Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A general disregard for human life is a healthy, though not mandatory component.I'm curious why people being killed is not a coherent complaint and why one thus complaining should "grow up"? Is it that people should just accept getting killed or injured on the street by police for minor law infractions or, in some cases, NO infractions?
Is that what "growing up" means?
You say "good point", agreeing that you should read the thread, and then still haven't read it, or are at least pretending you haven't. I've given several "Marxist components" stated by BLM. Really not much point in talking if you're going to ignore me. You should really put down the steaming absinthe when interacting on web forums.Good point. At any rate since BLM has not stated any explicitly Marxist component I don't really need to worry about what BLM is planning that is "Marxist" per se.
Since BLM qua BLM is not a Marxist organization the answer to what you specifically fear about their "Marxist" intent is meaningless anyway. But I'll definitely look for what it is you fear about them based on your imagination.
Thanks!
I'm curious why people being killed is not a coherent complaint and why one thus complaining should "grow up"?
Is it that people should just accept getting killed or injured on the street by police for minor law infractions or, in some cases, NO infractions?
So they are ideologically opposed to themselves? This is a really lame attempt at gaslighting me. You even gaslighted (gaslit?) yourself when you said they don't claim to want to abolish the family, then included a link where they say they do, in the same post!Because the only ones I see claiming they are Marxist are those who are ideologically opposed to them. It seems to simply be a smear campaign trying to discredit BLM.
Stop with the insults or the conversation is over.
Yes, you seem skeptical of any kind of change or anyone who says things could be better.
No, I'm saying we should stop putting criminals who are pulled over into fight or flight mode making it unlikely they will be violent in the first place.
No, I asked WHY they had to be life or death situations.
It's not an insult, it's reality. It's not a good thing, it's not a bad thing, it just is.
You ever hear the phrase "perfect is the enemy of good"?
You'll never have a perfect police force.
If police have to defend themselves with deadly force 1000 times a year, usually in a split second decision, and they only fail or are wrong 50 times....that's actually really really good.
Being arrested puts them in "fight or flight mode".
Why??? I thought that was obvious. It's because some people try to attack or kill police.
So they are ideologically opposed to themselves? This is a really lame attempt at gaslighting me. You even gaslighted (gaslit?) yourself when you said they don't claim to want to abolish the family, then included a link where they say they do, in the same post!
Surely you're aware that people die...right?
Are you going to burn things down, march, and protest about it? No.
I'd like to think that it's because you understand that despite mistakes, laziness, arrogance, or even maliciousness...they ultimately do far more good than bad.
You say "good point", agreeing that you should read the thread, and then still haven't read it
, or are at least pretending you haven't. I've given several "Marxist components" stated by BLM.
Really not much point in talking if you're going to ignore me. You should really put down the steaming absinthe when interacting on web forums.
So they are ideologically opposed to themselves?
This is a really lame attempt at gaslighting me. You even gaslighted (gaslit?) yourself when you said they don't claim to want to abolish the family, then included a link where they say they do, in the same post!
Well I can't force you to read what I say but it feels strange talking to someone who seems to be only listening and talking to himself.Umm, no I said "good point" because it is a fair statement that if I want to know something you have already posted I should go look for it myself. But as I noted since Marxism isn't really a part of the BLM philosophy as they lay out it really doesn't matter much either way.
They do sound internally reasonable for Marxists. They don't sound reasonable for a group who claims to want to do something about the tiny, tiny number of incidences of police brutality against blacks.Yes, but usually people tend to over-extrapolate what is or isn't Marxism per se. Since I don't really see a significant Marxist component in their philosophy I don't worry that much. But even if one could derive a Marxist influence in any of their statements of interest it wouldn't worry me because the statements they make about themselves seem quite rational and reasonable.
Duh. Even Lenin and Stalin didn't say that. I think Pol Pot might have said that, but he was speaking to his small population of people who were already trapped inside the death camp called Cambodia.Now, if they said they wish to destroy all capital and devolve the entire system of our economy to control by the proletariat I might be a bit concerned. Or if they said they wanted to create a Leninist-Stalinist type of commune in which political enemies would be destroyed, well then I think I'd be REALLY concerned. But I'm going by what they say they are for. Rather than just my febrile imagination.
Obviously they're going to say that. The nuclear family currently exists, and they want to be as inclusive as possible to get more donations and sell more t-shirts. But do you ever see much in the way of families at their "protests"? I don't. I see a mostly young demographic, with the occasional older mercenary white Democrat politician to whom BLM hands over it's donations.So when BLM explicitly says "We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children." that reads like a desire to abolish the family? Hmmmm.
Yes, I see "collective". Obviously you see it too or else you wouldn't have said that. Anyway, again, an odd way to deal with police brutality.Now I know you and others have belabored the next paragraph where they say "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other..." but that doesn't mean they want to ABOLISH families...it just appears to mean that they don't think the nuclear family is the ONLY form of support (hence the phrase "prescribed...structure requirement").
