"Black Lives Matter" - it's stupid. Just cut the crap.....

[cabanafrau]

Maybe you missed the part where I said this wasn't about blacks and police but a much, much deeper issue. Or maybe you are just choosing not to hear that.

Just as you seem to miss the comments about why Black Lives Matter is not helpful to get to a solution of the real issue precisely because it tacitly approves the chasm. Shouldn't victory, the goal we ideally want to shoot for, leave the baggage in the past and allow to work for something new and better?

And there we go again taking it from a larger issue and deeper conversation to a myopic debate over specifics.

I realize you want to dictate the terms of the conversation to conform with your views, however my comment you're taking issue with wasn't "debating" anyone, merely providing some factual context to a part of the conversation some others were having. Everyone is allowed to participate in the conversation and contribute their thoughts as they choose. You're free to ignore what disturbs your sensibilities.

 

[ASchwa]

Sweet mercy! That article read like a TMZ article.
According to Snopes "The Conservative Treehouse" has a little problem with facts.

According to Snopes they have a writer on their staff that wrote falsehoods, and they proudly use her.

 

[cabanafrau]

I believe past acts are only generally admissible if the defence claims that their client would never do such a thing nor had ever done so in the past. I don't know if that also aplies in the case of statements made by others on the stand.

Most commonly character witnesses, which are witnesses specifically presented to present testimony regarding the issue of character are presented by defense to bolster the character of the defendant.

Other than that character evidence is presented by either side in reference to the other party's witnesses as rebuttal so that the jury will reevaluate the veracity of what that witness testified to because of their poor character. The simplest example of this is what happens if a cell mate or a co defendant testifies and the attorney on the other side basically gets up and says, yeah, but are you really going to believe the guy convicted five times for robbery is telling you the truth?

 

[cabanafrau]

According to Snopes they have a writer on their staff that wrote falsehoods, and they proudly use her.

Can you clarify who you mean by "they"? The context of your sentence doesn't make that clear.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Its funny, I keep reading the same adjectives being used throughout this thread to put down Black Lives Matter: violent, disrespectful, unlawful, divisive, aggressive, rowdy, criminal. Do you think it is a coincidence that these are the same prejudices often associated with blacks, and black men in particular? The same prejudices in fact, that BLM is trying to address? The same prejudices that may lead to, consciously or subconsciously, black men being treated differently in similar situations, and even killed in some instances? The same prejudices that may have led to Trayvon Martin's death?

Speaking of which, I also see the same specific instances being brought up repeatedly. Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, etc. But as PP's have said multiple times, this isn't about any one incident. This is about ALL the incidents. That have occurred. That keep occurring. American has a problem, and has for a very long time. It isn't as simple as whites and blacks or cops and blacks. What is dividing us, what is dividing our country, goes back much further and is a lot deeper than Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter is a conduit through which a much deeper issue has began bubbling back up from the depths it has been hiding and festering in for so many years.

The truth is, you can see the worst in anything if you want to. You could argue God is a power hungry, vengeful, racist if you chose to see Him that way... and you would have plenty of evidence I might add. Or you could choose to see the good and him and embrace it. The choice it up to you. The truth is Black Lives Matter isn't a a defined group of people. It is both a sign and signifier. It is a voice for people that have not been heard. It is an alarm clock for america to wake up, a mirror we all need to look into. It is all of us. It is a feeling all black people have felt at one point in their lives... And one that we all hope to never have feel again.

If you make it about ALL the instances, you lose your credibility. As a white guy, am I mad about the 280 whites people cops have killed this year? No. Were I to dig around, I could probably find a handful that might rile me up - none I can think of off the top of my head though.

The two instances with black victims recently are a real concern (even without all the facts). But, these are two very specific instances. Now, if BLM wants to look into every such instance, more power to them. But, if they're going to look at ALL of them, and they're going to cry "foul" on the front end of ALL of them, then they need to come out on the back end of the Mike Browns (and others) and very publicly announce "no foul".

 

[ASchwa]

Can you clarify who you mean by "they"? The context of your sentence doesn't make that clear.

Snopes.

Here is the url
http://www.snopes.com/author/kim/

 

[Disn3yVision]

Just as you seem to miss the comments about why Black Lives Matter is not helpful to get to a solution of the real issue precisely because it tacitly approves the chasm. Shouldn't victory, the goal we ideally want to shoot for, leave the baggage in the past and allow to work for something new and better?

How often do you think Blacks have been told, shouldn't we just "leave the baggage in the past." Quite easy and convenient to say when you are on the good side of that baggage. That is the exact type of logic that has gotten us where we are today.

