women for VP?
This is the mark that Biden has left on the country; that sexism and racism, however overt and in-your-face, is alright...as long as it is against white males. Trump never even came close to such a statement.So when?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/19/politics … index.html
So if he can do this, why can't Biden?Reading your link, I found nothing indicating that no males and no whites were considered. Can you point out where Trump did both, as Biden did?
Actually, Trump did not consider many women as candidates. And he interviewed everyone and decided to appoint Amy Coney Barrett. I mean he selected three SC justices. , not sure he thought their gender was a factor. He had a long list and claimed to have conducted interviews with the candidates on the list. I think his last pick was in 2020, he gave a teaser and said it would be a woman this time.
I do know at a rally in North Carolina, he called Barret “a legal giant” whose “landmark rulings, fierce devotion to justice, and her courageous battle against cancer inspire all Americans.”
As the crowd began chanting “Fill That Seat!” Trump said he had not made a final choice but was inclined to choose a woman – and then, with a theatrical flourish and no hint of irony, took a snap poll of the crowd to gauge whether they preferred a man or a woman to fill the seat of a justice who was an equal rights icon.
“It will be a woman, a very talented, very brilliant woman,” Trump said after the crowd overwhelmingly cheered for a female nominee. “I haven’t chosen yet, but we have numerous women on the list.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 839021002/
I think this is where some media picked up on the statement and bent it all out of shape...
https://apnews.com/article/race-and-eth … 8029717073
Here is the list he was going off of for all three appointees. Looks like maybe one-third is a woman. https://ballotpedia.org/Complete_list_o … reme_Court
I remember in 2020 he shortened the list, he claimed he had come to know those on the list well, and would be interviewing once more to make his decision.
In my opinion, Trump just did not play the buy-some-votes game. This is something I really found refreshing.Then Trump not only considered women, he also did NOT make the statement that no women (or blacks) would be considered.
Which is exactly what Biden; publicly state he would consider no one that wasn't black and female.You are correct. I tried to offer some good links with quotes, and actually Trump's full list he drew from all three times. The list clearly has maybe one-third female on it and the rest men. One only needs to look at the list to show he complied a list of those he felt were well-qualified candidates to become SC Judges.
I look high and wide and could find no quote from Trump saying no women would be considered. Biden said it frequently, one only need to Google his quote, the list is long, I offered links to WAPO and NYT that quote him saying
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeT6aHYMHd4
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/us/p … woman.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/retiri … 022-01-27/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9jaS4PecuA
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-s … d=82487044Actually that 1/3 women is probably quite reasonable. Considering that any candidate must have extensive experience in the courts, and likely federal courts, it seems reasonable that there were twice as many men on the "possible" list as women.
It also gives rise to the suspicion that Trump badly wanted a woman; the odds of picking one at random, without considering sex, was likely even less than 1 out of 3. More like 1 out of 10 or even more, I would guess (and it IS a guess).
But if he did he didn't make a public statement that he would not hire any BUT a woman, as Biden did (and only a black woman at that!).
Sorry to throw cold water on your assumption but Trump said at campaign rally - “It will be a woman]/b], a very talented, very brilliant woman,” Trump said, after the crowd overwhelmingly cheered for a female nominee. “[b]I haven’t chosen yet, but we have numerous women on the list.”
It certainly can't be clearer than that that Trump committed a Wilderness-type illegal discrimination.Trump compiled one list in 2016, he chose candidates each time he nominated a SCJ from that list. One can see by looking at the list he was not prone to favor women. The list appears to me to show good candidates not chosen due to gender or race. Just qualified candidates. This IMO is not racist it is a good common sense way to get the best person for the job. The list --- about one-third of the list is women. I certainly would not think this looks to be pandering.
https://ballotpedia.org/Complete_list_o … reme_Court
Trump did not pander to any one segment of society, in my view.Actually, Trump didn't "compile" anything. He took the list supplied by the misnamed Federalist Society.
The American Bar Association didn't think that several of the Federalist's picks were not qualified - the Republicans confirmed them anyway.
The list that Trump used discriminated against any person who did not hold a very far-right ideology.
" One can see by looking at the list he was not prone to favor women. " - You still haven't answered the question of why Trump said he would ONLY consider a woman for the position?
"Trump did not pander to any one segment of society, in my view." - Your kidding, aren't you? He pandered to only anti-Roe, far-right conservatives.
By stating that Trump would ONLY pick a woman definitely means he wasn't going to chose a man.
And in any case, that is not discrimination so long as the person he picks is qualified and is to right a wrong or to maintain balance and diversity. The only time your logic makes sense in an unequal world ruled by systemic discrimination against blacks and women, is if an unqualified nominee were chosen.But you're the only one that is making the claim that Trump would ONLY choose a woman...before the list was whittled down to only women.
And yes, refusing to consider whites, or males, IS discrimination, by definition. Discrimination based on the color of skin and on sex. Both of which are illegal and very, very unethical and immoral. This is not 1800 when such an action was considered right and proper.Oh lordy, lordy, I can just imagine the backlash coming from that statement.
When did Trump state he would only pick a woman? How do you defend defending discrimination (a 'wrong') because it addresses another wrong? That surely sounds like you are saying two wrongs can make a right.
GAI am not "defending" discrimination when it isn't discrimination but a choice to keep diversity and balance in our justice system using qualified individuals to achieve those objectives.
It only becomes discrimination when the person chosen is unqualified.Me neither. But that is because it is presented as an excuse to discriminate against individuals and groups, something I deny completely as having any validity at all.
