Existing While Black: A Growing Concern

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

ObsidianJones:

Leg End:
I've only ever seen the two officers involved. I'm probably blind though. And I've heard funny things about a dozen squad cars arriving on scene to something that's not even a crime, just because the dispatch was on stupid pills. Maybe they wanted stat padding.

Considering Starbucks corporate, I can't imagine that racial selective service would be anything other than a total outlier. And it's a bit strange sounding to me too, but I've sat in a Denny's for half a day while on a single glass of lemonade, so... euh.

Being straight here, I thought you were having a bit of a laugh with that comment. I didn't know how serious or not you were with it.

Honestly, I'm not sure you even did. I'm willing to admit I've not gotten proper sleep for quite some time and probably read things in ways they weren't meant. Apologies there if so, or even if not.

I've personally seen all kinds of responses to confrontations. There really doesn't seem to be a difference with races involved and idiots in news reports look to be outliers. But that's just me and your mileage will vary.

It never does. And in this case, regardless of the real cause, it's garnered her a lot of support, so she would likely be mentally reinforced regardless if she did do it for racial reasons or if she was just booting freeloaders in her mind.

I don't think anyone at Starbucks really knows what is happening anymore. They probably lost quite a few customers due to the incident, and eventually they'll lose their current ones just due to people moving on. I may have only been inside a Starbucks once(probably), but I've gone through drive-thrus with folks and ordered. Can guarantee that isn't happening ever again with their kneejerk reaction.

I was serious about it being the more important because it affects most people. Truth be told, most people are selfish. They only care about a situation if it affects them. And given that so many people get their coffee from Starbucks, 8000 stores closing one day probably affected millions of people. That makes people take notice.

Kind of like the Kneeling during the national anthem.

I've been counting coats and split the difference. It seems like around 5 cops were called. You under called it, I over called it.

But here's the problem, the innate problem with people calling the cops over every little thing. Which story should any trust? There was an employee at that very Starbucks named Ieshaa Cash who said that the Manager in question had continually issues with Black People.

Cash said she was the only Black employee besides an assistant manager at the Starbucks and she soon felt the wrath of Hylton who cut her pay without explanation, had her demoted from a supervisory position, avoided dealing with Black customers and called the cops often on Black people.

"She always found a reason to kick Black people out, she was way more likely to ask them to leave over white people who hadn?t made a purchase," she said.

And when it came to serving Black customers at the counter, she said Hylton would make them wait and tended attentively to white people first.

"She was cold and standoffish to everyone else and would say 'they can wait'," explained Cash. "She often made the baristas serve them so she wouldn't have to. Holly was very attentive with all the white customers, always making sure they were happy and served quickly," she said.

This now has become not only a two on one account (The woman who shot the video used in the story clearly stated they did nothing wrong to warrant a removal), but now past corroboration.

Now, the natural question is "Well, why did Cash say this? What's her story? How do we know we can trust her?"

That's exactly the point.

If the person calling the police is the first contact, they immediately become the trusted party in terms of a purely human interaction. This person says they need help, I'm here to help, let me go help them. But if people are abusing that system in order to the authorities on their side to tip the scales in their favor, regular normal people who want to handle the situation one on one (like adults) don't have a chance.

As being first contact, it is their story that must be disputed. Anyone can act the victim or legitimately see the issue solely from their perception. Like the little 9 year old boy who had the cops called on him because a woman thought he felt her behind. In her own words "I understand how it looks, but she escalated it and then I lost my temper at her, not at that child."

After she was 'assaulted' (it turned out his backpack just grazed her and he didn't even know she existed), she turns to call out to the family. Gyrating in front of a little boy and girl out of the outrage of what happened to her.

Now, shocker, I'm actually inclined to believe her. I do believe she lost her tempered and acted from that. But she's also lying. She called the cops and the reason she gave is that a child sexually assaulted her. She didn't mention the mother and that was the cause of her call. She said she was sexually assaulted by a child.

Given the current climate of how police have been acting with certain groups, calling the cops on someone because you're displeased or suspicious is tantamount to going into a situation with a gun locked and loaded. More over the fact of just being frustrated that we can't live without having the police involved, every small thing can escalate to a life or death situation just with the involvement of police. And that's just inexcusable.

Lil devils x:

ObsidianJones:
Lastly, many jobs will fire you if they find out you've been arrested. If one side is willing to risk that outcome for the other, I'm not losing any sleep if they themselves end up get bitten by said actions. That being said, I don't think that's the right move. I think learning doesn't begin with expulsion.

I hundred percent know her firing was a PR move, but it was a dumb one. To show growth, you need to have those who were involved actually show the growth. Not a new spokesmodel who has no idea of what's happening.

I disagree that they should not be fired. The problem is if they are racist and will continue to be racist, and their job requires they deal with other races, that has a direct impact on the employer by keeping them. They have to want to learn on their own, you have no control over whether they actually do. This is why it is important we do not have racists in positions where they can actively harm others, such as Law enforcement, immigration department, teachers, healthcare, or even making your food. The problem with allowing them to continue to work in fields where they can harm people is that they will actually harm people and we really cannot take that risk.

If they are harmful to the people they serve, their peers, or their company, they should not be in that job in the first place.

I make no illusions that everyone will like me, nor everyone should like me. There are plenty of reasons that someone will dislike me. And I can't control any of them.

However, we might be in the same place. We might have to even deal with each other occasionally. And I want them to deal with me in the most professional way possible. People have to learn to deal with their biases to interact and function in this society. They don't have to like my skin color. They can go home and call me names and hate the fact that they were even in the same room as me. But as long as we get our business done to mutual financial satisfaction and/or sate our responsibilities in a task, I couldn't care less about how they think of me.

You and I both know that the new Alt-Right is gaining power over a manifested Victimhood. We've seen comments here on this forum that "It's ok to be white!" when no one is saying that it isn't ok in the first place. Unless they honestly see being bigoted and prejudiced as actual cornerstones of White Identity. Then that's an entire conversation.

But with every case of this, they have one more bullet to aim and fire, saying "This is how they attack you. Either you serve them or lose your livelihood".

In firing them, we coddle them. We give them the separation they want. And not only that, we give them absolute proof that the government is 'siding with them over us' and making more of these whackos.

They have to be apart of this world. They have to deal with the realities of it. And so do the rest of us.

Lil devils x:
I don't think the media is exaggerating though due to what I experience on a daily basis here. I work in healthcare and work with patients daily in the Clinic and when making my rounds at the Hospital. I hear people yelling horribly racist crap all the time at the people here. Hell even when I took my friend to get their driver's license renewed here I heard two men speaking sitting behind me openly talking about how he "avoids having to hire em' n-expletive by only hiring people from his church and never openly advertising job openings". That is the reality I live in where people openly talk about this stuff because it is socially acceptable in this area to do so.

I'll give you 7 to 1 odds that those same two guys, when they complain about black people, say how they hate them because they as white people have to pay for blacks through welfare when they should just go get a job.

That is just it though, many of those who are racist use their jobs to be able to carry out their beliefs and act harmfully to others through those jobs. Much of the White supremacists literature and propaganda ENCOURAGES racists to get jobs in fields where they can assist them. In a teaching position, they can affect a child's future, ability to get scholarships and ability to go to college. They can affect how a child views education and whether or not they enjoy school or hate it. They hold a great deal of power over others in these positions. When you review what actions have been carried out by those in positions to do harm, it becomes very clear we cannot just allow that to continue.

No, I do not expect everyone to like everyone, but when they intentionally get jobs so that they can use those jobs to carry out these things, yes, we do have a responsibility to protect people from their harmful actions. These things are actually happeing IS the problem:

Volitich boasted about bringing her white nationalist beliefs into the classroom and hiding her ideology from administrators. She said that when parents complained to the school's principal about how she is injecting political bias into the classroom, Volitich lied to the principal and said it was not true.

"She believed me and backed off," she said.

Volitich also agreed with her guest?s assertion that more white supremacists need to infiltrate public schools and become teachers. "They don't have to be vocal about their views, but get in there!" her guest said. "Be more covert and just start taking over those places."

"Right," Volitich said. "I'm absolutely one of them."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-public-school-teacher-white-nationalist-podcast_us_5a99ae32e4b089ec353a1fba

Allowing these people to continue to harm others through their jobs is not something we can just sit back and let happen. No, we have a duty to those that are being harmed by these people to do everything possible to prevent that from happening.

Even in a food service job, they can wipe their arse with your food and then serve you. People who carry such hatred in their hearts are not going to care about whether or not they serve you appropriately.

EDIT: In addition, look at what coworkers said about this woman working at starbucks, " she cut her pay without explanation" No one should be forced to endure such a work environment just so "racists can learn how to deal with others". Why should one person have their pay cut, punishing them, their children and anyone that depends on their income just to keep from firing someone who is actually harmful? It is punishing the company, those who work with them and the customers to keep people like this in jobs where they can harm others. Keeping someone like that is a liability to the company as they can be sued by other employees and customers for failing to dismiss them and allowing this to continue.

It would be coddling them and punishing everyone around them to allow them to keep their jobs when they are toxic, not fire them. Let them complain about being fired, they were fired for good reason. Others should not be forced to endure such a person simply because they need to be "taught how to function in society". Maybe there should be jobs that exist that prevent them from harming others that specifically serve to teach them, so people surrounding them know what they are getting themselves into ahead of time, but this should not be expected to exist in all positions and jobs and people should have a choice on whether or not they wish to have to deal with them rather than having others forced to suffer due to them.

Lil devils x:
That is just it though, many of those who are racist use their jobs to be able to carry out their beliefs and act harmfully to others through those jobs. Much of the White supremacists literature and propaganda ENCOURAGES racists to get jobs in fields where they can assist them. In a teaching position, they can affect a child's future, ability to get scholarships and ability to go to college. They can affect how a child views education and whether or not they enjoy school or hate it. They hold a great deal of power over others in these positions. When you review what actions have been carried out by those in positions to do harm, it becomes very clear we cannot just allow that to continue.

No, I do not expect everyone to like everyone, but when they intentionally get jobs so that they can use those jobs to carry out these things, yes, we do have a responsibility to protect people from their harmful actions. These things are actually happeing IS the problem:

Volitich boasted about bringing her white nationalist beliefs into the classroom and hiding her ideology from administrators. She said that when parents complained to the school's principal about how she is injecting political bias into the classroom, Volitich lied to the principal and said it was not true.

"She believed me and backed off," she said.

Volitich also agreed with her guest?s assertion that more white supremacists need to infiltrate public schools and become teachers. "They don't have to be vocal about their views, but get in there!" her guest said. "Be more covert and just start taking over those places."

"Right," Volitich said. "I'm absolutely one of them."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-public-school-teacher-white-nationalist-podcast_us_5a99ae32e4b089ec353a1fba

Allowing these people to continue to harm others through their jobs is not something we can just sit back and let happen. No, we have a duty to those that are being harmed by these people to do everything possible to prevent that from happening.

Even in a food service job, they can wipe their arse with your food and then serve you. People who carry such hatred in their hearts are not going to care about whether or not they serve you appropriately.

EDIT: In addition, look at what coworkers said about this woman working at starbucks, " she cut her pay without explanation" No one should be forced to endure such a work environment just so "racists can learn how to deal with others". Why should one person have their pay cut, punishing them, their children and anyone that depends on their income just to keep from firing someone who is actually harmful? It is punishing the company, those who work with them and the customers to keep people like this in jobs where they can harm others. Keeping someone like that is a liability to the company as they can be sued by other employees and customers for failing to dismiss them and allowing this to continue.

