Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Gunfight at the O.K. CorralFollow

#302 Aug 09 2016 at 8:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
No. I'm saying that it is suspicious behavior. It's equally suspicious whether a white male or a black male is doing it. However, I'm also saying that young black males are more likely to engage in that kind of behavior than young white men, and that this contributes to the kinds of stats we see with things like Stop and Frisk.

Uh huh.
Quote:
Way to get the logic backwards though. I get that you need to view this whole thing through the lens of race

Hey, I'm not the one insisting that black men are more likely to look like thugs or furtively skulk around your fences. That's your argument, bub.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#303 Aug 09 2016 at 8:37 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,092 posts
Well, I guess i can accept you're not a bigot if you just admit you are historically and socially retarded. I'll let you pick which.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#304 Aug 10 2016 at 6:40 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,131 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Yes. I'm aware of that. But that doesn't change the facts of what I'm talking about. You're zeroing in on one thing that you want to argue about (cause I happened to mention hip hop, so that's apparently the entire issue now), while ignoring the whole. You can bury your head in the PC sand all you want, but the reality is that black males exhibit behavior that is more likely to be seen as potentially criminal by a police officer walking by at a much higher rate than white males do.
When I want to have a discussion on defining the root of the problem at a high level, you complain that I need to discuss specifics. When I point out a specific fault, you accuse me of "zeroing in one thing". You have no intention of actually discussing the problem with solutions.


Gbaji wrote:
Heck. We saw this with the Treyvon Martin case. Desperate attempts (including an FCC violating edit to the police call by a major network) to make it entirely about race aside, the fact is that Zimmerman called the police, not because of Martin's skin color (which he could not see and did not know when he made the call), but because of his behavior. Walking down the street, meandering from one back yard fence to the next, and looking over said fences, is going to be viewed by an observer as someone looking in peoples yards for something to steal. Period. Any objective person would make that assumption.
Funny how I corner you in a discussion, you stop responding, only to bring up the exact points in another discussion.

Gbaji wrote:
I guess the problem I have with this entire issue is the sheer lengths people seem to be willing to go to protect the PC viewpoint on this. I mean, Martin? We could make some valid arguments about that. But Brown? Seriously? Guy's walking down the middle of the street, with stuff he just stole from a convenience store a few minutes earlier in his hands, and we're still going to put him in the stat category of "police unfairly profiling young black men"? You're kidding right? At what point is it ok for a police officer to stop a black man in your eyes then? Ever?
The complaint wasn't that the police pulled Brown over, it was the handling of the case. This only further proves the point that you don't understand the concern and you're still not differentiating personal actions from systemic problems.


Gbaji wrote:
The behavior only has to be suspicious to draw attention.
So, does this include historical behavioral problems of the police? You point out the behavioral issues of Brown and Martin, but completely disregard the recorded behavioral problems of their killers.
#305 Aug 10 2016 at 6:52 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,131 posts
Gbaji wrote:
You're free to expound upon the possible relationship between various styles of attire and the exhibition of suspicious behavior which might draw a cop's attention,



Gbaji wrote:
We've had this conversation a number of times now
Exactly.
#306 Aug 10 2016 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
******
49,065 posts
Innocent until proven guilty, unless you're black and "look suspicious" to a middle aged suburban white guy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#307 Aug 10 2016 at 8:53 AM Rating: Good
***
1,013 posts
Quote:
When I want to have a discussion on defining the root of the problem at a high level, you complain that I need to discuss specifics. When I point out a specific fault, you accuse me of "zeroing in one thing". You have no intention of actually discussing the problem with solutions.


what a surprise to see gbaji engage in whatabboutery and evasion as an argumentative technique
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#309 Aug 10 2016 at 10:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,100 posts
Anyway, this is happening now. I'm sure the U.S. Dept. of Justice really meant to say "suspicious gangster-style fence meandering" not "race."

That's the liberal media for you... Smiley: oyvey

Edited, Aug 10th 2016 9:07am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#310 Aug 10 2016 at 10:13 AM Rating: Good
******
49,065 posts
Taggart wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
article wrote:
Unjustified strip searches were conducted while in one arrest, a black man's weapon was listed as "his mouth".
God darnit, Mr. Lamarr, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#311 Aug 10 2016 at 5:56 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,711 posts
Apparently some guy went all Oscar Pistorius on his 11 year old daughter.