And I and MANY others have commented repeatedly on your logic that black lives matter is divisive and "tacitly approve a chasm". In fact, I quoted and responded to you directly WAY BACK ON PAGE 5. Yet here we are on page 36 and you are still saying the exact same thing.

If the goal is coming together to tackle the problem, it's particularly unhelpful to raise the premise on the basis of a construct that inherently creates an us versus them mindset. Police misuse of authority is something everyone should be concerned about. It certainly won't be solved with the execution of random police officers based on the fact they're wearing a uniform and appear to be Caucasian. That's not a gain for anyone. This isn't a fire that's going to be doused with hate.

How does #blacklivesmatter create an "inherent" us versus them mindset???? If you are saying Red is my favorite color does that mean you dislike all the other colors? YOU are making it as versus them mindset!!! YOU are doing that. Just curious, but who is the us versus them in your example? Blacks vs whites? Or blacks vs police? Or blacks vs the rich? EXACTLY. Its not blacks VERSUS anybody. It about blacks being treated the same as EVERYBODY. It is about all lives matter. They are begging for all lives to matter, black lives included. That is the entire point. You see black lives matter and want to read #ONLYblacklives matter, when really the movement is really saying #EVENblacklivesmatter. Would you make an argument that if somebody said even a hot dog is food that was discriminatory? Does that create an us vs them mindset versus all other food?

When people raise money for cancer nobody gets pissed off and says #alldiseasesmatter. When people say #cancerstrong nobody says well you are discriminating against #multiplesclerosisstrong. Why is that? Saying there are OTHER problems has nothing to do with the problem being discussed, its completely irrelevant. There are "more important" issues than homelessness but does that mean we shouldn't address, acknowledge, and work on improving and solving that issue? My mom saves dogs, should I tell her that all animals need saving and its not fair for her to concentrate on dogs (specifically rottweilers in her case). Should I tell her stop talking about saving rotties, lets save cute little kittens because they need saving too? PP's are right, if you are saying #alllivesmatter you are part of the problem. YOU are being separatist. YOU are being divisionist. By pitting one issue against other ones. By citing one race against other ones. Black lives matter has NOTHING to do with other races. You are making it about that. Black lives matter has to do with addressing and acknowledging a problem THAT EXISTS and saying all lives matter is doing just the opposite. We all know that all lives matter. Duh. Add something valuable to the conversation... and its a conversation that needs to be had so stop trying to avoid/ignore by deflecting to other, non related issues. We focus on gay rights, women's rights, animal rights.... but god forbid we focus on a black mans right to live. After all... that would be racist right?

 

[cabanafrau]

If you make it about ALL the instances, you lose your credibility. As a white guy, am I mad about the 280 whites people cops have killed this year? No. Were I to dig around, I could probably find a handful that might rile me up - none I can think of off the top of my head though.

The two instances with black victims recently are a real concern (even without all the facts). But, these are two very specific instances. Now, if BLM wants to look into every such instance, more power to them. But, if they're going to look at ALL of them, and they're going to cry "foul" on the front end of ALL of them, then they need to come out on the back end of the Mike Browns (and others) and very publicly announce "no foul".

The use of lethal and deadly force should ALWAYS be very thoroughly analyzed. That is a very serious action to take and should never be taken lightly. There will be some tragic mistakes. Hopefully a thorough analysis will allow for some lessons to be learned to help avoid as many mistakes and accidents as humanly possible.

I believe lethal force was used in both the Pulse nightclub incident and of course in the Dallas incident last week. Those are understandable uses of deadly force, but they should still be studied (and I'm certain they are) to see what can be learned that can be useful in any way.

Where analysis reveals a reckless use of deadly force absent rational explanation there needs to be consequences. The consequences need to fit the circumstances and to deter others from engaging in similar behavior. I think we will see consequences of the Minnesota shooting.

 

[perkinsrose]

Did a study really find there aren’t racial disparities in police shootings? Not so fast.
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12148452/police-shootings-racism-study

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Did a study really find there aren’t racial disparities in police shootings? Not so fast.
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12148452/police-shootings-racism-study

Should we discuss Vox as a source?

Regardless... No one study or article is dispositive, obviously. But at least the original article/study that this one discusses contributes to the dialogue in a constructive way and makes an attempt at getting to reality. I think that is its value.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Snopes.

Here is the url
http://www.snopes.com/author/kim/

Omg. Please tell me you don't actually think that is a serious bio.
It's clearly a joke bio. Most of the writers over there have joke bios.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Should we discuss Vox as a source?

Regardless... No one study or article is dispositive, obviously. But at least the original article/study that this one discusses contributes to the dialogue in a constructive way and makes an attempt at getting to reality. I think that is its value.

Vox isn't a good source.