It would be coddling them and punishing everyone around them to allow them to keep their jobs when they are toxic, not fire them. Let them complain about being fired, they were fired for good reason. Others should not be forced to endure such a person simply because they need to be "taught how to function in society". Maybe there should be jobs that exist that prevent them from harming others that specifically serve to teach them, so people surrounding them know what they are getting themselves into ahead of time, but this should not be expected to exist in all positions and jobs and people should have a choice on whether or not they wish to have to deal with them rather than having others forced to suffer due to them.

I agree that people shouldn't work in situations that are toxic and limiting. We're supposed to have oversights to correct any malfeasance and a chain of command to right the ship. I would love if Ms. Cash told us if she went to any higher-ups and to hear how they treated the matter. That way we could even have a better understanding if it was one Manager overstepping her bounds, or if this was a systematic problem that the firing of Hylton merely covered up.

Understand, I'm in no way excusing hateful conduct or expression. In fact as I stated, as long as it's kept to themselves and I and others are treated fairly, I do not care what people think of me. I literally learned about Cash while responding to Legs End. And it has a good potential of changing a good deal of my view point about this case if true.

However, my position hasn't changed in that I don't see this action affecting that much social change other than another rallying cry of the Alt-Right. I do not see this action affecting change in the Hylton's of the world at all. It strikes of a PR move more to everyone, even people on the Left, than an actual social statement. And that PR feeling robs of the moment and makes any victory more hollow.

Because hell, the rest of the world barely knows the other side of this story presented by Ieshaa Cash. I checked CNN, MSNbc, Huffington Post, NY Times, Even Fox News.

... Yeah, I know. But it doesn't hurt to be thorough.

If people aren't aware of her past actions, this comes across as a gross over-reaction and caving into the SJW movement, blah, blah, blah. If Cash did express her mistreatment to Starbucks higher ups and nothing came of it, this whole publicity stunt is merely a show to appease the consumers. Nothing breeds contempt more than "We have to do this to save face". If her repeated violations caused her to lose this job, that's a message that she can't act this way and be gainfully employed in this society.

As I originally said. I'll never lose sleep over someone getting sucked in by their own trap. I'll admit to always holding out hope for a Daryl Davis solution to things, as it is my nature. I can be completely wrong about how to handle this, but what I know for certain is that Hylton's firing made more racists assured about how they are being accosted and made those on the fence lean closer to the right than actually made lasting change in our society as a whole.

That's the problem with fighting an asymmetrical war with zealots. Logic never works and more things can be twisted to add to their cause than dissuade them from it if they are far enough down.

ObsidianJones:
That's the problem with fighting an asymmetrical war with zealots. Logic never works and more things can be twisted to add to their cause than dissuade them from it if they are far enough down.

This is pretty much the big issue. Socially the right is in its death throes, greater income inequality combined with social media is a pressure cooker of exposing the flaws in the Republican plans - but it means they start to double down.

If you want to catch someone being racist and have it stick it can't be someone being overtly racist, you need to catch them being actively racist. Get someone, in an official capacity, saying "Fuck niggers" and you're golden. But circumstantial evidence? Going to sway more to the right than the left, and make those already on the right dig in harder.

Thaluikhain:

Dreiko:
I just don't see what any of that has to do with whether or not it's the right thing to arrest every last criminal you possibly can.

I suppose you could make an argument that if you can only arrest X criminals, as long as you arrest X criminals it doesn't matter which ones (given equivalently serious crimes). However, the police in the US (and other places) will go after (investigate, arrest or kill) black people disproportionately, in the belief (conscious or not) that they look more criminal than white people, whether or not they are criminals.

At the very least, any police officer who is hassling (investigating, arresting or killing) an innocent black person isn't a police officer who is dealing with actual criminals. You're always going to get that to some extent, but racism doesn't help. You might extend that to police officers targeting petty criminals who are black because they are black and seeming more criminal instead of dealing with more serious issues, but that's much more of a grey area.

As well as that, different things that may or may not be criminalised are done to different extents by different demographics, and the people who pass legislation are aware of this.

I think that supposition is artificial. You can't really know what X is even if there is one basically. You can never know that if you hadn't arrested this low level criminal that you would have arrested a serial killer ahead of time so the best you can do is just arrest as many people as you are presented with.

If you use your logic to its logical end you would never arrest anyone but the highest of top level criminals because you would always worry about whether or not it's really right to arrest this burglar cause next door there's a non-0% chance of there being a gang of pedophile cannibals. Such a standard is not really realizable nor valid.

ObsidianJones:

Dreiko:
I see a lot of context and justification but I feel that the core of the argument is being sidestepped here.

Fundamentally it still is overall a societal good to arrest them, despite the tragedy that surrounds their circumstances. It still is overall a good thing for society (and this includes black people too, the majority of them in fact) to arrest as many criminals as possible. The fact that there's an understandable reason that someone was driven to crime does nothing to undo the fact that we need order and equal application of law for society to flourish so we still do want to actually arrest people in proportion to the crimes that are being committed.

I think we need to use this understanding as motivational fuel to change this circumstance that causes poor people to be brought into a life of crime but that has nothing to do with the heart of the topic at hand here. The moment you discard justice because it leads to a lopsided outcome is the moment you cease moving towards true progress. You can't ever achieve anything good with that approach. What we have to do is uphold equally applied justice and strive to live up to its ideal even more, not come up with excuses why it shouldn't apply to some people.

As for the sentencing issue, it's the same with women getting less harsh punishments than men. Judges are people and people are prone to bias. The more society advances and the fewer crimes are committed by black people the lower the disparity between sentencing will be as well.

Then let me make it clearer.

The things I've stated creates criminals due to a lack of a better option and also brings black people in for no reason, other than Cops have a quota for busts per month. Unofficial, but enough cops are blowing the whistle on it that we need to take notice.

The Majority of those freed from the Innocent Project are black. The Numbers of Convictions and arrests are staggering, in terms of how more likely Blacks are to be imprisioned for things they don't do across the Board. But this part stuck with me.

For the third straight year, the Registry found a record number of exonerations in 2016, and a record number of cases involving official misconduct. A record high of 166 exonerations was reported last year, with 54 people exonerated of homicide. In more of these exonerations than in any previous year, government officials committed misconduct (70); the convictions were based on guilty pleas (74); no crime actually occurred (94); and a prosecutorial conviction integrity unit worked on the exoneration (70).

57 percent of the people who were freed in 2016 were arrested and awaited to be freed when No Crime Actually Occurred. Not that they have the wrong guy, not that there was a mix up in evidence... At least 94 Police Officers needed better stats so they found some guy, made up a crime, so they can go back home to their families with their job secured. Doesn't matter if another family was ruined.

And by the way, it doesn't stop with Police Officers. To get these innocent people behind bars, there's a litany of people who have to go along with this falsehood. Fellow Officers, Lawyers, Judges... You have to forgive us to think Law matters when those who are tasked to uphold it barely see it as a roadbump in padding these jails with the 'criminal element'.

In short, lock up every criminal who's done something dead to rights. No one has a problem with that. But changing the laws actually won't affect anything. As we see with the percentage of Blacks arrested for weed far outstrips the percentage of Whites, even in places where it was legalized.

That's why we're talking about everything else. It isn't the laws. It's the culture. There is too much benefit for overpolicing minorities and incarnating them at higher rates. People are giving up pretext any more and ignoring the law of the land, like with Weed, to fill quotas. Changing laws won't do a thing. They already haven't. Because The Quotas, The Training, The Mindset of the Police and the non-Black Public and the circumstances of the Poor and Black Living already laid the tracks to bring us to this familiar and constant destination.

Arrest the criminals. All of us want that. But the problem is, everyone who is being arrested aren't criminals.

OK so I am again in agreement with your entire explanation here but I think we're talking past each-other a bit. I was more or less aware of those issues and am similarly concerned. What I'm addressing is not a situation where you have corrupt cops making things up to meet their quotas. I'm only addressing when you have actual good cops who are catching criminals. That's literally it. The moment you introduce corrupt policing in the equation you're talking about something else and I agree with you on that part.

It's really simple, for society to function there has to be a base of trust that the order that's being upheld by the justice forces that our law enforcement represent. The ideal of behaving legally is something that ought be respected and preserved. When you commit a crime, you breach this public contract, and for society's sake it is more beneficial to have you suffer in stoic obscurity than to have you break the law and the police is there to maintain this order.

What you bring up shows that this trust is not in place, but you still need to strive to obtain it because without it you have a lawless jungle. When I see you list all those evils that plague our system, my answer is simply to just add more cops and catch those corrupt cops too. My solution is one that is found from within the system and one that is consistent with the logic that anything that breaks the law is bad more so because of its violation of the social contract than any specific evil it perpetrated.

The refusal to live within the parameters that we have determined over thousands of years lead to a better society and allow humanity to evolve and strive to be something better is a much greater crime than just stealing some stupid piece of property. Compared to that, even the great suffering that lead someone to steal is nothing.

Dreiko:
OK so I am again in agreement with your entire explanation here but I think we're talking past each-other a bit. I was more or less aware of those issues and am similarly concerned. What I'm addressing is not a situation where you have corrupt cops making things up to meet their quotas. I'm only addressing when you have actual good cops who are catching criminals. That's literally it. The moment you introduce corrupt policing in the equation you're talking about something else and I agree with you on that part.

It's really simple, for society to function there has to be a base of trust that the order that's being upheld by the justice forces that our law enforcement represent. The ideal of behaving legally is something that ought be respected and preserved. When you commit a crime, you breach this public contract, and for society's sake it is more beneficial to have you suffer in stoic obscurity than to have you break the law and the police is there to maintain this order.

What you bring up shows that this trust is not in place, but you still need to strive to obtain it because without it you have a lawless jungle. When I see you list all those evils that plague our system, my answer is simply to just add more cops and catch those corrupt cops too. My solution is one that is found from within the system and one that is consistent with the logic that anything that breaks the law is bad more so because of its violation of the social contract than any specific evil it perpetrated.

The refusal to live within the parameters that we have determined over thousands of years lead to a better society and allow humanity to evolve and strive to be something better is a much greater crime than just stealing some stupid piece of property. Compared to that, even the great suffering that lead someone to steal is nothing.

Then let me step back and try again from understanding what you're asking. I thought I did, I might have not.

Dreiko:
This is somewhat tangential to the conversation at hand but I always wondered about the narrative regarding over-policing. Is the thought that black people being targeted by police disproportionally are actually innocent of the crimes they get caught doing? Or is it that we should let more black criminals go free due to proportionality? Basically, to me, it sounds like you're supporting a much larger injustice in order to mitigate a smaller one. No, I don't think black people should be over-policed and a lot of the laws in place are there to target them but at the same time black people are aware of these laws so they can still behave legally. I fully believe anyone of any race can behave legally and so I will blame a black criminal just as much as I would a white one, while acknowledging that their experience is not the same. Despite that, their error in behaving illegally is still superior.