Of course you would. I am not surprised given you ideology.
It is only discrimination when white males do not have exclusive rights to everything. One should be able to select among equally qualified yet diverse candidates without "discrimination".
On that we would fully agree. One should never have to choose based on race, sex, etc. Or do so, either, even if they can, right?
President Donald Trump said Saturday evening that he will choose a candidate to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court seat next week and his candidate will be a woman.
“I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman,” Trump said during a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina.
—————————-
I still don’t see the difference in his declaration that he would replace Ginsberg with another woman as opposed to Biden saying he wanted a Black woman to replace Justice Kennedy?
The principle is that no one should eliminate candidates based on race and gender. What is different here? Is it different because it was Trump and the conservatives that were leading the charge this time?Big difference --- Biden made a campaign pledge to put a Black woman on the Supreme Court. Does this type of context not indicate he would not be considering anyone but Black women? Biden repeatedly made that statement frequently even after he took office and his context was always very clear. IMO it is pretty clear he was being racist, and sexist. He needs to keep black votes and used the ploy to garner and keep the black citizen's support, IMO. This in my view works to perpetuate the racial divide. Should not the best qualified should sit on our highest court?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/us/p … woman.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … nee-black/
This in my book says white people or men don't apply...
Trump made that claim after interviewing men and women, giving a long list of candidates for interviews each time he had to
appoint an SC judge. He made that statement at a rally after the decision was made. More or less teasing his crowd.I still believe that you are making distinction with any appreciable difference.
What about the gender divide, we are all quick to claim the Biden was pandering, while Trump was not?
Excerpt from the Washington Post article:
"Paying heed to demographic characteristics, such as race and gender, allows presidents to make history while also appealing to valuable constituencies within their party. Biden is not the first president to do so. Most recently, President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans highlighted Amy Coney Barrett’s status as a working mother when Trump nominated her in 2020 to the Supreme Court, hoping the choice would resonate with female voters in the approaching election."
I don't see any difference.... who is being "pandered" to on this occasion?As I provided the long list of candidates Trump compiled, with both men and women on that list, makes me feel there is a difference between a man stating he will only be appointing black women. I did offer several links in a previous comment to share how I came to my view. I really feel this was a clear example of pandering on Bidens part. And no, he would not be the first president to pander. I can agree on many Republicans certainly wanted a female to be appointed in 2020 for pandering reasons.
I just don't feel Trump pandered, actually, this was one of the reasons I feel he became so disliked, he did not play well, and was very
outspoken.
Your point is well taken, and pandering is most politicians' best tool.I think that Trump did pander, so we have to agree to disagree on this one.
He simply pandered to a constuency that would more warmly embrace conservative candidates,Would you expect him to consider candidates that held a far different view of the law and the Constitution than he felt is proper? That would seem to indicate that he was pandering indeed, by considering people that he would expect to do the job correctly and well, but might make liberals happy.
Similarly, I would not expect a Democrat President to nominate a "legal" candidate that considers the Constitution to be rigid and unbendable (except for amendments); Democrats want a court that will bend with the political will of the times and "interpret" the Constitution in a way that furthers changes without the difficult process of amendments.No, Trump is a Rightwinger and he is going to appoint like minded people to the court. Not necessarily more qualified, just more rightwing.
That stuff about Conservatives being "true" to the Constitution is just so much rightwing propaganda. No soap here neither, Wilderness.You don't see it perhaps, but it is well recognized that liberals want a judge that views the Constitution as something to be "interpreted" in a loose fashion, in line with modern thinking and morals. Not as a rigid document, not to be changed without the requirements of an amendment. But it is true; that IS how liberals view the Constitution.
But conservatives do not; it is rigid and we must come as close as possible to the meaning intended by the writers, until such time as it is amended.
Given that, Trump would certainly question whether a liberal, with that "flexible" attitude, would do their job without bias. And he's right, too.
The trouble with that "bend" statement is that the current court is bending over backwards to write their own laws that fit with their conservative and religeous philosophies.
Example, making up a meaning in the second amendment that justifies personal "self-defense" as a reason to purchase a gun. Now, I happen to agree with that misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but it is a misinterpretation nevertheless. Nowhere in the 2nd does it mention or even allude to "Personal" as being why it was created.
Example: it can easily be imputed from both the Declaration of Independent and the Preamble to the Constitution that the Right to Privacy was high on our founders minds. But somehow, conservatives twisted themselves into knots to say that the creators of the Constitution didn't believe in a Right to Privacy at the Federal level. My reading of history tells me clearly that was one of the main motivations behind creating our current form of government. Instead, these conservatives appear to want the kind of illiberalism found in Iran or Russia.
Hell, conservatives don't even believe people have a natural right to privacy at the State level unless the State codifies it in law.
"Paying heed to demographic characteristics, such as race and gender, allows presidents to make history while also appealing to valuable constituencies within their party."
Yes, it was done before. So was slavery of blacks; does that mean we should enslave them again? Or should we learn from the past and not repeat racist/sexist errors?Fine, just don't blame Democrats and liberals solely for that unfortunate tendency....
Oh, it runs through much of our society! Of course, it doesn't help when the President of the United States reinforces that it is OK to do so...
Repeating the past by only selecting white males is discrimination, by definition.
It appears* (is) different because the quoted statement was after-the-fact. A starting list of 45 was whittled down to 20 then a nominee settled on for presentation within the week.