Been quite a few stories recently about gun owners getting scared and shooting unarmed people, be in in their car in the streets, or who knocked on their door by accident while drunk, or when their daughter comes home and scares them...

Edited, Aug 10th 2016 7:58pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#312 Aug 10 2016 at 7:15 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,483 posts
Just an unfortunate consequence of living in a free society. Totally unavoidable and acceptable. It's not like kids get shot accidentally all the time.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#313 Aug 10 2016 at 7:26 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,131 posts
Smiley: dubious Totally unavoidable and acceptable..Smiley: lol
#314 Aug 11 2016 at 7:25 AM Rating: Good
******
49,065 posts
Debalic wrote:
Just an unfortunate consequence of living in a free society. Totally unavoidable and acceptable. It's not like kids get shot accidentally all the time.
We can't talk about it if it's done on purpose because that's making it political, and we can't talk about it if it's accidental because that's unavoidable and acceptable. We can "joke" about shooting political rivals, though.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#315 Aug 11 2016 at 6:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,661 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
We have a mountain of evidence that the problem stems from black poverty, yet all anyone seems to want to talk about is police bigotry. I get that the second makes for much more anger and resentment and stirs people up. But is that actually productive if your goal is to fix the problem?

I don't think it is.
Your problem is you are throwing out the possibility that there is any police bigotry (or very, very, very little) so it never enters your equation.


I have never once ignored the possibility of police bigotry. I have, in fact, stated several times that out of any sufficiently large group, you're going to find some bigots. What I have said, repeatedly, is that the impact of bigotry among police is a very very small amount, while the impact of black poverty is massive. We're focusing on something that is maybe 1% of the problem, while ignoring the part that is the other 99%.

In today's world, where we are hyper vigilant about anything that even remotely wiffs of racism, it seems incredibly unlikely that there's more than a tiny percentage of racially bigoted cops still working, and their ability to actually take actions which may cause such a large statistical difference? The math just doesn't add up. You'd have to assume this massive conspiracy by police which has somehow managed to take continuous and statistically large racist actions to negatively impact black people, while managing to avoid a corresponding public reveal of their motivations? How do you think this even works? They all just silently engage in constant racist activity, but never talk about it, even among themselves? All the black and latino cops are apparently in on it too?

At some point, you must reject this absurd notion and maybe look elsewhere. Just a thought.

Quote:
Equally humoUrous is your blindness to the idea that bigotry might have quite a bit to do with the poverty problem.


I'm not blind to that possibility. I even mentioned it earlier. Heck. I've written whole diatribes about the possibility that at least some of the motivation behind our modern welfare state was to intentionally trap as many blacks in a condition of poverty as possible, and maximize the odds that their children will also grow up and remain in poverty. But it's not the police engaging in redlining practices. It's not the police pressuring blacks to stay in "black neighborhoods" or to support "the black community". It's not the police rigging housing assistance regulations so as to force so many black poor to live in areas that are effectively job deserts.

The police are the poor dumb saps who have to police those neighborhoods. They didn't create them.

Quote:
I get that you are a virulent bigot, but all those words of yours really don't hide it.


A personal attack? Color me shocked!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#316 Aug 11 2016 at 7:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,661 posts
Almalieque wrote:
When I want to have a discussion on defining the root of the problem at a high level, you complain that I need to discuss specifics. When I point out a specific fault, you accuse me of "zeroing in one thing". You have no intention of actually discussing the problem with solutions.


Because when you talk in broad terms, they are so vague as to be meaningless and you fail to actually make anything remotely close to a point, or an argument to support that point. And when you zero in on something, it's invariably something tangential to the subject being discussed, and often serves the purpose of actually avoiding a point that I made. Like, for example, me very clearly stating that police are looking at both body and verbal language when determining if someone's behavior is suspicious, but because I also happened to mention hip-hop culture in the same post, you chose to go off on some strange tangent about the police targeting people based on the clothes they wear.

Again, despite me very very clearly saying it was about body language and verbal language. Not clothing. Not hairstyle. Not skin color. I'm fine discussing specifics, as long as you actually discuss the specifics that are relevant.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Heck. We saw this with the Treyvon Martin case. Desperate attempts (including an FCC violating edit to the police call by a major network) to make it entirely about race aside, the fact is that Zimmerman called the police, not because of Martin's skin color (which he could not see and did not know when he made the call), but because of his behavior. Walking down the street, meandering from one back yard fence to the next, and looking over said fences, is going to be viewed by an observer as someone looking in peoples yards for something to steal. Period. Any objective person would make that assumption.
Funny how I corner you in a discussion, you stop responding, only to bring up the exact points in another discussion.