It's like saying "We like families but they aren't the ONLY thing that works for everyone. We can work together as a community to support each other". And that, frankly, doesn't sound too awful to me.
Of course you'll probably see "COLLECTIVE" in there somewhere which will set off your "Marxism Radar"...
And again, the Soviets didn't come out and say that either. They just did it once they had power....but, again, it's not like they are saying "we will force collectivize the proletariat!"
Yes I am aware of that. So if someone were to come in and brutally murder a close relative of yours would you be upset?
If an authority whose job description includes "PUBLIC SAFETY" and whose pay I FUND kills someone you better bet I'm going to want to know WHAT HAPPENED. And if what happened means they simply decided to kneel on their neck until the person was dead I'm probably going to get a bit concerned. And if it happens over and over and over and over again, I'm going to probably want that to change.
OF COURSE they do! But we have developed a system in which abuses can become more prevalent. And that's the problem.
Sorry, but I do not accept that we simply can not change anything to make things better.
I have heard it. I'm not asking for a perfect police force. I'm stating the exact opposite. Let's assume the police force is imperfect and craft policy so it minimizes people dying or being mistreated by the state.
Cool, let's lessen the number of times they have to defend themselves with deadly force and knock the number down further.
Then how about we stop arresting people for traffic infractions?
No kidding. Why do people try to kill police during a traffic stop?
A close relative? Sure. A total stranger? Significantly less. In either case, I'd hope that I have the patience and understanding for the justice system to take its course.
Change how? By arresting and charging those in the wrong?
Prove it. Prove it's more prevalent. I'd bet dollars to cents it's probably far less prevalent than it's ever been before....it's just more visible.
They do sound internally reasonable for Marxists. They don't sound reasonable for a group who claims to want to do something about the tiny, tiny number of incidences of police brutality against blacks.
Obviously they're going to say that. The nuclear family currently exists, and they want to be as inclusive as possible to get more donations and sell more t-shirts.
And again, the Soviets didn't come out and say that either. They just did it once they had power.
I'm not saying that things can't be any better....
I'm saying the mob won't make them better. I'm saying I see nothing but shortsighted scapegoating and misplaced priorities from those screaming for change. I'm saying that emotionally driven media generated outrage isn't going to suddenly provide us with any good solutions.
In fact, I think it's likely to do more harm than good.
If you had to choose between a dozen people mistreated by the state or a thousand people mistreated by the community....which would you choose?
How?
Like DUI? Or speeding?
Because they are criminals who don't want to be arrested. Maybe they have a warrant for murder....maybe they are high on drugs or drunk....maybe they have someone stuffed in the trunk.
There's really no way to know without checking and in all of those cases, I'd want the person stopped and arrested on the spot.
The officer who choked him to death on the street had NUMEROUS previous complaints against him. Yet there he was out on the street.
Thankfully I gave concrete examples in that same post just a few lines later! (Oh yeah and DEFINITELY arrest the people doing it. But, again, look at George Floyd as a good example. George Floyd was apparently trying to pass a counterfeit $20. He got a death sentence there and then on the street. The guy who killed him? He got to go home, sit around a couple days, have some discussions with the City to arrange for his plea, etc. So, well, I think you can see there might be some indicators of a difference in the speed of justice.)
"About 1,000 civilians are killed each year by law-enforcement officers in the United States. By one estimate, Black men are 2.5 times more likely than white men to be killed by police during their lifetime. And in another study, Black people who were fatally shot by police seemed to be twice as likely as white people to be unarmed". (What the data say about police brutality and racial bias — and which reforms might work)
"Based on information from more than two million 911 calls in two US cities, he concluded that white officers dispatched to Black neighbourhoods fired their guns five times as often as Black officers dispatched for similar calls to the same neighbourhoods" (ibid)
OK. That has some valid points though I do not totally agree. However there is a catch 22 because without the mob to highlight the issue nothing changes. Heck even with the mob things have not changed until it got to a breaking point.
That is a hard on to answer because it is not black and white. For example if it was a 1000 people with minor property damage and 12 people killed by the state I would prefer the former. Here is the issue I have and it is the same issue I have with the death penalty. Even one person wrongly executed by the state is to much. I would rather let a possibly guilty man go free then kill an innocent man.
Like I said, by reducing their fight or flight response.
Yes. Issue an infraction and call them a CAB. Why is it necessary to arrest them on the spot?
This is my point. If we did not check those things and arrest them on the spot then there would be no fight or flight escalation and traffic police would have a lot less issues. Is this not a win for both sides?
He was charged with murder...
Surely you can understand the difference between two completely different situations....can't you?
Unfortunately, I've looked at those cases before....and in the vast majority of unarmed people being killed, they tried to take a gun from an officer.
Ok then, so why be so afraid?So? There's no central controlling body of Marxism or communism or anarchy either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?