That doesn't 'show' that the nominee choices were limited by gender or color. It doesn't even strongly suggest it.
GASorry GA, that doesn't square with history. Joe Biden and President Donald Trump sparred this weekend over the timing of the Senate vote on a nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as both men vowed to appoint a woman and the open seat became the new flashpoint in the 2020 race.
Hoping to shift the public’s attention from his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, Trump moved quickly on Saturday to make the new Supreme Court vacancy a central issue in his campaign, announcing he would name a woman to replace Ginsburg this week.
Doesn't that clearly state that Trump had not even begun considering who was going to replace Ginsburg before stating it will be a woman? Also, he discriminated against liberals (to use Wilderness' logic) because the group who picked his list to chose from (the Federalist Society) only selected far-right candidates, not all of them judges.Hopefully, the history you speak of is the history of 2020.
I don't think 'sparring' over timing is relative to this issue. The blurb you offer is an opinion (Analysis by Maeve Reston, CNN) that refers (by specific link) to the statement of your original article as support for that "analysis."
I don't see anything that indicates Pres. Trump had "not even begun his considerations." Your claim seems to be an extrapolation of an opinion, not of a fact. How do you know he had not begun considering nominees before the weekend of the original statement?
Is there more support for the claim that he vowed to only consider a woman?
GASorry, that so-called opinion was a statement of fact unless you are calling the author a liar when he said Joe Biden and President Donald Trump sparred this weekend over the timing of the Senate vote on a nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as both men vowed to appoint a woman and the open seat became the new flashpoint in the 2020 race.
Are you claiming that never happened prior to Trump even beginning his considerations and that it was just the author's "opinion" that it did?
To me, it looks like you are trying to turn yourself into a pretzel in denying Trump did exactly as Biden did (and I find nothing wrong with either of them in this regard, btw)
How much more do you want other than Trump's vow to consider only a woman?You had me formulating a lengthy rebuttal, which would have been just a repetition of arguments already made. Then your 'closer' made things easier.
Proof of Trump's vow to only consider a woman is what I was asking.
Pres. Biden's vow was very specific, very before-the-fact, very publically documented, and completely unambiguous.
Your support that Pres. Trump's vow amounts to the same is based on arguable extrapolations and presumptions. You presume that because a woman nominee will be announced in a week proves that the selection process hadn't started until that weekend of 'sparring.' How do you know it hadn't started? How do you know none of the mentioned '45' list were men? Or that no men were seriously considered?
So yep, if you want to equate Pres. Biden's explicit vow with Pres. Trump's presumed vow something more than an extrapolated opinion (isn't that what a political analysis is?) is what is being asked.
GA
I would think that most Presidents are prudent to keep a short list available of eligible candidates to fill vacancies.
But considering the rush by Trump and Republicans to replace Ginsberg expeditiously ignoring Ginsberg last request and the same excuse McConnel used to deny Obama's appointment to the seat vacated by Scalia to have the next elected President replace the seat, do you really think that a full vetting of all eligible candidates was done in advance?I also think a potential list would have been prepared, and a lot of vetting would have been done well ahead of the Ginsberg replacement. That would seem the reasonable and expected thing of any president in the same potential-nomination context.
The timing of the announcement may have been campaign motivated and most likely, the only rush was to make the final shortlist decision. This comes full circle to the original question: Did President Trump do what Pres. Biden did? You haven't convinced me.
GAYes, I think there was a 'shortlist' before the vacancy occurred. A vacancy had been anticipated. My perception is that just getting on the shortlist has already involved enough vetting to determine qualifications. From there on it's mostly vetting of a political nature, not qualifications or suitability.
GATwo points:
1. Trump SAID, he would only consider a woman, so the length of the list is moot.
2. I can only imagine the "vetting" the Federalist Society did. Nevertheless, I rely on the opinion of the American Bar Association, which has been used forever as an arbiter of qualifications, when they say several of the Trump-Federalist nominees were NOT qualified.
During his eight years office, President Obama didn’t nominate a single individual who received a “not qualified” ABA rating. In contrast, in just four years President Trump has nominated nine individuals rated “not qualified” to serve as federal judges.
Of those nine nominees, seven were confirmed for lifetime appointments to the bench, including three that Senate Republicans jammed through last year: Justin Walker, Sarah Pitlyk and Lawrence VanDyke. Judiciary Committee Democrats opposed all three nominees, and the ABA ratings factored in those decisions.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public … ees-law360 (YES, I know who the author is, but her ideology doesn't change the basic facts she sites.)
As of February 3, 2020, the American Bar Association (ABA) had rated 220 of Trump's nominees. Of these nominees, 150 were rated "well-qualified," 61 were rated "qualified," and 9 were rated "not qualified."[9] Seven of the nine individuals rated as "not qualified" have been confirmed by the Senate.[10] According to Vox's Ian Millhiser,
and, regarding how well-rounded the Federalist list was
As of July 2020, the judges appointed by Trump are "85% white and 76% male; less than 5% are African-American,” as a result of which the federal judiciary has become "less diverse" compared to previous administrations, according to an analysis by The Conversation.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Tr … %20office.When did Pres. Trump say he would only consider a woman?