Funny how I don't recall you cornering me in a discussion. And I certainly have no clue how this constitutes any sort of response to what I posted and you quoted. So... Huh?

Gbaji wrote:
I guess the problem I have with this entire issue is the sheer lengths people seem to be willing to go to protect the PC viewpoint on this. I mean, Martin? We could make some valid arguments about that. But Brown? Seriously? Guy's walking down the middle of the street, with stuff he just stole from a convenience store a few minutes earlier in his hands, and we're still going to put him in the stat category of "police unfairly profiling young black men"? You're kidding right? At what point is it ok for a police officer to stop a black man in your eyes then? Ever?
The complaint wasn't that the police pulled Brown over, it was the handling of the case. This only further proves the point that you don't understand the concern and you're still not differentiating personal actions from systemic problems.[/quote]

You have an incredibly subjective memory. There was a huge uproar over the issue of why Brown was stopped in the first place, whether the officer recognized him as a suspect in the robbery, or not, etc. The original claim was that the officer stopped Brown for "no reason at all" (ie: walking while black), attacked him (not the other way around as we now know), and then when Brown ran away, pursued him until Brown surrendered with his hands up in the air, then the officer shot him in cold blood.

That was the BS story that was thrown to the public's consumption, absent any facts at all. A big lie told by his friend, and to which the media and the race peddlers were more than willing to jump right on. And they took that lie and pushed it, and pushed it, and generated outrage, which lead to anger, which lead to rioting. All because no one was wiling to actually wait for the facts to be known. Rush to judgement is the common theme to all of these cases. Then, when the facts are known, it's already too late. Those who have already become outraged, and may even have spoken out publicly about it, very very rarely going to just go "Oh. We got it wrong. Sorry". Nope. They change the subject. They insist that the cops still could or should have done something different. All the time, refusing to acknowledge their own role in creating chaos.

There was nothing wrong with the handling of the case. It's police policy not to provide public details of an ongoing investigation. You know, because they don't want people rushing to judgement based on false or incorrect information they may provide. The media, of course, doesn't seem to mind doing this, and will report on any rumor that sound juicy. Which is how public perception of these events become so twisted around.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
The behavior only has to be suspicious to draw attention.
[/spoiler]So, does this include historical behavioral problems of the police?


That... doesn't even make any sense.

Quote:
You point out the behavioral issues of Brown and Martin, but completely disregard the recorded behavioral problems of their killers.


I'm sorry. Exactly which recorded behaviors of Zimmerman or Wilson are you claiming I've disregarded? I've discussed, at length, the actions both men took, and have concluded that there's little they could have done differently to change the outcome. Unless you're arguing that a private citizen on watch is no longer allowed to even approach and speak to a person if that person is black, or that a police officer is no longer allowed to even just speak through his window with a person who is walking down the middle of the street holding stolen goods (again, apparently only if that person is black).

You get that the only way the stats can change is if people actually apply racial bias to their actions and deliberately avoid interacting with black men. Is that *really* what you think we should be doing? The cops should just no longer patrol black neighborhoods? No longer pull over any person who is black, no matter what they are doing? No longer make any effort to chase down a suspect if that suspect is black? Cause that's the only way you're going to significantly reduce the rate at which black men are harmed or killed by police. I think that's stupid, but if that's what you want, then that's on you.

Unless you have some other suggestion about what these police officers could have done differently? Feel free to share with the group.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#317 Aug 11 2016 at 7:41 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,131 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Because when you talk in broad terms, they are so vague as to be meaningless and you fail to actually make anything remotely close to a point, or an argument to support that point. And when you zero in on something, it's invariably something tangential to the subject being discussed, and often serves the purpose of actually avoiding a point that I made. Like, for example, me very clearly stating that police are looking at both body and verbal language when determining if someone's behavior is suspicious, but because I also happened to mention hip-hop culture in the same post, you chose to go off on some strange tangent about the police targeting people based on the clothes they wear.

Again, despite me very very clearly saying it was about body language and verbal language. Not clothing. Not hairstyle. Not skin color. I'm fine discussing specifics, as long as you actually discuss the specifics that are relevant.