So, with that out of the way, I think it's smarter to move towards erasing those laws that unfairly target specific groups of people instead of addressing how we police the laws we do have, because I genuinely think it is a good thing to catch as many criminals as possible, even if they're all one race, because you still end up with a safer society that way overall, and that benefits all races equally. For every criminal there's a crime and for most crimes there's a victim and like stated above most black people's crime victims will be other black people so you could look at the disproportionate arrests as being done in order to uphold justice for the black victims. I don't see why such an interpretation is never presented.

Now, I took your suggestion of erasing certain laws that seem to unfairly target specific groups of people as the main thrust of dealing with police and the regular populace. And as far as I understand it, doing that will just leave the Cops to deal with the Criminals and regular citizens will not be bothered over nonsense that is technically against the law. Am I close to your original statement?

ObsidianJones:

Now, I took your suggestion of erasing certain laws that seem to unfairly target specific groups of people as the main thrust of dealing with police and the regular populace. And as far as I understand it, doing that will just leave the Cops to deal with the Criminals and regular citizens will not be bothered over nonsense that is technically against the law. Am I close to your original statement?

Yeah that's a pretty good understanding. We have to believe that the system is fundamentally a force for good and that by just tweaking it it will produce more justice for more people (as it has over the course of human history) so letting it do its thing while fixing the laws that are either anachronistic or just plainly dumb for modern society as we go along is the solution at hand.

A lot of what I read here is to me a show of a lack of trust in the system and while there is plenty to be unsatisfied with I fail to see anything else that has ever existed that has given humanity anything even remotely comparable as far as justice is concerned.

Even with all the corrupt racist crazy cops we're still overall doing good as a species, by a huge margin too. You can't deny the good or pick out the huge problems and use them to decide the system is no good because that doesn't take into consideration what the actual (and not hypothetical/ideal) alternative would be.

I'm sorry, but you do realize there are literally hundreds of millions of stupid and/or ignorant people in this world. Somebody, somewhere in the world today probably tried to screw a chicken. Another probably stuck his dick in a light socket out of curiosity. It's just probability. There are millions of people who buy and read the National Inquirer who believe at least some of that shit, or else they wouldn't be for sale at every grocery store checkout counter in America. Millions buy lottery tickets every week and actually think they might win.

If someone wants to write a news story about someone being stupid, it's not hard to find. I would just roll your eyes and move on, and not let isolated incidents of stupidity among millions and millions of people get you down and make you "hate this world."

ObsidianJones:

Lil devils x:
That is just it though, many of those who are racist use their jobs to be able to carry out their beliefs and act harmfully to others through those jobs. Much of the White supremacists literature and propaganda ENCOURAGES racists to get jobs in fields where they can assist them. In a teaching position, they can affect a child's future, ability to get scholarships and ability to go to college. They can affect how a child views education and whether or not they enjoy school or hate it. They hold a great deal of power over others in these positions. When you review what actions have been carried out by those in positions to do harm, it becomes very clear we cannot just allow that to continue.

No, I do not expect everyone to like everyone, but when they intentionally get jobs so that they can use those jobs to carry out these things, yes, we do have a responsibility to protect people from their harmful actions. These things are actually happeing IS the problem:

Volitich boasted about bringing her white nationalist beliefs into the classroom and hiding her ideology from administrators. She said that when parents complained to the school's principal about how she is injecting political bias into the classroom, Volitich lied to the principal and said it was not true.

"She believed me and backed off," she said.

Volitich also agreed with her guest?s assertion that more white supremacists need to infiltrate public schools and become teachers. "They don't have to be vocal about their views, but get in there!" her guest said. "Be more covert and just start taking over those places."

"Right," Volitich said. "I'm absolutely one of them."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-public-school-teacher-white-nationalist-podcast_us_5a99ae32e4b089ec353a1fba

Allowing these people to continue to harm others through their jobs is not something we can just sit back and let happen. No, we have a duty to those that are being harmed by these people to do everything possible to prevent that from happening.

Even in a food service job, they can wipe their arse with your food and then serve you. People who carry such hatred in their hearts are not going to care about whether or not they serve you appropriately.

EDIT: In addition, look at what coworkers said about this woman working at starbucks, " she cut her pay without explanation" No one should be forced to endure such a work environment just so "racists can learn how to deal with others". Why should one person have their pay cut, punishing them, their children and anyone that depends on their income just to keep from firing someone who is actually harmful? It is punishing the company, those who work with them and the customers to keep people like this in jobs where they can harm others. Keeping someone like that is a liability to the company as they can be sued by other employees and customers for failing to dismiss them and allowing this to continue.

It would be coddling them and punishing everyone around them to allow them to keep their jobs when they are toxic, not fire them. Let them complain about being fired, they were fired for good reason. Others should not be forced to endure such a person simply because they need to be "taught how to function in society". Maybe there should be jobs that exist that prevent them from harming others that specifically serve to teach them, so people surrounding them know what they are getting themselves into ahead of time, but this should not be expected to exist in all positions and jobs and people should have a choice on whether or not they wish to have to deal with them rather than having others forced to suffer due to them.

I agree that people shouldn't work in situations that are toxic and limiting. We're supposed to have oversights to correct any malfeasance and a chain of command to right the ship. I would love if Ms. Cash told us if she went to any higher-ups and to hear how they treated the matter. That way we could even have a better understanding if it was one Manager overstepping her bounds, or if this was a systematic problem that the firing of Hylton merely covered up.

Understand, I'm in no way excusing hateful conduct or expression. In fact as I stated, as long as it's kept to themselves and I and others are treated fairly, I do not care what people think of me. I literally learned about Cash while responding to Legs End. And it has a good potential of changing a good deal of my view point about this case if true.

However, my position hasn't changed in that I don't see this action affecting that much social change other than another rallying cry of the Alt-Right. I do not see this action affecting change in the Hylton's of the world at all. It strikes of a PR move more to everyone, even people on the Left, than an actual social statement. And that PR feeling robs of the moment and makes any victory more hollow.

Because hell, the rest of the world barely knows the other side of this story presented by Ieshaa Cash. I checked CNN, MSNbc, Huffington Post, NY Times, Even Fox News.

... Yeah, I know. But it doesn't hurt to be thorough.

If people aren't aware of her past actions, this comes across as a gross over-reaction and caving into the SJW movement, blah, blah, blah. If Cash did express her mistreatment to Starbucks higher ups and nothing came of it, this whole publicity stunt is merely a show to appease the consumers. Nothing breeds contempt more than "We have to do this to save face". If her repeated violations caused her to lose this job, that's a message that she can't act this way and be gainfully employed in this society.

As I originally said. I'll never lose sleep over someone getting sucked in by their own trap. I'll admit to always holding out hope for a Daryl Davis solution to things, as it is my nature. I can be completely wrong about how to handle this, but what I know for certain is that Hylton's firing made more racists assured about how they are being accosted and made those on the fence lean closer to the right than actually made lasting change in our society as a whole.

That's the problem with fighting an asymmetrical war with zealots. Logic never works and more things can be twisted to add to their cause than dissuade them from it if they are far enough down.

Do you think it is possible that someone who is a Neo Nazi for example, like the teacher above, can teach children without having it impact the children who depend on her? How about who she picks for roles in a play, how she grades their essays? Who she makes clean up after the other students? a Teacher like that can be the difference between a child who excels and the child who hangs themselves.

We are going to have to disagree on allowing these people to keep jobs where they can inflict harm onto others as I do not see it as possible for them to not let their bias both conscious and unconscious affect those they interact with. That is the same bias that causes police officers to feel a black child is more of a threat than a white adult and to shoot them. Even working at a starbucks they have an impact on everyone that they interact with. What is to prevent her from doing something nasty to a customer such as spit in their drink or drop their food on the floor? Would they have to hire an additional employee that is forced to babysit her the whole time? Nasty people tend to do nasty things to others.

Dreiko:
Yeah that's a pretty good understanding. We have to believe that the system is fundamentally a force for good and that by just tweaking it it will produce more justice for more people (as it has over the course of human history) so letting it do its thing while fixing the laws that are either anachronistic or just plainly dumb for modern society as we go along is the solution at hand.

A lot of what I read here is to me a show of a lack of trust in the system and while there is plenty to be unsatisfied with I fail to see anything else that has ever existed that has given humanity anything even remotely comparable as far as justice is concerned.

Even with all the corrupt racist crazy cops we're still overall doing good as a species, by a huge margin too. You can't deny the good or pick out the huge problems and use them to decide the system is no good because that doesn't take into consideration what the actual (and not hypothetical/ideal) alternative would be.

It would be an ideal outcome if what you said is correct. But likewise in human history have we seen people with power use it to their own means.

That's why I say that it isn't a matter of laws. We have laws. We have statutes and the like. The black criminals who are locked up are locked up because they did something wrong. As long as they broke the law, I see no harm in them being arrested. In those cases, job well done by law enforcement, the legal system, and all involved. A Plus.

But the issue is that you we need to separate the ideas of overpolicing with arresting Black Criminals. They are not the same concept. They sound like they are if you just hear "Blacks do crimes more, so we need to police them more".

But the problem is that these politicians run on a platform on keeping the streets safe. They need to show arrests to prove they are out there in the community 'fighting to give it back to the people'. They need to 'bring order back to the streets'. That in turn puts pressure on the police force who has to institute quotas. If you're not doing enough 'action', you will be reprimanded. And once again, this isn't a hypothesis.

Last March, the biggest Law Enforcement Body in the US had to go through training for a "'no quota' policy". "In May, O'Neill vowed to discipline any supervisor who puts quantity before quality when it comes to summonses.

That warning was spurred by a massive $75 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit charging the NYPD issued hundreds of thousands of summonses without justification just to fill quotas."

So, you make a 'record number of busts', say the streets are worse off than you thought, and that you need more cops. And you get them. Even with made up arrests. This is what leads to overpolicing. Laws can't fix that. There are many parts to this, and politics is just one spoke in this wheel.

I'm not going to say some laws aren't unjust. But they were written that way in order to help the political wheel spinning.

Now, I do agree with you as a species. I have to. I've seen too much in my personal life that I had to make a choice in how I would proceed. Either I would rage against the world, or try to rally around logic, positivity, and fair play. I've chose the latter. However, that doesn't blind me to what's around me.

Lil devils x:
[quote="ObsidianJones" post="528.1056208.24283892"]Do you think it is possible that someone who is a Neo Nazi for example, like the teacher above, can teach children without having it impact the children who depend on her? How about who she picks for roles in a play, how she grades their essays? Who she makes clean up after the other students? a Teacher like that can be the difference between a child who excels and the child who hangs themselves.

We are going to have to disagree on allowing these people to keep jobs where they can inflict harm onto others as I do not see it as possible for them to not let their bias both conscious and unconscious affect those they interact with. That is the same bias that causes police officers to feel a black child is more of a threat than a white adult and to shoot them.

I don't. I said as much in the final part in admitting I could be wrong about this. There is no positive when teachers with agendas willingly sabotage our youth. I still hope for a Davis outcome in all things, but I know that there are people who sometimes are just a cancer and need to be cut out.

But while I will say that my way might not be the most beneficial way of going about it, I know for a fact that Alt-righters have used this firing as a rallying call. As have others. That alone made me look at these situations in order to find another way forward. But like I said in my last part, Winning a war with Zealots using logic is nigh impossible. Given that logic is normally how I handle things, I'm simply at a lost.