GAOne or two days after Ginsburg died. "“It will be a woman, a very talented, very brilliant woman,” Trump said, after the crowd overwhelmingly cheered for a female nominee. “I haven’t chosen yet, but we have numerous women on the list.”" -
(He took a "straw poll" of his adoring crowd. Can you imagine, a crowd of Conservatives discriminating against men! Also, based on the above data, there weren't that many woman on the list. The list was mainly white males. That said, we know of one who made it through - she was roundly chastised by a conservative appellate court for improperly apply the law in favor of Trump)That doesn't say he would choose 'only' a woman. You sent me on a chase to find the context of your quote.
Every video of speeches and interviews and helicopter sessions I found had the same context: he was leaning to a woman, it will be a woman, it is a woman. Nowhere did I find support that his list was only women or that he would only choose a woman.
Hell, the end of your quote even rebuts your claim of what the quote said: "I haven't chosen yet, but we have numerous women on the list."
There is no "only" in that context. Pres. Biden explicitly said he would only consider a woman. "Only" is the entire context.
What "above data" says there weren't many women on the list and that it was mainly white men? One of those videos had him saying there were 5 women among his final picks—his shortlist. if "short" is the keyword, it might be more accurate to say 'the list was mainly women.'
GAI guess you and I read English differently. When I read "It will be a woman' the only way I can interpret that is it will ONLY be a woman.
It appears you interpret "It will be a woman" as it might NOT be a woman.. Did I misunderstand you?
This data which was about 2 inches (on my screen) above where I was commenting "As of July 2020, the judges appointed by Trump are "85% white and 76% male; less than 5% are African-American,”
Since we don't know how short the "short" list was one day after Ginsburg's death, I would have to guess (based on your number) that there were 5 women and 20 or 21 males.
BTW, when did he say there was a "short list" that had 5 women on it?No, you do not misunderstand. This point of "only" has become circular. We have both supported why we think "only" is or is not said or meant. Your's is by implication and inference while I see mine as by specific statements.
The numbers: 45 to 20 to shortlist came from the reporter in Cred's first CNN link. That inferred, to me, that the selection process had been ongoing. Pres. Trump's additional statement (in another setting, the helo one I think) about there being 5 women on the list also inferred that there were men on the list too.
The only 'looking into' I have done is the youtube videos (more than a few) one of your comments prompted. That perception has been described. So, my resistance to seeing it your way is coming from stuff you guys presented to support your claim. To echo another voice, 'context matters' and in each of your presentations the context of the statement is dismissed. Smoke is presented as fire.
GALet's try this. Explain to me the difference between "It will be a woman" and "It will only be a woman". Maybe I am missing something.
And why no apply your logic to what Biden said which was very similar.Candidate Biden said:
" I committed that if I'm elected president and have the opportunity to select someone to the courts I will appoint the first black woman, it's required that they have representation . . . "
source: CNN clip
That's very specific and definite. From the start, it will be a black woman, no one else need to apply.
Versus Pres Trump's "It will be a woman" is contextually shown that it is an after-the-fact statement. His choice is a woman but there is no context to say his only considerations were women.
I don't apply the same 'logic' to Pres. Biden because it wasn't needed. Before he ever had an opportunity (while he was a candidate) he explicitly said he would choose a black woman.
The difference is one said "only" and one didn't. One is a preordained pick and one is a chosen pick.
I don't think you are missing anything. I think you want the statements to be the same, so parsing soundbites works for you.
GAI guess I have to ask why is it important that Trump said it right after Ginsburg died. I could have said "I will fill the position with the best qualified candidate". Instead, he said I will pick a woman, thereby excluding any possibility that it would be a man.
Now, if that short list was left with only women because there were no men available, then you have a point. But both of us know that list contained both genders and Trump wasn't going to pick a man.
Personally, I think you are trying to draw a distinction where none exists in order to say Biden was wrong and Trump was right. IMO, both were right.
BTW, where did you get your information that no men were on the short-list produced within a day or two of Ginsburg dying?Do you think that, after 3 years as President, Trump had a very short list of SCOTUS candidates? Do you think that might be why he said he would put a woman on the court?
Do you think that before he was elected, with no nominations in view, that Biden had already made a very short list of candidates? If so, why was that list composed solely of black women?
"BTW, where did you get your information that no men were on the short-list produced within a day or two of Ginsburg dying?"
"The following day, Trump stated that any successor of Ginsburg would "most likely" be a woman." (Wikipedia, quoting the WSJ 9-19-2020)
Do you think that "most likely" means without any chance of anything else, or does it mean what it says; that it could be a male but the odds are for a female?So you are suggesting as well that Trump's "short list" contained OLNY women and that was the reason he declared in no uncertain terms that "I WILL pick a woman"? That boggles the mind.
So, you are saying Trump Backtracked, as he often does, by qualifying his declarative statement from the day before. He always was wishy-washy, lol.
Yes, "most likely" does mean what you say, BUT, that is not what he said the day before - which is what you are talking about. What you keep trying to deflect from is that Trump said the same thing Biden did.
To your question, I don't think I said that. If I did there must have been some context around it.
GAOK, we are at an impasse.
ME - "I will pick a woman" is equivalent to "I will pick only a woman"
YOU - "I will pick a woman" is equivalent to " I will pick a woman, unless I pick a man".To echo another, 'you don't get to put words in my mouth'. I haven't made any equivalencies. I have argued that context matters and that context paints a different picture than what you claim
GAOh well, I'll take Trump at his word that he was going to pick a woman to fill Ginsberg's seat (which he did). You don't have to.
"Hell, the end of your quote even rebuts your claim of what the quote said: "I haven't chosen yet, but we have numerous women on the list."" - Which means, of course, he hasn't chosen WHICH woman it will be, only that it WILL be a woman and not a man.