Gbaji wrote:
You get that the only way the stats can change is if people actually apply racial bias to their actions and deliberately avoid interacting with black men. Is that *really* what you think we should be doing? The cops should just no longer patrol black neighborhoods? No longer pull over any person who is black, no matter what they are doing? No longer make any effort to chase down a suspect if that suspect is black? Cause that's the only way you're going to significantly reduce the rate at which black men are harmed or killed by police. I think that's stupid, but if that's what you want, then that's on you.

Unless you have some other suggestion about what these police officers could have done differently? Feel free to share with the group.

How can you provide specific solutions to a category of a problem, if you don't acknowledge that the category even exist? I'm simply asking you to acknowledge that the category exists. If you can't do that, then you will never provide a solution to a more specific problem under that category.


Gbaji wrote:
Funny how I don't recall you cornering me in a discussion. And I certainly have no clue how this constitutes any sort of response to what I posted and you quoted. So... Huh?
During our discussion when Zimmerman got off, you contradicted yourself on who initiated the situation. It constitutes as a response to only demonstrate that you have no desire to talk the issues. If you were serious about the topic, you wouldn't ignore my posts, only to pick up where you left off in another discussion. Then you somehow get upset about me saying "see post xx".

Gbaji wrote:
You have an incredibly subjective memory. There was a huge uproar over the issue of why Brown was stopped in the first place, whether the officer recognized him as a suspect in the robbery, or not, etc. The original claim was that the officer stopped Brown for "no reason at all" (ie: walking while black), attacked him (not the other way around as we now know), and then when Brown ran away, pursued him until Brown surrendered with his hands up in the air, then the officer shot him in cold blood.

That was the BS story that was thrown to the public's consumption, absent any facts at all. A big lie told by his friend, and to which the media and the race peddlers were more than willing to jump right on. And they took that lie and pushed it, and pushed it, and generated outrage, which lead to anger, which lead to rioting. All because no one was wiling to actually wait for the facts to be known. Rush to judgement is the common theme to all of these cases. Then, when the facts are known, it's already too late. Those who have already become outraged, and may even have spoken out publicly about it, very very rarely going to just go "Oh. We got it wrong. Sorry". Nope. They change the subject. They insist that the cops still could or should have done something different. All the time, refusing to acknowledge their own role in creating chaos.

There was nothing wrong with the handling of the case. It's police policy not to provide public details of an ongoing investigation. You know, because they don't want people rushing to judgement based on false or incorrect information they may provide. The media, of course, doesn't seem to mind doing this, and will report on any rumor that sound juicy. Which is how public perception of these events become so twisted around.
Given that you don't actually follow the news, I will go out on a limb and say that I was following this much more closely than you. You are simply nit-picking things that support your narrative; however, the overall concern was the process; hence "Black Lives Matter".

Gbaji wrote:
That... doesn't even make any sense.
Gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry. Exactly which recorded behaviors of Zimmerman or Wilson are you claiming I've disregarded? I've discussed, at length, the actions both men took, and have concluded that there's little they could have done differently to change the outcome. Unless you're arguing that a private citizen on watch is no longer allowed to even approach and speak to a person if that person is black, or that a police officer is no longer allowed to even just speak through his window with a person who is walking down the middle of the street holding stolen goods (again, apparently only if that person is black).
For example, how does the fact that Brown robbed a store before his encounter with Officer Wilson matter, but not the fact that Officer Wilson was kicked out from his previous police department for being unfit?




#318 Aug 12 2016 at 7:32 AM Rating: Good
******
49,065 posts
Almalieque wrote:
How can you provide specific solutions to a category of a problem, if you don't acknowledge that the category even exist?
He saw an episode of In Living Color and that makes him an expert on all life experiences.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#319 Aug 15 2016 at 3:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,661 posts
Almalieque wrote:
How can you provide specific solutions to a category of a problem, if you don't acknowledge that the category even exist? I'm simply asking you to acknowledge that the category exists. If you can't do that, then you will never provide a solution to a more specific problem under that category.


What "category" are you talking about? This is what I mean. You're so vague with your comments that I have to guess what the heck you're saying. You accuse me of failing to acknowledge a category, but I don't know what context you mean this in, nor what category you want me to acknowledge.

Quote:
During our discussion when Zimmerman got off, you contradicted yourself on who initiated the situation.