Kerg3927:
I'm sorry, but you do realize there are literally hundreds of millions of stupid and/or ignorant people in this world. Somebody, somewhere in the world today probably tried to screw a chicken. Another probably stuck his dick in a light socket out of curiosity. It's just probability. There are millions of people who buy and read the National Inquirer who believe at least some of that shit, or else they wouldn't be for sale at every grocery store checkout counter in America. Millions buy lottery tickets every week and actually think they might win.

If someone wants to write a news story about someone being stupid, it's not hard to find. I would just roll your eyes and move on, and not let isolated incidents of stupidity among millions and millions of people get you down and make you "hate this world."

An argument that goes flying out the window when the words "established trends" comes up, particularly with statistics, but I think we just need to accept that some people want to deny entrenched problems at all costs.

ObsidianJones:

Dreiko:
Yeah that's a pretty good understanding. We have to believe that the system is fundamentally a force for good and that by just tweaking it it will produce more justice for more people (as it has over the course of human history) so letting it do its thing while fixing the laws that are either anachronistic or just plainly dumb for modern society as we go along is the solution at hand.

A lot of what I read here is to me a show of a lack of trust in the system and while there is plenty to be unsatisfied with I fail to see anything else that has ever existed that has given humanity anything even remotely comparable as far as justice is concerned.

Even with all the corrupt racist crazy cops we're still overall doing good as a species, by a huge margin too. You can't deny the good or pick out the huge problems and use them to decide the system is no good because that doesn't take into consideration what the actual (and not hypothetical/ideal) alternative would be.

It would be an ideal outcome if what you said is correct. But likewise in human history have we seen people with power use it to their own means.

That's why I say that it isn't a matter of laws. We have laws. We have statutes and the like. The black criminals who are locked up are locked up because they did something wrong. As long as they broke the law, I see no harm in them being arrested. In those cases, job well done by law enforcement, the legal system, and all involved. A Plus.

But the issue is that you we need to separate the ideas of overpolicing with arresting Black Criminals. They are not the same concept. They sound like they are if you just hear "Blacks do crimes more, so we need to police them more".

But the problem is that these politicians run on a platform on keeping the streets safe. They need to show arrests to prove they are out there in the community 'fighting to give it back to the people'. They need to 'bring order back to the streets'. That in turn puts pressure on the police force who has to institute quotas. If you're not doing enough 'action', you will be reprimanded. And once again, this isn't a hypothesis.

Last March, the biggest Law Enforcement Body in the US had to go through training for a "'no quota' policy". "In May, O'Neill vowed to discipline any supervisor who puts quantity before quality when it comes to summonses.

That warning was spurred by a massive $75 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit charging the NYPD issued hundreds of thousands of summonses without justification just to fill quotas."

So, you make a 'record number of busts', say the streets are worse off than you thought, and that you need more cops. And you get them. Even with made up arrests. This is what leads to overpolicing. Laws can't fix that. There are many parts to this, and politics is just one spoke in this wheel.

I'm not going to say some laws aren't unjust. But they were written that way in order to help the political wheel spinning.

Now, I do agree with you as a species. I have to. I've seen too much in my personal life that I had to make a choice in how I would proceed. Either I would rage against the world, or try to rally around logic, positivity, and fair play. I've chose the latter. However, that doesn't blind me to what's around me.

Lil devils x:
[quote="ObsidianJones" post="528.1056208.24283892"]Do you think it is possible that someone who is a Neo Nazi for example, like the teacher above, can teach children without having it impact the children who depend on her? How about who she picks for roles in a play, how she grades their essays? Who she makes clean up after the other students? a Teacher like that can be the difference between a child who excels and the child who hangs themselves.

We are going to have to disagree on allowing these people to keep jobs where they can inflict harm onto others as I do not see it as possible for them to not let their bias both conscious and unconscious affect those they interact with. That is the same bias that causes police officers to feel a black child is more of a threat than a white adult and to shoot them.

I don't. I said as much in the final part in admitting I could be wrong about this. There is no positive when teachers with agendas willingly sabotage our youth. I still hope for a Davis outcome in all things, but I know that there are people who sometimes are just a cancer and need to be cut out.

But while I will say that my way might not be the most beneficial way of going about it, I know for a fact that Alt-righters have used this firing as a rallying call. As have others. That alone made me look at these situations in order to find another way forward. But like I said in my last part, Winning a war with Zealots using logic is nigh impossible. Given that logic is normally how I handle things, I'm simply at a lost.

I say let them complain. There are still jobs they can do, like scrubbing toilets and picking up trash from the side of the road. Of course that only becomes a problem when they decide they can only pick up white trash and leave the rest. The more it is made clear that you cannot go around inflicting racist beliefs upon others, the less people will be willing to do so. Them using that as a rallying cry, is really just them crying about it, and in this circumstance they brought it on themselves.

I see it as teaching them more of a lesson to let them know that people will not just sit by and allow them to use their jobs to harm others, they will instead find someone more suitable for the job.

Dreiko:
I think that supposition is artificial. You can't really know what X is even if there is one basically. You can never know that if you hadn't arrested this low level criminal that you would have arrested a serial killer ahead of time so the best you can do is just arrest as many people as you are presented with.

You won't know for sure what would have happened, no, but you do know you've got limited resources. Anything you spend on your homicide division or gang taskforce is money not going to ordinary police officers walking the street. Any time you spend on something petty is time not spent on something else.

It's a balancing act, trying to find a happy medium that nobody quite agrees on, but sticking racism in there as well isn't going to make things easier.

Dreiko:
I think that supposition is artificial. You can't really know what X is even if there is one basically. You can never know that if you hadn't arrested this low level criminal that you would have arrested a serial killer ahead of time so the best you can do is just arrest as many people as you are presented with.

What you bring up shows that this trust is not in place, but you still need to strive to obtain it because without it you have a lawless jungle. When I see you list all those evils that plague our system, my answer is simply to just add more cops and catch those corrupt cops too. My solution is one that is found from within the system and one that is consistent with the logic that anything that breaks the law is bad more so because of its violation of the social contract than any specific evil it perpetrated.

The refusal to live within the parameters that we have determined over thousands of years lead to a better society and allow humanity to evolve and strive to be something better is a much greater crime than just stealing some stupid piece of property. Compared to that, even the great suffering that lead someone to steal is nothing.

Yes and no. That sounds a lot like what MLK was talking about when he said he was tired of being told "later", that black activists should sit quiet and get round for the system to be fixed, and somehow it keeps not being fixes. For that matter, the US was formed by people considered the worst sort of criminals by the British crown, and that nation isn't unusual in that.

OTOH, that very much depends on the crime, and why it is committed. If a sex worker has no option beyond prostitution to not die, I'm hardly going to condemn them for breaking the social contract. If a black activist is deliberately getting arrested as protest, not going to condemn them.

That does not apply to drug dealers who see it as the only way to get the flashy lifestyle promised to them.

erttheking:
An argument that goes flying out the window when the words "established trends" comes up, particularly with statistics, but I think we just need to accept that some people want to deny entrenched problems at all costs.

"Isolated incidents...all of them, I tells ya! Just like climate change research...all this data is just nonsense. A load of isolated incidents! And those confessions on secretly recorded meetings? Nonono! Isolated.... incidents!" *Bleeds profusely from nose and eyes*

erttheking:

Kerg3927:
I'm sorry, but you do realize there are literally hundreds of millions of stupid and/or ignorant people in this world. Somebody, somewhere in the world today probably tried to screw a chicken. Another probably stuck his dick in a light socket out of curiosity. It's just probability. There are millions of people who buy and read the National Inquirer who believe at least some of that shit, or else they wouldn't be for sale at every grocery store checkout counter in America. Millions buy lottery tickets every week and actually think they might win.

If someone wants to write a news story about someone being stupid, it's not hard to find. I would just roll your eyes and move on, and not let isolated incidents of stupidity among millions and millions of people get you down and make you "hate this world."

An argument that goes flying out the window when the words "established trends" comes up, particularly with statistics, but I think we just need to accept that some people want to deny entrenched problems at all costs.

I'm not denying that entrenched problems exist. I'm saying you can't fix stupid. You can't fix people overreacting to what they believe to be unusual circumstances. And you can't fix people stereotyping other people based upon appearance, because I think it's a hardwired, natural response to encountering a stranger of which we know nothing about. It's a tough habit to break for a lot of people.

Also, I was just pointing out the fact that the long list of articles in the OP involves a grand total of like 20 people on a planet with 7.5 billion. A relatively insignificant number. When reading articles like this, one needs to keep things in perspective.

Kerg3927:

erttheking:

Kerg3927:
I'm sorry, but you do realize there are literally hundreds of millions of stupid and/or ignorant people in this world. Somebody, somewhere in the world today probably tried to screw a chicken. Another probably stuck his dick in a light socket out of curiosity. It's just probability. There are millions of people who buy and read the National Inquirer who believe at least some of that shit, or else they wouldn't be for sale at every grocery store checkout counter in America. Millions buy lottery tickets every week and actually think they might win.

If someone wants to write a news story about someone being stupid, it's not hard to find. I would just roll your eyes and move on, and not let isolated incidents of stupidity among millions and millions of people get you down and make you "hate this world."

An argument that goes flying out the window when the words "established trends" comes up, particularly with statistics, but I think we just need to accept that some people want to deny entrenched problems at all costs.

I'm not denying that entrenched problems exist. I'm saying you can't fix stupid. You can't fix people overreacting to what they believe to be unusual circumstances. And you can't fix people stereotyping other people based upon appearance, because I think it's a hardwired, natural response to encountering a stranger of which we know nothing about. It's a tough habit to break for a lot of people.

Also, I was just pointing out the fact that the long list of articles in the OP involves a grand total of like 20 people on a planet with 7.5 billion. A relatively insignificant number. When reading articles like this, one needs to keep things in perspective.

While yes, some people have more difficulty overcoming these things than others, in the vast majority of cases it is simply a matter of social conditioning. Also to compare anything to 7.5 billion population is absurd. All regions vary in diversity so you are going to have greatly varying degrees of population demographics. Are you actually expecting people to list every single occurrence on this forum? Listing a few here is in no way representative of how many are actually occurring. Most people that deal with this crap shrug it off and do not bother to record what happens. Most people do not have time to mess with dealing with this in their life. It is silly to attempt to compare 20 examples to 7.5billion people, as neither stat is an accurate representation. That in no way shows perspective, in order to show actual perspective, you would have to listen to the experiences of every black person in the US. The reality is, it is not as nice as you may think it is. It is far from "insignificant" in any way. We hear from many of them and this type of treatment is common, not rare. This often times is their " normal" depending on where they live. First we start with the number of blacks in the US, Which is approximately 38 Million. Then we talk to them and have them speak of their experiences. That is how you would gain actual perspective on this.

Thaluikhain:

Yes and no. That sounds a lot like what MLK was talking about when he said he was tired of being told "later", that black activists should sit quiet and get round for the system to be fixed, and somehow it keeps not being fixes. For that matter, the US was formed by people considered the worst sort of criminals by the British crown, and that nation isn't unusual in that.

OTOH, that very much depends on the crime, and why it is committed. If a sex worker has no option beyond prostitution to not die, I'm hardly going to condemn them for breaking the social contract. If a black activist is deliberately getting arrested as protest, not going to condemn them.

That does not apply to drug dealers who see it as the only way to get the flashy lifestyle promised to them.