Biden did not say he wanted a black woman. He said he would consider no one else.
Trump, on the other hand, decided near the end of the selection process (after eliminating how many, both male and female?) that the only ones left were women.
If you can't see the difference I'm sorry.
Actually, it doesn't. So many Whites in this country would be very happy that there was NEVER a Black or a Woman on the Supreme Court. When somebody attempts to correct that inequity, it is called reverse racism. But, given their mindsets, they can't think any other thought.
I don't buy it. Every person should do what they can to repair the inequity in America and what Biden did was clearly not racist but required of a civil society.Right. And when that "repair" discriminates against one that has never shown any racism at all it is applauded as "just" somehow.
No, Eso, there is no reason to discriminate against anyone. It is illegal, it is immoral and it is unethical. Which describes Bidens actions to a T.So, you are saying you are happy with the status quo as it was in the early 1800s as it relates to race and gender. Your solution says affirmative action was unjustified, illegal, and wrong even in the face of institutional racism. Your solution says we would never have a woman or black on the Supreme Court. Your solution would perpetuate discrimination, the very thing you abhor. Is that correct?
Me, you see a problem, you fix the problem.
I agree, and I must say you summed up Biden's sexist, racist attitude in so few words. He has proven to be both throughout his years in Washington. I can only imagine he must snicker when he thinks he has pulled off pulling the wool over some heads.
Here we go again. Republicans tried to quash the black vote for 2022, but Democrats fought back and spent lots of money and effort to overcome those repressions. Now Republicans are at it again, trying to cheat their way to power.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/politics … index.htmlAre we back to the good ol' days of Black repression? Well, in Mississippi, especially Jackson, it certainly seems so.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/27/us/jacks … index.html
(BTW, don't try to point to Jackson's water problems. They tried as hard as they could but the state blocked them at every turn.)https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa- … KKCN26C312
I presume that all Presidents retain a shortlist of potential and qualified Supreme Court justices.
President Donald Trump said on Monday Sept. 21, 2020, three days after the death of Justice Ginsberg.
"he is considering five women for his nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court seat left open by the recent death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, adding he will announce his pick on Saturday and he prefers the Senate vote to confirm the nominee before the Nov. 3 election."
Why the women shortlist? There was no qualifying factor other than they were female?
So, guys, no soap. I think that it was dumb for Biden to announce his intention to preselect the way he had. I would have simply appointed my choice without broadcasting it.
It obvious from several articles that Trump intended to select a woman to fill the spot. So you all can stop pretending that Trump was seeking the best qualified for job. He wanted the most devout rightwing oriented woman for the job.
So Trump error was just not as egregious as Biden, but he was no example, all the same.Personally, I don't think it was dumb at all because wrongs needed to be fixed and balance and diversity maintained (unless, of course, there were no qualified candidates available).
I criticize Trump for not selecting the best qualified for the job, to be intellectually honest I cannot excuse President Biden for not doing the same. But who Trump,would consider "most qualified" and why, and who Biden would consider such are two different things
That's what I tried to say before. And I don't blame either one for having that attitude (except that there is nothing anywhere to indicate that the writers of the Constitution meant for it to be changed at will according to current thinking).
We need to discuss this idea of Conservatives saying that it is possible for the court to adjudicate on every diverse issue from what they believe is explicit guidance from a document written almost 240 years ago. How does that work?
The Constitution does not explicitly provide direction for every conceivable event, not in its time and certainly not 250 years into the future. It is ALL about interpretation. It is just that the rightwing types refer to their "interpretation" as "strict interpretation", "original intent" and all of that as if they could know how any of the original drafters would address issues well beyond their purview.I would argue they know very well the writers of the Constitution oppose many of their conservative rulings. I assume this is true because I assume 1) our conservative Justices know how to read and 2) they have read what our founders have written like I have.
Hey, ESO, what is this all about, without changing the subject?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-sena … 19613.htmlNot Eso, but...nothing more than political posturing. Another time waster from some legislator trying to garner votes by speaking out against an unpopular (Democratic party) item, without any intention of even trying to pursue it to fruition.
Well, the unpopular item, is the very existence of the Democratic Party in Florida. Where does the temerity to waste time proposing such things come from?
BTW. I was elected Precinct Captain for my precinct the other day. Shouldn't be hard, I think there are only 5 Democrats in precinct 12, lol.
LOL, I have no doubt. And, he is getting a lot of help from the inept Florida Democratic Leadership. Imagine, losing Broward-Dade!
More lessons in hate. This time from a Vermont Christian high school who forfeited their girl's basketball game because the opponents had a transgender player. In my view, there is nothing "Christian" about that, just hate.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/01/sport/ve … index.htmlRon DeSantis, in his attempt to win Trump's base away from him is perpetuating hate, bigotry, and divisiveness with his big government, authoritarian take-over of the New Florida College.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/01/politics … index.htmlWhy do we strip down to discussion between Republicans and Dems? The proper discussion is the color bar and hatred in America of the white for the black. It is ingrained and never go away Reps and Dems are from the same racial stock and I don't see the difference.
I wonder which genes, connected to the "white" genes, produce that hate. Do you think that there are also genes connected to the "black" gene which produces the hatred of whites?