Huh? I was very specific. I went step by step through the timeline of events. Your problem is that you repeatedly failed to grasp that the action of Zimmerman pursuing Martin through the complex is separate from the action of Martin attacking Zimmerman. Zimmerman "initiated" a completely lawful and reasonable action. Martin "initiated" the violent confrontation. You seem to be under the impression that because Zimmerman pursued Martin this somehow made Martin's decision to attack Zimmerman justified. Guess what? The law, and common sense, both disagree with you.

Quote:
It constitutes as a response to only demonstrate that you have no desire to talk the issues. If you were serious about the topic, you wouldn't ignore my posts, only to pick up where you left off in another discussion. Then you somehow get upset about me saying "see post xx".


Yeah. Because I have no clue what you're talking about when you do that. You repeatedly lurch from one thought to the next, and rapidly change the subject when it's inconvenient to keep talking about the current one. Like here, where you drop in some alleged inconsistency, not in the events of the Martin shooting, but in my statements about the events? How is that relevant?

My comments from 3 years ago aren't really part of the discussion. The pattern of public outraged fueled by leaps to false conclusion that are sold to the public as fact is. That's why I brought up that old case. You, apparently, failed to understand this.

Quote:
Given that you don't actually follow the news, I will go out on a limb and say that I was following this much more closely than you. You are simply nit-picking things that support your narrative; however, the overall concern was the process; hence "Black Lives Matter".


I'll note that this response doesn't actually include any sort of statement disproving my claim. The fact is that a large portion of the initial outrage was based on false assumptions about the reason Brown was stopped, the actions that occurred after he was stopped, and the actions leading up to him being shot. All of which, turned out to be incorrect after the fact.

Quote:
For example, how does the fact that Brown robbed a store before his encounter with Officer Wilson matter, but not the fact that Officer Wilson was kicked out from his previous police department for being unfit?


Wow. Really? Um... When you're trying the case, absent facts, in the court of public opinion, and one of your primary and first claims is about how Brown was such a good boy, headed to college, and clearly couldn't have done anything that might have justified the shooting, the fact that he had just committed a strong arm robbery just minutes before the altercation is pretty darn significant. Surely you can see this?

Wilson's previous employment had nothing at all to do with it. You're grasping at straws here. His personal record showed no problems. But this is kind of the point. From the moment of the shooting, the entire focus was on the officer and not on the actions of the person who was shot, and the specifics of the encounter that lead to the shot. You're trying to make it about the people, and not the actions those people engaged in. But no sane legal system can work that way. Which is why trying to do this leads to ****** off people and rioting.



Oh. I'll also point out that Milwaukee is proving my point for me right now. Care to explain how any of the rioting going on right now is even remotely justified? It's pretty clear that this is not about the actions taken and even an attempt to determine if they were justified, but just about agitating anytime a black person is shot by a cop. Which leads us back to the problem I mentioned in my earlier post. This approach just doesn't work. Unless the police simply stop policing at all in black neighborhoods, there's no way to "fix" this problem via changes in police actions. The bar for outrage is now set so low that the cops literally cannot do their jobs without prompting riots.

Is that really what you think we should be doing? Where's BLM telling everyone to stand down because this doesn't look like a case of unjustified shooting? Heck. Just telling people to wait until the facts are known? They don't want the facts. They want the violence. Can't you see this?




[/quote]
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#320 Aug 15 2016 at 3:41 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,131 posts
Gbaji wrote:
What "category" are you talking about? This is what I mean. You're so vague with your comments that I have to guess what the heck you're saying. You accuse me of failing to acknowledge a category, but I don't know what context you mean this in, nor what category you want me to acknowledge.
False. You accused me of not being specific enough on overarching categories. That's not the same as being "vague". Overarching != specific.

Gbaji wrote:
Huh? I was very specific. I went step by step through the timeline of events. Your problem is that you repeatedly failed to grasp that the action of Zimmerman pursuing Martin through the complex is separate from the action of Martin attacking Zimmerman. Zimmerman "initiated" a completely lawful and reasonable action. Martin "initiated" the violent confrontation. You seem to be under the impression that because Zimmerman pursued Martin this somehow made Martin's decision to attack Zimmerman justified. Guess what? The law, and common sense, both disagree with you.