I would say that I'm not really saying "later" as much as "narrow your focus to what the issue is" because I am in agreement with practically every reform raised here but I take issue with how things are conflated too much and the messy thinking that sprouts from that.

I guess at a surface level you can be ok with these sorts of law-breaking but to me that is a show of lack of thoughtfulness. Of mostly innocent overlooking of the greater ramifications of the culture that would sprout as a natural outcome of this mentality.

To give you a succinct example; I don't do drugs, don't smoke weed and whatnot, never have. It's not because of any prude-ish reason you might imagine, either. I just don't like to be branded with the stereotype. Not the pot-head stereotype, either. I don't like the stereotype of the lawbreaker, cause that implies a rejection of the achievement of humanity throughout history. I can never comprehend how people who idolize illegality can live with themselves while existing in a society that is generated through what they reject. I couldn't stand that hypocrisy.

I think it is shallow thinking that leads people to take for granted the degree to which our civilization has advanced when contrasted to the thousands of years that came before. Simply because it's imperfect that's no reason to not be grateful and thank every supernatural being and fictional hero you can come up with that you get to live in the present.

Dreiko:
To give you a succinct example; I don't do drugs, don't smoke weed and whatnot, never have. It's not because of any prude-ish reason you might imagine, either. I just don't like to be branded with the stereotype. Not the pot-head stereotype, either. I don't like the stereotype of the lawbreaker, cause that implies a rejection of the achievement of humanity throughout history. I can never comprehend how people who idolize illegality can live with themselves while existing in a society that is generated through what they reject. I couldn't stand that hypocrisy.

History (and the present, for that matter), is full of pointless or actively harmful laws, and become are legitimately recognised as heroes for breaking the latter. Now, sure, there's certainly an argument to be made for blindly following the rules, whatever they are, but there's also quite valid arguments against.

EDIT: That's not to say that I don't think what you are saying has merit, just that it's a bit rigid and inflexible and dosn't always apply.

You could also argue that it's the customs as practiced, not the laws as stated, that are the important part of society, but that's another issue.

Lil devils x:
While yes, some people have more difficulty overcoming these things than others, in the vast majority of cases it is simply a matter of social conditioning. Also to compare anything to 7.5 billion population is absurd. All regions vary in diversity so you are going to have greatly varying degrees of population demographics. Are you actually expecting people to list every single occurrence on this forum? Listing a few here is in no way representative of how many are actually occurring. Most people that deal with this crap shrug it off and do not bother to record what happens. Most people do not have time to mess with dealing with this in their life. It is silly to attempt to compare 20 examples to 7.5billion people, as neither stat is an accurate representation. That in no way shows perspective...

Replace the 7.5 billion number with 325 million then, the population of the U.S. Or 8.6 million, the population of New York City. 20 of 325M and 20 of 8.6M both still round down to 0.000%.

I'm not expecting anyone to list every occurrence, but the OP clearly thought that his large list was impactful information, that it showed that this type of behavior is commonplace. I was pointing out that this is not necessarily the case.

This is a huge problem on the internet. Our brains are not designed to conceptualize things on a scale of millions. It's why outrage culture and click bait articles reign supreme. It's also why so many people buy lottery tickets.

Lil devils x:
... in order to show actual perspective, you would have to listen to the experiences of every black person in the US. The reality is, it is not as nice as you may think it is. It is far from "insignificant" in any way. We hear from many of them and this type of treatment is common, not rare. This often times is their " normal" depending on where they live. First we start with the number of blacks in the US, Which is approximately 38 Million. Then we talk to them and have them speak of their experiences. That is how you would gain actual perspective on this.

That would give one perspective, but a heavily biased one, because those interviewed would have a huge incentive to exaggerate and make things appear as bad as possible. Like most people, they are looking out for number one, and will tend to paint a picture in a light that helps them most. That perspective would have to be balanced with other perspectives to get any semblance of a true picture, but it would be a good first step.

Kerg3927:

Lil devils x:
While yes, some people have more difficulty overcoming these things than others, in the vast majority of cases it is simply a matter of social conditioning. Also to compare anything to 7.5 billion population is absurd. All regions vary in diversity so you are going to have greatly varying degrees of population demographics. Are you actually expecting people to list every single occurrence on this forum? Listing a few here is in no way representative of how many are actually occurring. Most people that deal with this crap shrug it off and do not bother to record what happens. Most people do not have time to mess with dealing with this in their life. It is silly to attempt to compare 20 examples to 7.5billion people, as neither stat is an accurate representation. That in no way shows perspective...

Replace the 7.5 billion number with 325 million then, the population of the U.S. Or 8.6 million, the population of New York City. 20 of 325M and 20 of 8.6M both still round down to 0.000%.

I'm not expecting anyone to list every occurrence, but the OP clearly thought that his large list was impactful information, that it showed that this type of behavior is commonplace. I was pointing out that this is not necessarily the case.

This is a huge problem on the internet. Our brains are not designed to conceptualize things on a scale of millions. It's why outrage culture and click bait articles reign supreme. It's also why so many people buy lottery tickets.

Lil devils x:
... in order to show actual perspective, you would have to listen to the experiences of every black person in the US. The reality is, it is not as nice as you may think it is. It is far from "insignificant" in any way. We hear from many of them and this type of treatment is common, not rare. This often times is their " normal" depending on where they live. First we start with the number of blacks in the US, Which is approximately 38 Million. Then we talk to them and have them speak of their experiences. That is how you would gain actual perspective on this.

That would give one perspective, but a heavily biased one, because those interviewed would have a huge incentive to exaggerate and make things appear as bad as possible. Like most people, they are looking out for number one, and will tend to paint a picture in a light that helps them most. That perspective would have to be balanced with other perspectives to get any semblance of a true picture, but it would be a good first step.

Um what?! No, that is not what I have experienced at all. Even when you speak to people in groups they do not always try to paint it as being worse, in fact, I have found the opposite most the time and many Black people actually try to downplay the racism they experiences, even when you witness it and it was extreme. Just like anyone else, you have some who can be laying there with their bone puncturing their skin and they make it out like it is no big deal and others who are freaking out. That is how it works when interviewing people as well. When you do an actual study however, you build controls into the questioning to balance that out so that variation has little impact on the study itself. It is all about the design of the questions themselves.

In addition, there is no benefit to lying on an anonymous study, and there is no " help them the most" by not answering honestly about their experiences. Just like the other various anonymous studies out there, there is no personal benefit to lying. I find it odd however, that you think they would feel a need to exaggerate or lie on something like this, when I see it as no different than asking people if they have ever been robbed. How many people actually lie when asked if they have been robbed on an anonymous study? You should consider that is likely the same amount who would lie about something like this. Most people do not lie about things like this, it is a matter of perspective.

Dreiko:

Thaluikhain:

Yes and no. That sounds a lot like what MLK was talking about when he said he was tired of being told "later", that black activists should sit quiet and get round for the system to be fixed, and somehow it keeps not being fixes. For that matter, the US was formed by people considered the worst sort of criminals by the British crown, and that nation isn't unusual in that.

OTOH, that very much depends on the crime, and why it is committed. If a sex worker has no option beyond prostitution to not die, I'm hardly going to condemn them for breaking the social contract. If a black activist is deliberately getting arrested as protest, not going to condemn them.

That does not apply to drug dealers who see it as the only way to get the flashy lifestyle promised to them.

I would say that I'm not really saying "later" as much as "narrow your focus to what the issue is" because I am in agreement with practically every reform raised here but I take issue with how things are conflated too much and the messy thinking that sprouts from that.

I guess at a surface level you can be ok with these sorts of law-breaking but to me that is a show of lack of thoughtfulness. Of mostly innocent overlooking of the greater ramifications of the culture that would sprout as a natural outcome of this mentality.

To give you a succinct example; I don't do drugs, don't smoke weed and whatnot, never have. It's not because of any prude-ish reason you might imagine, either. I just don't like to be branded with the stereotype. Not the pot-head stereotype, either. I don't like the stereotype of the lawbreaker, cause that implies a rejection of the achievement of humanity throughout history. I can never comprehend how people who idolize illegality can live with themselves while existing in a society that is generated through what they reject. I couldn't stand that hypocrisy.

I think it is shallow thinking that leads people to take for granted the degree to which our civilization has advanced when contrasted to the thousands of years that came before. Simply because it's imperfect that's no reason to not be grateful and thank every supernatural being and fictional hero you can come up with that you get to live in the present.

Laws are constantly changing and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some laws are frivolous such as "Do not walk a duck on a leash" to necessary such as making it illegal to murder others. The point is, it is not the " law" that is what is important here, there are many circumstances that make breaking the law " the right thing to do" and in some jurisdictions it is actually illegal if you do not break a less important law in order to save a life. Yes, you can be required by the law to break the law at times when deemed necessary, such as necessarily violating traffic laws during an accident, or needing to speed to get someone to the Hospital in time.

Laws should exist for the betterment of the people, to help society, and if they do not, upholding harmful laws should not take priority over what is right or wrong for the sake of " upholding the law". " Upholding the law" is meaningless if the laws fail to serve the people. What is good for the people is what should take priority over the law. History has taught us that more than anything else in regard to the law. It is not shallow to break the law for the sake of the people, it is shallow however to worry about whether or not someone thinks they are a lawbreaker. Working in medicine, you come to understand that people break laws every single day to save lives, and that is a good thing. It is not a matter of whether something is " illegal" or "legal" it is a matter of whether it is the right or wrong thing to do at the time. That is not due to a lack of thoughtfulness, in fact much thought, planning and foresight often goes in to breaking the law for necessity, and many good people throughout our history have done so repeatedly to bring us where we are today and we are better for it.

Lil devils x:

Dreiko:

Thaluikhain:

Yes and no. That sounds a lot like what MLK was talking about when he said he was tired of being told "later", that black activists should sit quiet and get round for the system to be fixed, and somehow it keeps not being fixes. For that matter, the US was formed by people considered the worst sort of criminals by the British crown, and that nation isn't unusual in that.

OTOH, that very much depends on the crime, and why it is committed. If a sex worker has no option beyond prostitution to not die, I'm hardly going to condemn them for breaking the social contract. If a black activist is deliberately getting arrested as protest, not going to condemn them.

That does not apply to drug dealers who see it as the only way to get the flashy lifestyle promised to them.

I would say that I'm not really saying "later" as much as "narrow your focus to what the issue is" because I am in agreement with practically every reform raised here but I take issue with how things are conflated too much and the messy thinking that sprouts from that.

I guess at a surface level you can be ok with these sorts of law-breaking but to me that is a show of lack of thoughtfulness. Of mostly innocent overlooking of the greater ramifications of the culture that would sprout as a natural outcome of this mentality.

To give you a succinct example; I don't do drugs, don't smoke weed and whatnot, never have. It's not because of any prude-ish reason you might imagine, either. I just don't like to be branded with the stereotype. Not the pot-head stereotype, either. I don't like the stereotype of the lawbreaker, cause that implies a rejection of the achievement of humanity throughout history. I can never comprehend how people who idolize illegality can live with themselves while existing in a society that is generated through what they reject. I couldn't stand that hypocrisy.

I think it is shallow thinking that leads people to take for granted the degree to which our civilization has advanced when contrasted to the thousands of years that came before. Simply because it's imperfect that's no reason to not be grateful and thank every supernatural being and fictional hero you can come up with that you get to live in the present.