(If you missed it, that was sarcasm in the extreme.)Because, by and large, it is the conservatives who are guilty of all this hate in America and acting on it. That is not to say there aren't a few liberals who do the same (but then they aren't really liberals are they since that flies in the face of what they say they believe)
It is in the philosophy of liberals to be egalitarian and to strive for equality. It is in the philosophy of conservatives to not mess with what they perceive to be the natural order and hierarchy of things because that is the way God intended it. If you don't believe me, just read Russell Kirk. In other words, if you have racism in your midst, so be it.
Also, you have no room to criticize. ALL colors and races, when they are in the majority, exhibit bigotry and racism. It has been shown time and again that 1) we are not born racist, but are taught that and 2) in societies led by non-racists leaders, then racism in that society is at a minimum."It is in the philosophy of liberals to be egalitarian and to strive for equality."
Really? It was conservatives that instituted governmental discrimination known as "affirmative action", legally discriminating against those with white skin? It is conservatives pushing the "woke" agenda, demonizing Caucasians (even to our young children) and demanding they pay for the sins of the past?
I must be really confused as to who is doing these things, for I'm pretty sure that it isn't conservatives.Then why are conservatives blaming liberals for all of that and not taking the blame themselves?
Nice sidestep, ignoring the comment entirely to go onto something else.
"Because, by and large, it is the conservatives who are guilty of all this hate in America and acting on it."
This statement is offensive to a very large part of American citizens. Your language is uncalled for.It should be offensive, because it is true! Everywhere you turn today, conservatives either are perpetuating this hate or, if they are not doing it themselves, they excuse it.
This is your view. INO not shared by a majority.
Hmmm, let's Homeland Security blames right-wing terrorists for the increase in domestic violence.
This was 2009 - https://www.dhs.gov/news/2009/04/15/sec … ism-threat
Still true in 2019 - https://www.justsecurity.org/66184/stop … extremism/
It is even more true in 2021 - https://www.congress.gov/event/117th-co … =1&r=7
"Of these three ideologies, most prior research has contrasted those committed to right-wing and left-wing causes. Much of this research suggests that compared to left-wing extremists, right-wing extremists may be more likely to engage in politically motivated violence. In comparison to left-wing supporters, right-wing individuals are more often characterized by closed-mindedness and dogmatism (9) and a heightened need for order, structure, and cognitive closure (5). Because such characteristics have been found to increase in-group bias and lead to greater out-group hostility (10), violence for a cause may be more likely among proponents of right-wing ideologies.
and
In contrast, in comparison to their right-wing counterparts, left-wing individuals score higher on openness to new experiences, cognitive complexity, and tolerance of uncertainty (5). They are also less likely to support social dominance (11), which could lead to their overall lower likelihood to use violence against adversaries. In line with this reasoning, some studies have demonstrated an empathy gap between liberal and conservative individuals (12).
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122593119
While it is my "view" for sure, it is a "view" formed by observation and fact-based research. Consequently, I seriously doubt your conclusion that my "view" is in the minority.So the Google book you just laid out, was in my view, a diversion. So, let's recap.
Your statement --- "Because, by and large, it is the conservatives who are guilty of all this hate in America and acting on it."
You made no mention of " right-wing terrorists". Your words referred to Conservatives.
I certainly did not bring up right-wing terrorists. My comment is clear and all about your words, and your words clearly do not make mention of right-wing terrorists.
I have no interest in entering into a discussion about right-wing terrorists.You mean the "google book" you also use? Deflection.
And who do you think the right-wing is? Please don't sharpshoot by focusing on a single word. That is also deflecting.
None of my sites talk about "terrorists", two of them talk about who generally instigates political violence in America (which included terrorist-type acts) and that would be conservative (right-wing) extremists, The third site talks about the general propensity of conservatives toward violence and excusing violent behavior (for which we have examples every day, just look at the Jan 6 denialism from conservatives) from their more extremist members.
You would have known that had you read them.yes, I do use Google which leads me to a myriad of information, different views, and different information. I put them all in a blender, and come up with my own thoughts. I think this is one way of taking out biased information.
Again you did not understand my concern about the post you made that I pointed out. You made a direct assumption that the better part of conservatives are as you put it --- " "Because, by and large, it is the conservatives who are guilty of all this hate in America and acting on it."
You are wasting your time with your deflection. Not interested in getting in the mud.Then why use the term google book as an insult when referring to me?
I absolutely understand your concern and I stand by my statement and for the reasons I gave as well as it simply being obvious by observation when you 1) watch the right-wing media and 2) read the honest reporting from the mainstream media.
By not pushing back on all this violence from the right, the conservatives are complicit by their silence. Even more evidence is the history of conservatism.
* Conservatives (albeit they called themselves Democrats then) who were responsible for slavery and was the opposition in getting rid of it.
* It was Conservatives who reinstated subjugation of blacks after 1864.
* It was Conservatives behind such organizations as the KKK, White Nationalist, Proud Boys, etc. and all of the violence they caused.
* It was Conservatives who burned down Black Wall Street in Oklahoma.
* It was Conservatives who burnt down several black towns in Florida
* Hell, there were even a few Conservatives responsible for damage during the riots in 2020.
* It was Conservatives behind the Jan 6 insurrection
* It is Conservatives who deny Jan 6 was an insurrection.
No, I think I am on solid ground in my statement.ESO, here is another case of GOP tyrannical madness.
https://news.yahoo.com/texas-gop-bill-g … 27308.html
Talk about the "Lebensborn" policies of the Third Reich under Hitler, not a great deal of difference with Republicans today.
One party want to ameliorate the differences that is behind the angst between the races, while the other wants to exacerbate them.