Gbaji wrote:
Yeah. Because I have no clue what you're talking about when you do that. You repeatedly lurch from one thought to the next, and rapidly change the subject when it's inconvenient to keep talking about the current one. Like here, where you drop in some alleged inconsistency, not in the events of the Martin shooting, but in my statements about the events? How is that relevant?

My comments from 3 years ago aren't really part of the discussion. The pattern of public outraged fueled by leaps to false conclusion that are sold to the public as fact is. That's why I brought up that old case. You, apparently, failed to understand this.
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=4&mid=137245830526982975&h=50&p=14 See post 678. Reply there.

Gbaji wrote:
I'll note that this response doesn't actually include any sort of statement disproving my claim. The fact is that a large portion of the initial outrage was based on false assumptions about the reason Brown was stopped, the actions that occurred after he was stopped, and the actions leading up to him being shot. All of which, turned out to be incorrect after the fact.
Given that you don't actually follow the news, I will go out on a limb and say that I was following this much more closely than you. You are simply nit-picking things that support your narrative; however,the overall concern was the process; hence "Black Lives Matter".


Gbaji wrote:

Wilson's previous employment had nothing at all to do with it.
I think I confused Wilson with the police officer who killed Tamir Rice, but I guess that his past of being "unfit" is irrelevant as well. In any case, Wilson's first police department was disbanded for racial tactics. So, I guess that shouldn't be taken in consideration either.

Gbaji wrote:
Care to explain how any of the rioting going on right now is even remotely justified?
It isn't justified. You're just proving my point that you are incapable of acknowledging factors that don't support your Fox News talking points. Hence, you're not taking this discussion seriously.



Edited, Aug 16th 2016 12:14am by Almalieque

Edited, Aug 16th 2016 12:15am by Almalieque
#321 Aug 15 2016 at 5:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,661 posts
Almalieque wrote:
False. You accused me of not being specific enough on overarching categories. That's not the same as being "vague". Overarching != specific.


I'm not going to argue with you about what we're arguing about. That's just silly. Stick to the topic.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Huh? I was very specific. I went step by step through the timeline of events. Your problem is that you repeatedly failed to grasp that the action of Zimmerman pursuing Martin through the complex is separate from the action of Martin attacking Zimmerman. Zimmerman "initiated" a completely lawful and reasonable action. Martin "initiated" the violent confrontation. You seem to be under the impression that because Zimmerman pursued Martin this somehow made Martin's decision to attack Zimmerman justified. Guess what? The law, and common sense, both disagree with you.

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=4&mid=137245830526982975&h=50&p=14 See post 678. Reply there.


Wait? You're making me read a years old thread, where it looks like you responded to a post I wrote about school vouchers with a completely out of topic screed alleging some kind of inconsistency in my statements about the Martin shooting? You get that this is just supporting my point about how you ramble around, lurching from point to point, and constantly changing the topic, right?

I don't have an issue with you quoting me and then responding to the thing I was talking about. But you have this bizarre habit of quoting a very broad line from me (like "You should really have started a separate thread for this Alma. But I'll pay anyway! ;)"), but then talking about something completely different. This creates a disconnect since I have no clue what you're talking about when you respond. You did it there, and now you're referencing you doing it to do it yet again.

if you have a specific claim that I was inconsistent in something I wrote, then quote the actual things I wrote that you think are inconsistent and then respond to them. You're not doing this. You just quote some random thing I wrote, then declare some other thing I wrote to be inconsistent. Which makes it kinda hard to follow.

But, and I'm dreading even starting down this trail, if you want a response, you're still conflating multiple things and apparently unable to see how different reactions occur as a result of different things.

1. Zimmerman first action was to place a call to police after seeing what he believed was suspicious behavior by Martin.
2. Martin's first action (involving Zimmerman) was when he saw Zimmerman talking on the phone in his car and chose to run from him.
3. Zimmerman responded to that action by pursuing Martin.
4. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and began heading back to his car.
5. Martin attacked Zimmerman at some point after that.


Each of these actions and reactions needs to be examined on their own. The point I consistently made through all my arguments was that the first illegal act was taken by Martin when he attacked Zimmerman. None of the known actions by Zimmerman can be seen as a lawful justification for Martin's decision to attack. But, when I made these points back then, you keep meandering back and forth between the fight and the phone call and Zimmerman getting out of his car. None of those earlier actions justify Martin's later action. I was *very* consistent about this.