Laws are constantly changing and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some laws are frivolous such as "Do not walk a duck on a leash" to necessary such as making it illegal to murder others. The point is, it is not the " law" that is what is important here, there are many circumstances that make breaking the law " the right thing to do" and in some jurisdictions it is actually illegal if you do not break a less important law in order to save a life. Yes, you can be required by the law to break the law at times when deemed necessary, such as necessarily violating traffic laws during an accident, or needing to speed to get someone to the Hospital in time.

Laws should exist for the betterment of the people, to help society, and if they do not, upholding harmful laws should not take priority over what is right or wrong for the sake of " upholding the law". " Upholding the law" is meaningless if the laws fail to serve the people. What is good for the people is what should take priority over the law. History has taught us that more than anything else in regard to the law. It is not shallow to break the law for the sake of the people, it is shallow however to worry about whether or not someone thinks they are a lawbreaker. Working in medicine, you come to understand that people break laws every single day to save lives, and that is a good thing. It is not a matter of whether something is " illegal" or "legal" it is a matter of whether it is the right or wrong thing to do at the time. That is not due to a lack of thoughtfulness, in fact much thought, planning and foresight often goes in to breaking the law for necessity, and many good people throughout our history have done so repeatedly to bring us where we are today and we are better for it.

Laws have in them provisions or exceptions where the law itself allows you to not follow it under specific circumstances such as when the police is chasing a getaway car and breaks the speed limit to keep up with it. That's not them breaking the law because the law allows for that conduct.

I fully acknowledge that a ton of laws are anachronistic and dumb. I just think that even so, we still ought to respect them due to the respect we should have for human civilization. I don't think following a dumb law for a while until it is modernized is worse than rejecting legality. Like with my drug example, I'm no prude, I don't think drugs are bad and if it was up to me I'd make even the hard stuff legal. I just don't think doing drugs is worth breaching the social contract and I will actively look down on the short-sighted judgement of someone who thinks otherwise.

Lil devils x:
Um what?! No, that is not what I have experienced at all. Even when you speak to people in groups they do not always try to paint it as being worse, in fact, I have found the opposite most the time and many Black people actually try to downplay the racism they experiences, even when you witness it and it was extreme. Just like anyone else, you have some who can be laying there with their bone puncturing their skin and they make it out like it is no big deal and others who are freaking out. That is how it works when interviewing people as well.

Just speculating, but maybe it's because whatever occurred really is "no big deal" to those people, and it's you who are trying to make it into something extreme?

Lil devils x:
When you do an actual study however, you build controls into the questioning to balance that out so that variation has little impact on the study itself. It is all about the design of the questions themselves.

In addition, there is no benefit to lying on an anonymous study, and there is no " help them the most" by not answering honestly about their experiences. Just like the other various anonymous studies out there, there is no personal benefit to lying. I find it odd however, that you think they would feel a need to exaggerate or lie on something like this, when I see it as no different than asking people if they have ever been robbed. How many people actually lie when asked if they have been robbed on an anonymous study? You should consider that is likely the same amount who would lie about something like this. Most people do not lie about things like this, it is a matter of perspective.

I'm not a survey expert, so maybe you are right about being able to design one that eliminates bias. I don't know. I'm just a cynic. And in my experience, most people tend to paint things in a light that favors themselves. It's usually not outright lying. It's just bias, skewing things.

The robbery question is not comparable, because there is likely tangible evidence of that, one way or another. If you lie about something like that, you could get caught, and most people don't want to risk getting caught in a lie. But there is no way to catch someone lying about how offended they are, so they are free to exaggerate as much as they want, and as a cynic, I think they would mostly likely exaggerate significantly, because why not, there can be no repercussions for doing so.

Look at any court case. Neither side usually lies outright, because they could get disproven and end up facing perjury charges. But both sides usually tell significantly different stories nonetheless, skewed in their own favor. I think it typically works the same way outside of a court room. It's the whole "there are two sides to every story" thing.

Kerg3927:

Lil devils x:
Um what?! No, that is not what I have experienced at all. Even when you speak to people in groups they do not always try to paint it as being worse, in fact, I have found the opposite most the time and many Black people actually try to downplay the racism they experiences, even when you witness it and it was extreme. Just like anyone else, you have some who can be laying there with their bone puncturing their skin and they make it out like it is no big deal and others who are freaking out. That is how it works when interviewing people as well.

Just speculating, but maybe it's because whatever occurred really is "no big deal" to those people, and it's you who are trying to make it into something extreme?

Lil devils x:
When you do an actual study however, you build controls into the questioning to balance that out so that variation has little impact on the study itself. It is all about the design of the questions themselves.

In addition, there is no benefit to lying on an anonymous study, and there is no " help them the most" by not answering honestly about their experiences. Just like the other various anonymous studies out there, there is no personal benefit to lying. I find it odd however, that you think they would feel a need to exaggerate or lie on something like this, when I see it as no different than asking people if they have ever been robbed. How many people actually lie when asked if they have been robbed on an anonymous study? You should consider that is likely the same amount who would lie about something like this. Most people do not lie about things like this, it is a matter of perspective.

I'm not a survey expert, so maybe you are right about being able to design one that eliminates bias. I don't know. I'm just a cynic. And in my experience, most people tend to paint things in a light that favors themselves. It's usually not outright lying. It's just bias, skewing things.

The robbery question is not comparable, because there is likely tangible evidence of that, one way or another. If you lie about something like that, you could get caught, and most people don't want to risk getting caught in a lie. But there is no way to catch someone lying about how offended they are, so they are free to exaggerate as much as they want, and as a cynic, I think they would mostly likely exaggerate significantly, because why not, there can be no repercussions for doing so.

Look at any court case. Neither side usually lies outright, because they could get disproven and end up facing perjury charges. But both sides usually tell significantly different stories nonetheless, skewed in their own favor. I think it typically works the same way outside of a court room. It's the whole "there are two sides to every story" thing.

Yes, there are some who think being violently attacked, bit and punched while the perpetrator spews racial expletives at you is not extreme, that is one of those incidents that I have personally seen a guy tell me was no big deal. The fact that a man was angered enough by the mere presence of a black male that he attacked him in front of a crowd at a game for that reason and the guy who was harmed by him just shrugged it off and act as "No big deal this shat happens all the time" is quite telling indeed. In school, teens experience an insane amount of this in and out of school to the point that they come to accept it as normal. That should NEVER be happening.

It is Interesting however, that you think it would be those witness to such things that would be " overblowing " a violent racial attack, when in reality it is those who have endured such things to the point they no longer see it as the actual violent crime it was due to the excessive abuses they have had forced upon them. Why is your first reaction to assume someone is overblowing something before finding out facts rather than find out what the incident was before making such assumptions?

Of course the Robbery correlation is valid. There IS often tangible evidence after racist attacks, but whether or not there is evidence is completely irrelevant on an anonymous study questionnaire, because, no they cannot get into trouble for it. Have you ever participated in an anonymous study? None of what you say matters when the questions are designed to mitigate for embellishment by being specific. I was suggesting gaining actual statistics here, what you are stating would not apply.

Dreiko:

Lil devils x:

Dreiko:

I would say that I'm not really saying "later" as much as "narrow your focus to what the issue is" because I am in agreement with practically every reform raised here but I take issue with how things are conflated too much and the messy thinking that sprouts from that.

I guess at a surface level you can be ok with these sorts of law-breaking but to me that is a show of lack of thoughtfulness. Of mostly innocent overlooking of the greater ramifications of the culture that would sprout as a natural outcome of this mentality.

To give you a succinct example; I don't do drugs, don't smoke weed and whatnot, never have. It's not because of any prude-ish reason you might imagine, either. I just don't like to be branded with the stereotype. Not the pot-head stereotype, either. I don't like the stereotype of the lawbreaker, cause that implies a rejection of the achievement of humanity throughout history. I can never comprehend how people who idolize illegality can live with themselves while existing in a society that is generated through what they reject. I couldn't stand that hypocrisy.

I think it is shallow thinking that leads people to take for granted the degree to which our civilization has advanced when contrasted to the thousands of years that came before. Simply because it's imperfect that's no reason to not be grateful and thank every supernatural being and fictional hero you can come up with that you get to live in the present.

Laws are constantly changing and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some laws are frivolous such as "Do not walk a duck on a leash" to necessary such as making it illegal to murder others. The point is, it is not the " law" that is what is important here, there are many circumstances that make breaking the law " the right thing to do" and in some jurisdictions it is actually illegal if you do not break a less important law in order to save a life. Yes, you can be required by the law to break the law at times when deemed necessary, such as necessarily violating traffic laws during an accident, or needing to speed to get someone to the Hospital in time.

Laws should exist for the betterment of the people, to help society, and if they do not, upholding harmful laws should not take priority over what is right or wrong for the sake of " upholding the law". " Upholding the law" is meaningless if the laws fail to serve the people. What is good for the people is what should take priority over the law. History has taught us that more than anything else in regard to the law. It is not shallow to break the law for the sake of the people, it is shallow however to worry about whether or not someone thinks they are a lawbreaker. Working in medicine, you come to understand that people break laws every single day to save lives, and that is a good thing. It is not a matter of whether something is " illegal" or "legal" it is a matter of whether it is the right or wrong thing to do at the time. That is not due to a lack of thoughtfulness, in fact much thought, planning and foresight often goes in to breaking the law for necessity, and many good people throughout our history have done so repeatedly to bring us where we are today and we are better for it.

Laws have in them provisions or exceptions where the law itself allows you to not follow it under specific circumstances such as when the police is chasing a getaway car and breaks the speed limit to keep up with it. That's not them breaking the law because the law allows for that conduct.

I fully acknowledge that a ton of laws are anachronistic and dumb. I just think that even so, we still ought to respect them due to the respect we should have for human civilization. I don't think following a dumb law for a while until it is modernized is worse than rejecting legality. Like with my drug example, I'm no prude, I don't think drugs are bad and if it was up to me I'd make even the hard stuff legal. I just don't think doing drugs is worth breaching the social contract and I will actively look down on the short-sighted judgement of someone who thinks otherwise.

More often than not, Laws do not have provisions designed into them, an officer, a prosecutor, or a judge uses their personal opinion on the matter to determine whether or not they feel pursuing action is warranted or whether or not they should let it go. That is left up to their whims, not the actual law the vast majority of the time. That is the reality of how this works, whoever was hired, elected or appointed gets to decide that, not the actual law itself. Sometimes bad decisions are made, people have bad days and in worst cases, you have malignant people using these positions to inflict harm. Whether or not a law was broken can be in the end determined at whim of those with a short sighted judgment. So yes, whether or not you are considered a law breaker in the end is left up to the whims of short sighted judgment.

Often you have the lawbreakers in charge of deciding if you are breaking the law.
Keeping in mind that someone like this could be determining that for you or anyone else because the system is flawed:
https://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/94681-Ex-N-Y-Narcotics-Officers-Convicted-of-Planting-Evidence-Falsifying-Information/
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/12/06/two-des-moines-officers-investigated-evidence-tampering-narcotics-joshua-judge-tyson-teut/95032928/
https://www.mediaite.com/online/philly-cop-admits-to-years-of-planting-evidence-and-stealing-cash/
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/jun/04/ex-spokane-police-officer-convicted-of-rape-claims/
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2014/12/17/former-kaufman-jp-sentenced-to-death-for-slaying-of-das-wife
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edla/pr/federal-jury-convicts-former-district-attorney-walter-p-reed-18-counts
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Former-DA-investigator-convicted-of-stealing-10973154.php
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/12/pennsylvania.judge.sentenced/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/nyregion/20judge.html

The law can be and has been repeatedly used as a " weapon" against the innocent in the wrong hands.