Again, we're on the same page. One party wishes to exacerbate differences with the "woke" agenda, hiring based on color, etc.; the other wishes to go color blind.
More examples of the far-right acting on their hatred and prejudice. This latest round of racism in America started with the rights reaction to having a black president elected. Then it got order of magnitudes worse when Trump came along.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/02/politics … index.htmlThe PROOF of institutional racism just keeps pouring in - this time from the Tennessee Republican legislature.
In response for being silenced from talking about the massacre of three nine-year olds and three adults at a Christian school there, three Democrats did the unthinkable - they protested on the floor of the House. And for that time honored protest, two of the three participants were expelled from the House. The racist Republicans showed who they really are by expelling the two Black demonstrators while retaining the White woman.
They are in-your-face Racist.
nothttps://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/08/opinions/tennessee-three-expulsion-redeemers-tisby/index.html)
The ironic thing is, one for sure and probably the other will be right back in their seats after they are selected by the local committee to be acting legislators until the special election is held. In retaliation, these racist Republicans say they will defund city project on the books.I asked this question in another thread, no taker jumped in to answer my question.
Simply, did the white women actually break any of the floor rules, in regard to shouting, and interrupting the business of the day? I see that the two black representatives were expelled, and she was not. I watched any videos I could find on the protest, it appears the woman did not say much and did not become loud yelling through a megaphone. She was thee but, did not look as if she was breaking the floor rules.
I have also shared my view on the incident --- I believe in free speech, and the right to protest. I did not see anything wrong with the protest. It was loud but was not in any respect violent or destructive. However, the two men broke floor rules. Should we just not enforce rules due to race?
I don't think the expulsion of the two black men was racist.
I think the woman did not become loud or disruptive on the Floor. At any rate, in my view, those men were duly voted into their positions and had the right to protest, but did not have the right to break the house rules. They broke floor rules, did they not? So, they were expelled.
"Each of the resolutions said the lawmakers “did knowingly and intentionally bring disorder and dishonor to the House of Representatives,” saying they “began shouting without recognition” and “proceeded to disrupt the proceedings of the House Representatives” for just under an hour Thursday morning.
The resolutions removed the two lawmakers from office under Article II, Section 12 of the Tennessee Constitution, which says, in part, the House can set its own rules and “punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/06/us/tenne … n%20reform
I am not convinced this act was racist. The men were charged with breached decorum. The woman did not seem to do much of anything but stand at their sides on the House floor.
Is it fair to label this racist? It seems to point out something that may not have played a part in the men's expulsion. I think what is more important is that these men were within their right to protest and be heard as American citizens, they just needed to follow the rules of Tennessee's House of Representatives while doing so.Watch the clip and watch her mouth move in concert with her follow black protestors. (I didn't have the sound on)
Seems to me she is actively protesting with them and NOT 'just standing around in support".
Apparently, sexual abuse is less of a crime in the TN House than protesting on the floor about murdered children.
https://www.wsmv.com/2023/04/07/what-fo … r-comment/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VohEWT0Ne7EThen that Rep must not have seen her yelling and screaming as we saw on the YouTube video. Maybe he had his eyes closed and hands over his ears trying to ignore the call to action on gun violence.
Wasn't part of the violation surrounding the fact they came to the floor without permission?
"The expelled lawmakers conceded they didn't follow decorum by walking on the floor — what is called the well — and speaking without being formally recognized."
Don't think it mattered if the speaking was loud or not.
And where is the punishment for the Republican rep. that took video with his phone? Another violation.
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/06/11683639 … house-voteIt doesn't matter if the business of Congress is drowned out by people with bullhorns shouting down all others? I think you know better.
I was unable to find anything about taking cell phone video in your link: can you point us to where that is described as a rule violation?Republicans showed a seven-minute highly edited video of the floor protests. The central portion appeared to be shot from the House floor by another member.
Democrats argued the video violated House rules against live recordings during a session. .
I Don't believe there was any investigation.
https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/04/07 … temporary/Of course there would be no investigation of their own even though the violation was obvious. Reminds me of their letting Trump of the hook for obvious crimes.
What wasn't part of the violation? The yelling and screaming? I don't think that follows decorum.
And I agree, the Republicans are massively hypocritical in that they only apply the legislative form of a death sentence to black Democrats. They totally ignore the multiple ethical and other violations of their own.
Expelling a member for that minor violation is like giving a 20-year sentence to a jaywalker.My point is that the 3 all violated the rule of coming to the well without permission. Yet only the 2 young black men were expelled.
Conservatives often blame the media for sensationalist reporting, but the fault regarding the issue of the Tennessee 3 lies solely with the Republican Party. Instead of acting in rage and despotism, they might have thought this through as to the message they send with a rash action and the price they would pay politically before they took the actions they did.
So, shooting the messenger is not going to save you.Gloria Johnson broke a rule as soon as she went to the well without permission. She even admitted to breaking decorum rules.
Because she escaped expulsion by one vote was more indicative to me that the Republicans were more in a state of rage that the voters and citizens would dare challenge them over clinging to their sacred cow in the face of such a tragic massacre.
The difference in her escaping verses being expelled was so small that I could almost say that there could be any explanation.
As I said, and I will repeat, I don't feel the two representatives should have been expelled. I am for peaceful free speech. These three were denied free speech while the House was in session. When they were not heard by their peers. I think they found the only way to be heard was to break the decorum rules.
I don't think it was a racist act not to expel the woman that protested at their side. It may have been racist not to let them speak their piece when in session.