It's like you want to argue every single thing except the point. The point isn't even about Martin and Zimmerman. Again, I brought that case only to show the pattern of public outrage being generated based on horribly incorrect (or sometimes just outright false) information being reported on these cases well before the actual facts are known. It's startling just how consistently the events which have resulted in the most outrage and the most rioting and the most violence have been the ones where the facts were the least accurate.

Which is a pattern one might just want to pay attention to.

Quote:
Given that you don't actually follow the news, I will go out on a limb and say that I was following this much more closely than you. You are simply nit-picking things that support your narrative; however,the overall concern was the process; hence "Black Lives Matter".


Repeating a statement doesn't make it any more true, or relevant. I'll ask you again: What part of the process was so horribly handled in the Brown shooting? What do you think they should have done differently?

Quote:
I think I confused Wilson with the police officer who killed Tamir Rice, but I guess that his past of being "unfit" is irrelevant as well. In any case, Wilson's first police department was disbanded for racial tactics. So, I guess that shouldn't be taken in consideration either.


Yeah. Kinda easy to read between the lines there though. And it's a lot of politics, and frankly another point I've been kinda holding off making (since it's just another thing really). It seems as though many of these cities with heavily black urban neighborhoods have made an effort to change their police forces so as to be more diverse. They've done this specifically to try to avoid the narrative of "white cops patrolling black neighborhoods", presumably to decrease the likelihood of charges of racial profiling and whatnot. This is presumably why Wilson's former department was disbanded (presumably re-organized and absorbed into other departments, since it's not like no one's covering the same area anymore).

What's interesting is that as city managers have moved to do this, in direct response to very kinds of allegations we're talking about, it does not seem to have made things better, but instead has caused things to get worse. So the question is: Have things actually gotten worse, or have the political factions who demanded and go such changes become emboldened to demand even more and thus need to keep lowering the bar for "outrage" in order to achieve it? Cause that's sure what this looks like. The case in Milwaukee is a perfect example of this. A department that has taken all the right steps. They've implemented all of the changes that BLM (and other groups) have demanded. They've diversified their police force. They've implemented training courses. They've installed body cameras. Yet, despite this, and despite what appears to be an absolutely clean shoot, we not only got riots, we got them faster than ever before.

Is this really about black lives anymore? Or about perpetuating the perception of the problem out of a need to institutionalize those leading the political charge for a "solution"?

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Care to explain how any of the rioting going on right now is even remotely justified?
[/spoiler]It isn't justified. You're just proving my point that you are incapable of acknowledging factors that don't support your Fox News talking points. Hence, you're not taking this discussion seriously.


Huh? So you acknowledge that the rioting isn't justified, but I'm still wrong somehow? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. My main argument is that there's a faction in our politics that wants the violence and the rioting (we can speculate about reasons), and thus will deliberately create them, even when the circumstances don't warrant it. And that's certainly what appears to be going on in Milwaukee right now. There is *zero* reason for rioting. There's zero reason for peaceful protests. There's nothing to protest.

It does not appear to be about black lives anymore, or about bad police actions. It's about rioting in order to create some kind of very loud and very angry platform. But what is the message? I guess that's the issue I've been having all along. BLM seems to love to use any opportunity they can to make people angry about things, but doesn't seem to have any intention of using those people for anything productive. They just mobilize them in yet another and even more angry protest. Demanding "something" isn't terribly useful. It honestly doesn't seem like they want anything other than more violence.

But hey. That's just my opinion. I'm sure you see them as shining beacons of civility and justice, fighting for a better tomorrow or something. Me? I just don't see it.

Edited, Aug 15th 2016 4:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#322 Aug 15 2016 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,131 posts
Gbaji wrote:

I'm not going to argue with you about what we're arguing about. That's just silly. Stick to the topic.
This is the point. You refuse to accept an entire overarching category for the reason for the state of Black America.

Gbaji wrote:
Wait? You're making me read a years old thread, where it looks like you responded to a post I wrote about school vouchers with a completely out of topic screed alleging some kind of inconsistency in my statements about the Martin shooting? You get that this is just supporting my point about how you ramble around, lurching from point to point, and constantly changing the topic, right?