Kerg3927:

erttheking:

Kerg3927:
I'm sorry, but you do realize there are literally hundreds of millions of stupid and/or ignorant people in this world. Somebody, somewhere in the world today probably tried to screw a chicken. Another probably stuck his dick in a light socket out of curiosity. It's just probability. There are millions of people who buy and read the National Inquirer who believe at least some of that shit, or else they wouldn't be for sale at every grocery store checkout counter in America. Millions buy lottery tickets every week and actually think they might win.

If someone wants to write a news story about someone being stupid, it's not hard to find. I would just roll your eyes and move on, and not let isolated incidents of stupidity among millions and millions of people get you down and make you "hate this world."

An argument that goes flying out the window when the words "established trends" comes up, particularly with statistics, but I think we just need to accept that some people want to deny entrenched problems at all costs.

I'm not denying that entrenched problems exist. I'm saying you can't fix stupid. You can't fix people overreacting to what they believe to be unusual circumstances. And you can't fix people stereotyping other people based upon appearance, because I think it's a hardwired, natural response to encountering a stranger of which we know nothing about. It's a tough habit to break for a lot of people.

Also, I was just pointing out the fact that the long list of articles in the OP involves a grand total of like 20 people on a planet with 7.5 billion. A relatively insignificant number. When reading articles like this, one needs to keep things in perspective.

Wait, that was directed to me? I actually just thought you misposted in this thread. Apologies for taking so long to respond.

I'll keep it short. Literally everything you said about me having feelings about this can be turned back to you responded to my feelings. I'm one person out of billions who posted this. Yet you felt the need to respond and make your feelings heard.

Difference is? What I addressed is affecting people in the world. What you are addressing merely sticks in your craw. What I addressed can actually happen to someone. And has. Steadily since the beginning of this year, and these are just the things that are reported. What you took your time to rally against is some guy pointing out a situation that can possibly affect him.

Kerg3927:

erttheking:

Kerg3927:
I'm sorry, but you do realize there are literally hundreds of millions of stupid and/or ignorant people in this world. Somebody, somewhere in the world today probably tried to screw a chicken. Another probably stuck his dick in a light socket out of curiosity. It's just probability. There are millions of people who buy and read the National Inquirer who believe at least some of that shit, or else they wouldn't be for sale at every grocery store checkout counter in America. Millions buy lottery tickets every week and actually think they might win.

If someone wants to write a news story about someone being stupid, it's not hard to find. I would just roll your eyes and move on, and not let isolated incidents of stupidity among millions and millions of people get you down and make you "hate this world."

An argument that goes flying out the window when the words "established trends" comes up, particularly with statistics, but I think we just need to accept that some people want to deny entrenched problems at all costs.

I'm not denying that entrenched problems exist. I'm saying you can't fix stupid. You can't fix people overreacting to what they believe to be unusual circumstances. And you can't fix people stereotyping other people based upon appearance, because I think it's a hardwired, natural response to encountering a stranger of which we know nothing about. It's a tough habit to break for a lot of people.

Are you saying this is just because of people being stupid? The issue is more complicated than mere stupidity; and nothing says we can't fix the stuff outside people's stupidity. Even if it were just people being stupid, and you imply we can't fix such stupidity any more than fixing hurricanes; then I say we build a system to stop the damage their stupidity cause.

Lil devils x:
Yes, there are some who think being violently attacked, bit and punched while the perpetrator spews racial expletives at you is not extreme, that is one of those incidents that I have personally seen a guy tell me was no big deal. The fact that a man was angered enough by the mere presence of a black male that he attacked him in front of a crowd at a game for that reason and the guy who was harmed by him just shrugged it off and act as "No big deal this shat happens all the time" is quite telling indeed. In school, teens experience an insane amount of this in and out of school to the point that they come to accept it as normal. That should NEVER be happening.

You are talking about actual physical attacks that are racially motivated. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I am 44 and I've never personally witnessed such a thing, in childhood or adulthood. Sure, I saw plenty of fights growing up, but none in which a white kid attacked a black kid because of his skin color. Which is why I have a hard time believing that it is so commonplace that black teens would see it as normal and shrug it off. Especially in this day and age. The consequences for the attacker would be swift and harsh.

Lil devils x:
It is Interesting however, that you think it would be those witness to such things that would be " overblowing " a violent racial attack, when in reality it is those who have endured such things to the point they no longer see it as the actual violent crime it was due to the excessive abuses they have had forced upon them. Why is your first reaction to assume someone is overblowing something before finding out facts rather than find out what the incident was before making such assumptions?

Well, of course I wouldn't say someone who was actually violently attacked for racist reasons was overblowing it. But I might speculate that someone who says that these types of attacks are commonplace is overblowing it. It is my understanding that most criminal violence in this country is white on white and black on black, etc. (LINK).

Lil devils x:
Of course the Robbery correlation is valid. There IS often tangible evidence after racist attacks, but whether or not there is evidence is completely irrelevant on an anonymous study questionnaire, because, no they cannot get into trouble for it. Have you ever participated in an anonymous study? None of what you say matters when the questions are designed to mitigate for embellishment by being specific. I was suggesting gaining actual statistics here, what you are stating would not apply.

If you are talking about actual physical attacks, then yeah, it's comparable. I was talking about a survey asking people if they were a victim of racism generally, which is much more subjective and thus more susceptible to bias.

ObsidianJones:
Wait, that was directed to me? I actually just thought you misposted in this thread. Apologies for taking so long to respond.

I'll keep it short. Literally everything you said about me having feelings about this can be turned back to you responded to my feelings. I'm one person out of billions who posted this. Yet you felt the need to respond and make your feelings heard.

Difference is? What I addressed is affecting people in the world. What you are addressing merely sticks in your craw. What I addressed can actually happen to someone. And has. Steadily since the beginning of this year, and these are just the things that are reported. What you took your time to rally against is some guy pointing out a situation that can possibly affect him.

I was just advising you and others to keep things in perspective. It's so easy to read an article about some racist idiot, or ten articles, and get the impression that this is happening everywhere. It's not. I'm not saying those articles should be ignored. There certainly is real racism out there, mainly among the stupid and/or poorly educated, and it sucks. But one shouldn't let it bring you down and make you "hate this world." Just like one shouldn't read an article about a murderer and feel afraid to leave the house. Most people are not murderers. And most people are not racist. Despite the impression one might get on the internet, there has never been less racism (in the U.S.) than there is right now.

CaitSeith:
Are you saying this is just because of people being stupid? The issue is more complicated than mere stupidity; and nothing says we can't fix the stuff outside people's stupidity. Even if it were just people being stupid, and you imply we can't fix such stupidity any more than fixing hurricanes; then I say we build a system to stop the damage their stupidity cause.

And how exactly would you go about doing that?

Kerg3927:

Lil devils x:
Yes, there are some who think being violently attacked, bit and punched while the perpetrator spews racial expletives at you is not extreme, that is one of those incidents that I have personally seen a guy tell me was no big deal. The fact that a man was angered enough by the mere presence of a black male that he attacked him in front of a crowd at a game for that reason and the guy who was harmed by him just shrugged it off and act as "No big deal this shat happens all the time" is quite telling indeed. In school, teens experience an insane amount of this in and out of school to the point that they come to accept it as normal. That should NEVER be happening.

You are talking about actual physical attacks that are racially motivated. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I am 44 and I've never personally witnessed such a thing, in childhood or adulthood. Sure, I saw plenty of fights growing up, but none in which a white kid attacked a black kid because of his skin color. Which is why I have a hard time believing that it is so commonplace that black teens would see it as normal and shrug it off. Especially in this day and age. The consequences for the attacker would be swift and harsh.

Lil devils x:
It is Interesting however, that you think it would be those witness to such things that would be " overblowing " a violent racial attack, when in reality it is those who have endured such things to the point they no longer see it as the actual violent crime it was due to the excessive abuses they have had forced upon them. Why is your first reaction to assume someone is overblowing something before finding out facts rather than find out what the incident was before making such assumptions?

Well, of course I wouldn't say someone who was actually violently attacked for racist reasons was overblowing it. But I might speculate that someone who says that these types of attacks are commonplace is overblowing it. It is my understanding that most criminal violence in this country is white on white and black on black, etc. (LINK).

Lil devils x:
Of course the Robbery correlation is valid. There IS often tangible evidence after racist attacks, but whether or not there is evidence is completely irrelevant on an anonymous study questionnaire, because, no they cannot get into trouble for it. Have you ever participated in an anonymous study? None of what you say matters when the questions are designed to mitigate for embellishment by being specific. I was suggesting gaining actual statistics here, what you are stating would not apply.

If you are talking about actual physical attacks, then yeah, it's comparable. I was talking about a survey asking people if they were a victim of racism generally, which is much more subjective and thus more susceptible to bias.

ObsidianJones:
Wait, that was directed to me? I actually just thought you misposted in this thread. Apologies for taking so long to respond.

I'll keep it short. Literally everything you said about me having feelings about this can be turned back to you responded to my feelings. I'm one person out of billions who posted this. Yet you felt the need to respond and make your feelings heard.

Difference is? What I addressed is affecting people in the world. What you are addressing merely sticks in your craw. What I addressed can actually happen to someone. And has. Steadily since the beginning of this year, and these are just the things that are reported. What you took your time to rally against is some guy pointing out a situation that can possibly affect him.

I was just advising you and others to keep things in perspective. It's so easy to read an article about some racist idiot, or ten articles, and get the impression that this is happening everywhere. It's not. I'm not saying those articles should be ignored. There certainly is real racism out there, mainly among the stupid and/or poorly educated, and it sucks. But one shouldn't let it bring you down and make you "hate this world." Just like one shouldn't read an article about a murderer and feel afraid to leave the house. Most people are not murderers. And most people are not racist. Despite the impression one might get on the internet, there has never been less racism (in the U.S.) than there is right now.

I live in an area that had the KKK and Neo Nazis bickering over who gets to hold a rally.
This was at the courthouse where I live..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eABRsmkuiPA

I have seen plenty of racist graffiti all over the place here, KKK Fliers, racially targeted violent attacks here. THIS was Alex Jone's Hometown though... In fact, I actually saw him running to attack a black kid and get his ass handed to him when he was in highscool by a black guy who later grew up and became a boxer. I didn't actually see the fight through the crowd but saw him running to attack the guy and then him coming out all bloody afterwards. This was a predominately white wealthy neighborhood and the few blacks living here had it pretty rough.

Of course more crime is white on white and black on black because most white people live with and around white people and most black people live with and around black people. That is just a matter of circumstance. When you have a few black people living in a predominately white neighborhood where you have people who are openly racist, things do not go so well for them.