 

[gwynne]

Snopes.

Here is the url
http://www.snopes.com/author/kim/

Really???

Omg. Please tell me you don't actually think that is a serious bio.
It's clearly a joke bio. Most of the writers over there have joke bios.

Thank you!
And she's not the only one with a joke bio. There are lots of them. They are supposed to be funny, sort of like "The Onion".

Need another example? I like Dan Evon's. "His work has appeared somewhere, and he earned a degree at the University of His Choosing."
http://www.snopes.com/author/dan/

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Thank you!
And she's not the only one with a joke bio. There are lots of them. They are supposed to be funny, sort of like "The Onion".

And we're supposed to take these "journalists" seriously?

Somehow I can't imagine Walter Cronkite or Woodward or Bernstein crafting a "joke bio".

As my mom used to say, "sad state of affairs" in journalism today!

 

[gwynne]

And we're supposed to take these "journalists" seriously?

Somehow I can't imagine Walter Cronkite or Woodward or Bernstein crafting a "joke bio".

As my mom used to say, "sad state of affairs" in journalism today!

I'm not befudded by some humor. It's not everyone's taste, I get that.
It has nothing to do with how I see journalists.

 

[JimMIA]

Where analysis reveals a reckless use of deadly force absent rational explanation there needs to be consequences.

LOL. I'm sure you didn't mean that quite the way you phrased it! It would be pretty difficult to come up with ANY "rational explanation" for "...a reckless use of deadly force!"

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

I'm not befudded by some humor. It's not everyone's taste, I get that.
It has nothing to do with how I see journalists.

I guess I just think that the lines btwn journalism and entertainment are already too blurred, and that this contributes to a problem and a lack of faith in the profession these days.

Leave The Onion to The Onion!

 

[asta]

Most commonly character witnesses, which are witnesses specifically presented to present testimony regarding the issue of character are presented by defense to bolster the character of the defendant.

Other than that character evidence is presented by either side in reference to the other party's witnesses as rebuttal so that the jury will reevaluate the veracity of what that witness testified to because of their poor character. The simplest example of this is what happens if a cell mate or a co defendant testifies and the attorney on the other side basically gets up and says, yeah, but are you really going to believe the guy convicted five times for robbery is telling you the truth?

Thanks for the info. This is an area where the rules of the judicial system are really needed to guide us to what is right. I freely admit that I can't make a judgement independent of what I know about someone's background. That probably makes me wrong and a very bad jury member. Yesterday I reacted very, very strongly to the videos of the Reynolds woman and I don't think I could fairly evaluate her testimony after seeing those, even though that is probably wrong. But as a rational, thinking person why would you put anything like those on the Internet for the world to see?

 

[gwynne]

I guess I just think that the lines btwn journalism and entertainment are already too blurred, and that this contributes to a problem and a lack of faith in the profession these days.

Leave The Onion to The Onion!

Critical thinking skills matter. Reading for content matters. And I kind of think that is the point.

 

[cabanafrau]

How often do you think Blacks have been told, shouldn't we just "leave the baggage in the past." Quite easy and convenient to say when you are on the good side of that baggage. That is the exact type of logic that has gotten us where we are today.

And I and MANY others have commented repeatedly on your logic that black lives matter is divisive and "tacitly approve a chasm". In fact, I quoted and responded to you directly WAY BACK ON PAGE 5. Yet here we are on page 36 and you are saying the exact same thing.

You are completely misunderstanding my use of leaving the baggage in the past, totally and completely. All I will tell you is it stems out of an idea from a much bigger conversation where there were hopes expressed about ideas and feelings of simply wishing it would be possible to refuse to play by the old rules of race and prejudice and past injustices and declare it a new day, a day where all of that would be let go, left in the dust and we could simply be as WE want to be, not forced to be constricted by the fights of other people, many of whom are dead before the last century even began. If given the choice of a fresh start why would anyone choose to build over wreckage when you can choose to start fresh and try to live how you want to live? We've wished and wondered many, many times why we can't move on and live our lives with our understanding about what race does or doesn't mean in our lives instead of living according to what looks like rules for failure.

Yes, I am still saying the exact same thing. I don't think we will ever solve the issue of knitting together if we start off on the foot of division. I've interestingly found out I am in very good company(at least in my world) in this line of thought. Where that private discussion led in the real world was very telling, very comforting and also very concerning on some levels. Would it surprise you to know that some of those thoughtful and concerned voices were also black ones, just like the big ongoing discussion I just described above? A particular concern raised was an aspect I hadn't even considered about the downside of current events. Yep, just to be clear, I still think Black Lives Matter is a lousy way to achieve the future and the equality I want to see.