The political fall-out will go both ways, in my view. This is the world we live in --- well divided. Let's face it, we have few that are in the middle, and have the ability to step back and look at an issue without political bias. I think simple logic has been abandoned.The political fallout:. Republicans in the Tennessee house catapulted 2 very young lawmakers onto the national stage where they have ignited young people. These 2 are well spoken and intelligent.
Additionally, Gov. Lee of Tennessee signed an executive order on Tuesday strengthening background checks for gun purchases. The Republican governor also called for lawmakers to pass a red flag law.
Not yet mission accomplished but on the way.
Gloria? She went to the floor unrecognized. She broke the first rule of decorum. She should have had the same consequences applied.
We see the blaming of the main stream media here - a lot. They have to do that to save face. The media reports that Trump robbed a bank and it is the media's fault people believe Trump may have done that.
On the other hand, Fox reports the 2020 election was rigged, and these same people says that all Fox is doing is reporting what somebody said.
HYPOCRICY!
Are you tryiing to claim that anyone with dark skin should not be punished, does not have to follow rules or laws, and should be given a "bye" anytime they behave badly?
Because it sure sounds like it. There is zero doubt that they behaved badly and violated the rules. I watched one of them, seemingly on the floor of the Congress, with a bull horn simply repeating time after time "We will never quit! We will never quit! We will never quit!" This isn't "talking about the massacre of three nine-year olds and three adults" as you claim; it is purely and simply disrupting the workings of those trying to fix the problem.Please explain how you are able to jump to that overly-broad, ridiculous conclusion.
Also, please show how these Republicans were "trying to fix the problem" - they wouldn't even let the Democrats talk about it - hence the protest.I really was just going to quietly slip away from these discussion boards, but I'm compelled to ask:
Where did everybody go other than the half dozen or so who dominate these discussions?
After a lifetime as a Southern Baptist, I've recently fled to a non-evangelical denomination because I don't want to be identified any longer with a religion that is so lacking in compassion and so driven by judgement.
For those same reasons, I'm leaving these discussions. The few of you who are left - enjoy yourselves.Your point is well taken. The forum has clearly become toxic. I have found other sites that are more open to individual views, and use better socialization skills.
I have gone back to writing articles for HP. I find that more stimulating, and rewarding.
I have always enjoyed our back-and-forth, for my above-mentioned preferences.Sharlee: I have 160 hubs here and stopped writing them when HP stopped letting me interact with my readers. That is the feature I joined for 13 years ago. It added a social dimension that was lacking in the rest of my writing career that has produced five novels and three smaller works. I participated in the discussions to stay engaged and fend off Alzheimer's. But the result is a new fear of strokes.
All my best to you.Ditto. I wrote 336 hubs but as soon as HP stopped the interactions, I sort of lost interest. I would have much rather published the number of novels you have, but only have one non-fiction book with a whopping 110 sold over three or more years to my credit, lol. Not a whole lot of people interested in history and economics, I guess. I am working, slowly, on another but at 75, I might die first.
Ironically, fending off Alzheimer's was part of my rational as well, I have it on both sides of my family tree. That is probably why I am still working 40+ hours a week as well - got to keep the brain active or it will atrophy.Your wife is actually my target market. I'm on Amazon/books/kathleencochran. They are all stand alone novels - not a series, though I am working on a sequel to the last one, a historical fiction. Hope she finds one she enjoys.
Thank you, I passed it on to her. Are you publishing on another Hub-like platform?
No. I'm done writing articles. I'm working on the sequel to my last book and doing PR for the League of Women Voters Georgia. That's about all I can keep up with! Thanks for your interest. You can keep in touch on FaceBook: Kathleen Cochran. I'd love to know if you are writing somewhere else.
Related Discussions
- 103
Boston mayor excludes White people from holiday party
by Readmikenow 16 months ago
Could this be considered institutional racism? The mayor isn't upset at this racism, she is upset the white elected members found out about it."Boston's Democratic mayor has apologized for causing offense with a holiday party invitation that excluded White people.Michelle Wu drew criticism...
- 36
Odd Facts About European Leaders
by Susie Lehto 6 years ago
What do Germany’s Angela Merkel, France’s Emmanuel Macron, Italy’s Paolo Gentiloni, Great Britain’s Theresa May, Holland’s Mark Rutte, Sweden’s Stefan Löfven, Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon, and European Commission’s Jean-Claude Juncker all have in common?The first is they are all leaders of...
- 149
Racism is Rampant Today
by Kathryn L Hill 3 months ago
There is proof everywhere you look… For instance... uh… uh….
- 18
The 10 Most Racist Countries In The World
by Grace Marguerite Williams 11 years ago
Youtube presented a video of the 10 most racist countries in the world(the video is in Spanish). These countries are as follows in descending order: Austria(10), Germany(9), Russia(8), Argentina(7), England(6), Rwanda(5), Israel(4), South Africa(3), Spain(2) and in first place, the...
- 16
Do you believe that the influx of illegals to America will cause even
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
more discrimination and prejudice towards the Latino population? According to the Daily Press dated 7/13/2014, the continuing influx of Latino immigrants, whether illegal or not, is causing tensions between Latinos and Blacks in the Deep Southern states as there is fiercer competition for...
- 413
Legal immigrants being jailed for their opinions
by Kathleen Cochran 15 hours ago
How do pro-deportation Americans feel about legal immigrants being jailed for political activities?(First Amendment Rights apply to non-citizens as well.)