This is the BS people have to put up when they move to "white" neighborhoods in racist areas and so much more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e66WYYtf2xk

The black family I knew growing up that lived under the floorboards of the remnants of a shack with no roof and only 2 walls standing was forced to live there DUE to racism. The mother had been pulled out of school as a child due to death threats during desegregation so she could barely read or write. When her husband was killed by a drunk driver, being the sole income for their household, the sheriff evicted them and left them walking off into the field carrying everything they owned. A mother with 5 children 3 of them under the age of 5, and they offered no help and people yelled horrible things to them thinking they were funny. No one at the time there offered them any assistance at all and just watched them wander off into a field carrying blankets and clothes. When I found out where they went and were living under the floorboard with plastic and blankets covering them while they slept in in holes in the ground, I told my mother who then made me show her where they were and she went and brought them back to our home where they stayed until she kept calling around to find a charity willing to finally help them. Prior to that, all those people including the sheriff offered them no help, did not even bother and treated them horribly as they lost everything they owned. This was how people treated Black families here and it was disgusting. The worst part about it was they were not the only ones forced into this type of poverty due to racism living here. When a white family here had the father killed in a car accident, they started a charity for them, not cruelly run them off into a field holding everything they owned ridiculing them. That is the difference.

Kerg3927:

CaitSeith:
Are you saying this is just because of people being stupid? The issue is more complicated than mere stupidity; and nothing says we can't fix the stuff outside people's stupidity. Even if it were just people being stupid, and you imply we can't fix such stupidity any more than fixing hurricanes; then I say we build a system to stop the damage their stupidity cause.

And how exactly would you go about doing that?

By not putting stupid people on the presidential seat and police force for starters. Training the police force to answer (or not answer) stupid requests more adequately. Tell people to call out stupids when their behavior is causing harm.

In essence, formally analyze in which circumstances stupids harm others and have the appropriate people handle the stupids involved.

Lil devils x:
I live in an area that had the KKK and Neo Nazis bickering over who gets to hold a rally.
This was at the courthouse where I live..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eABRsmkuiPA

I have seen plenty of racist graffiti all over the place here, KKK Fliers, racially targeted violent attacks here. THIS was Alex Jone's Hometown though... In fact, I actually saw him running to attack a black kid and get his ass handed to him when he was in highscool by a black guy who later grew up and became a boxer. I didn't actually see the fight through the crowd but saw him running to attack the guy and then him coming out all bloody afterwards. This was a predominately white wealthy neighborhood and the few blacks living here had it pretty rough.

Of course more crime is white on white and black on black because most white people live with and around white people and most black people live with and around black people. That is just a matter of circumstance. When you have a few black people living in a predominately white neighborhood where you have people who are openly racist, things do not go so well for them.

This is the BS people have to put up when they move to "white" neighborhoods in racist areas and so much more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e66WYYtf2xk

The black family I knew growing up that lived under the floorboards of the remnants of a shack with no roof and only 2 walls standing was forced to live there DUE to racism. The mother had been pulled out of school as a child due to death threats during desegregation so she could barely read or write. When her husband was killed by a drunk driver, being the sole income for their household, the sheriff evicted them and left them walking off into the field carrying everything they owned. A mother with 5 children 3 of them under the age of 5, and they offered no help and people yelled horrible things to them thinking they were funny. No one at the time there offered them any assistance at all and just watched them wander off into a field carrying blankets and clothes. When I found out where they went and were living under the floorboard with plastic and blankets covering them while they slept in in holes in the ground, I told my mother who then made me show her where they were and she went and brought them back to our home where they stayed until she kept calling around to find a charity willing to finally help them. Prior to that, all those people including the sheriff offered them no help, did not even bother and treated them horribly as they lost everything they owned. This was how people treated Black families here and it was disgusting. The worst part about it was they were not the only ones forced into this type of poverty due to racism living here. When a white family here had the father killed in a car accident, they started a charity for them, not cruelly run them off into a field holding everything they owned ridiculing them. That is the difference.

That sucks. I live in Texas, too, and grew up in a rural small town and never witnessed anything like that. Sure, there were racist old people who bitched about "n---'s on welfare," but I never saw anything directly confrontational like you describe, and most of those racist old people from another era have died off now. Among the other kids growing up (in the 80's), the worst racism I saw was the occasional racist fried chicken and watermelon or big dick joke or something similar told among white kids, and those were usually awkward because not everyone would find it funny. Same thing when one of those old racist guys would say something racist... it was usually met with awkwardness and embarrassment from younger people. Of course, interracial relations were typically frowned upon, although that was rare and only whispered about and not criticized in public.

CaitSeith:

By not putting stupid people on the presidential seat and police force for starters. Training the police force to answer (or not answer) stupid requests more adequately. Tell people to call out stupids when their behavior is causing harm.

In essence, formally analyze in which circumstances stupids harm others and have the appropriate people handle the stupids involved.

Sounds good. But everything you describe just boils down to better education, and not necessarily formal education, but learning from one's peers and from observation. That's what greatly reduced racism in the last 50 years in this country, IMO, and it's probably the only thing that did so, and will continue to do so. People seeing and learning for themselves how silly and stupid racism is, and teaching themselves not to think in that way, and teaching their kids the same.

I also think it's probably something that people need to learn for themselves organically. I know that's not what people want to hear. But being yelled at on the internet by some angry self-righteous white wannabe activist is usually counterproductive, and often has the opposite effect. Nobody likes spotlight seeking virtue signalers. People have to see for themselves how illogical racism is and the harm it causes to real people, with the hope being that it sparks shame within themselves and motivates them to change their views. That's the Martin Luther King way, and I think it's really the only thing that works.

Kerg3927:
I also think it's probably something that people need to learn for themselves organically. I know that's not what people want to hear. But being yelled at on the internet by some angry self-righteous white wannabe activist is usually counterproductive, and often has the opposite effect. Nobody likes spotlight seeking virtue signalers. People have to see for themselves how illogical racism is and the harm it causes to real people, with the hope being that it sparks shame within themselves and motivates them to change their views. That's the Martin Luther King way, and I think it's really the only thing that works.

MLK is a hero now that's he's safely dead and no longer causing trouble, but during his life he was seen as angry and self-righteous, and would likely be called a virtue signaller today, though.

Thaluikhain:

MLK is a hero now that's he's safely dead and no longer causing trouble, but during his life he was seen as angry and self-righteous, and would likely be called a virtue signaller today, though.

Definitely, he would be called a SJW, FemiNazi and probably Antifa too. He was told that he hated the white race and the culture of the West due to his speech and "riots". Reagan thought he was a possible Communist.

Kerg3927:
I also think it's probably something that people need to learn for themselves organically. I know that's not what people want to hear. But being yelled at on the internet by some angry self-righteous white wannabe activist is usually counterproductive, and often has the opposite effect. Nobody likes spotlight seeking virtue signalers. People have to see for themselves how illogical racism is and the harm it causes to real people, with the hope being that it sparks shame within themselves and motivates them to change their views. That's the Martin Luther King way, and I think it's really the only thing that works.

Yes, no one like self-righteous white wannabe activities that yell about 'white genocide' or (((them))). No one like narcissistic virtue signallers like some Christian Conservative, Pro-lifers or Proud Boys. As to people seeing the racism, I doubt slave owners ever thought they were being a racist to the day they died. Even after the Civil War. They had the Bible on their side telling them that they were saving the Black Man by enslaving him. See my comments on MLK above about how people saw him. In 1966, most the country hated him. It was only when he became a martyr did everyone start to like him.

trunkage:

Thaluikhain:
MLK is a hero now that's he's safely dead and no longer causing trouble, but during his life he was seen as angry and self-righteous, and would likely be called a virtue signaller today, though.

Definitely, he would be called a SJW, FemiNazi and probably Antifa too. He was told that he hated the white race and the culture of the West due to his speech and "riots". Reagan thought he was a possible Communist.

Kerg3927:
I also think it's probably something that people need to learn for themselves organically. I know that's not what people want to hear. But being yelled at on the internet by some angry self-righteous white wannabe activist is usually counterproductive, and often has the opposite effect. Nobody likes spotlight seeking virtue signalers. People have to see for themselves how illogical racism is and the harm it causes to real people, with the hope being that it sparks shame within themselves and motivates them to change their views. That's the Martin Luther King way, and I think it's really the only thing that works.

Yes, no one like self-righteous white wannabe activities that yell about 'white genocide' or (((them))). No one like narcissistic virtue signallers like some Christian Conservative, Pro-lifers or Proud Boys. As to people seeing the racism, I doubt slave owners ever thought they were being a racist to the day they died. Even after the Civil War. They had the Bible on their side telling them that they were saving the Black Man by enslaving him. See my comments on MLK above about how people saw him. In 1966, most the country hated him. It was only when he became a martyr did everyone start to like him.

I'm certainly not the mostly knowledgeable person on MLK, and I wasn't alive during that era, but as I understand it, he taught nonviolence and civil disobedience, the Rosa Parks incident being the prime example. He was heavily influenced by Mahatma Gandhi. Despite what some people thought of him, he was steadfastly against the hatred of white people.

Here are some excerpts from I Have a Dream, a speech that every modern day angry bile-spewing "SJW" should read and learn from...

Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
...
But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: in the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
...
The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people...
...
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
...
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
...
I have a dream that ... one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

When Rosa Parks peacefully refused to give up her seat on that bus, it made people think. People who grew up racist. Some of them thought, you know, why should she have to give up her seat? If I were in her position, I wouldn't want to give up my seat, either. People were sympathetic. And it and other peaceful actions of civil disobedience sparked shame in people, which led to real change in people's attitudes and beliefs. It was precisely the absence of hatred in their methods that made their actions so successful.

And then of course, as you pointed out, him getting assassinated, someone who preached peace, and becoming a martyr really sent his powerful message home.

The stereotypical angry "SJW" doesn't seem to understand this, and so they pretty much accomplish nothing positive. And they probably do more harm than good by pissing people off and creating a backlash from people who feel wrongfully accused.

As for slaveholders, I think a lot more of them were conflicted than you think. You have to remember that slavery was the norm in most human societies leading up to that point, going back thousands of years. It was a different time and place. But it was being phased out across the West during that time, and it would have eventually been phased out in the South as well. The Civil War just sped up that process.

So now you can add to your existing while black things you are not supposed to do, being on the drill team, or even worse, how dare she be accepted to be on a university team!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/black-student-told-her-skin-was-too-dark-sues-kansas-school-district-for-race-discrimination/ar-BBSlkcT

Or how about work for GM?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/us/gm-toledo-racism-lawsuit/index.html

And I am in no way buying that GM doesn't know who did that BS, the entire place is so filled with Cameras there is no way they didn't know who was responsible and is protecting them. One noose? No not enough how about FIVE nooses at work and Gm pretends they don't know who did this shat and even tried to tell the people afected to let it go and try to get along with those who are doing this? YIKES

Being achild in public:

Man kicks a one year old toddler in the back and called him racial slurs.
https://www.diversityinc.com/wichita-arrested-dillons-kick-child

Black child called racial slur and spat on by firefighter at Hooters
https://thegrio.com/2018/03/03/black-child-called-racial-slur-and-spat-on-by-firefighter-at-hooters/

Yes, seriously grown men attacking babies simply for existing.

Sending notes telling them their child is not welcome in the neihborhood?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/30/this-is-white-neighborhood-woman-greets-family-by-calling-their-child-n-word-police-say/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1ac49f5e5c80

White Man in North Carolina Punches Black Child in the Face, Charged With Assault
https://www.diversityinc.com/Organizational-Misbehavior/nc-white-man-punches-black-child

Racist Tries to Run Over Black Children, Points Gun at Them
https://www.diversityinc.com/family-dollar-racial-slurs-memphis

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here