I don't have an issue with you quoting me and then responding to the thing I was talking about. But you have this bizarre habit of quoting a very broad line from me (like "You should really have started a separate thread for this Alma. But I'll pay anyway! ;)"), but then talking about something completely different. This creates a disconnect since I have no clue what you're talking about when you respond. You did it there, and now you're referencing you doing it to do it yet again.

if you have a specific claim that I was inconsistent in something I wrote, then quote the actual things I wrote that you think are inconsistent and then respond to them. You're not doing this. You just quote some random thing I wrote, then declare some other thing I wrote to be inconsistent. Which makes it kinda hard to follow.

But, and I'm dreading even starting down this trail, if you want a response, you're still conflating multiple things and apparently unable to see how different reactions occur as a result of different things.

1. Zimmerman first action was to place a call to police after seeing what he believed was suspicious behavior by Martin.
2. Martin's first action (involving Zimmerman) was when he saw Zimmerman talking on the phone in his car and chose to run from him.
3. Zimmerman responded to that action by pursuing Martin.
4. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and began heading back to his car.
5. Martin attacked Zimmerman at some point after that.


Each of these actions and reactions needs to be examined on their own. The point I consistently made through all my arguments was that the first illegal act was taken by Martin when he attacked Zimmerman. None of the known actions by Zimmerman can be seen as a lawful justification for Martin's decision to attack. But, when I made these points back then, you keep meandering back and forth between the fight and the phone call and Zimmerman getting out of his car. None of those earlier actions justify Martin's later action. I was *very* consistent about this.

It's like you want to argue every single thing except the point. The point isn't even about Martin and Zimmerman. Again, I brought that case only to show the pattern of public outrage being generated based on horribly incorrect (or sometimes just outright false) information being reported on these cases well before the actual facts are known. It's startling just how consistently the events which have resulted in the most outrage and the most rioting and the most violence have been the ones where the facts were the least accurate.

Which is a pattern one might just want to pay attention to.
I'm not reading unless you respond there. I'm not following one of your tangents.


Gbaji wrote:

Repeating a statement doesn't make it any more true, or relevant. I'll ask you again: What part of the process was so horribly handled in the Brown shooting? What do you think they should have done differently?
You ignoring my point isn't the same as me not providing it. The main procedural concern of the shooting (and others alike) is the conflict of interest of having a prosecutor (who normally supports the police officers' actions) as the same prosecutor who is now supposed to objectively prosecute the police. The prosecutor behaved more like a defense attorney than a prosecutor.


Quote:
This is presumably why Wilson's former department was disbanded
Stop lying. 3 minutes of research would have easily told you otherwise.


Gbaji wrote:
Huh? So you acknowledge that the rioting isn't justified, but I'm still wrong somehow? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I'm saying that the state of Black America is the result of both personal actions and institutionalized favoritism and that conservatives (like you) only focus on the former and liberals only focus on the latter.
#323 Aug 15 2016 at 8:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,661 posts
Almalieque wrote:
This is the point. You refuse to accept an entire overarching category for the reason for the state of Black America.


Let's pretend for the moment that I don't spend more than a tiny fraction of my time thinking about this subject and that I have no clue what "category" you're claiming I'm refusing to accept. Please tell me what category I'm not accepting and we can go from there. I'm quite sure I already asked you this just a few posts ago, and all you did was repeat the claim. I'll ask again: What is it you think I'm ignoring?

Quote:
I'm not reading unless you respond there. I'm not following one of your tangents.


I'm not going to reopen a 3 year old thread Alma. You're the one who freaking linked to it and went off on said tangent, not me. You're also the one who injected some claim that I was inconsistent with some comment or other I made 3 years ago in that thread. See above about me not having a clue what the heck you're talking about.

I'll say this again: I only referenced the Martin shooting as another example of a public leap to judgement prior to knowing the facts. I was not in any way attempting to dredge up random comments or disagreements we may have had in a 3 year old thread on the topic, and I'm not sure how you stamping your feet and complaining because you don't think I adequately responded to something you said back then in any way constitutes a response to something I just said right now on this thread.

That's called "going off on a tangent".

Quote:
You ignoring my point isn't the same as me not providing it.


I can't ignore a point that was never made. If you think I'm ignoring something, it's usually because I don't have a clue what you're talking about because you seem to go out of your way to be vague. You respond to a statement I make with something else totally unrelated. You reference past posts, that don't appear to have anything to do with the current one. Then you sit back and insist that I'm ignoring you when I ask you to clarify what exactly it is you're talking about. See how that's a problem? Focus your mind. You wander all over the place.

Quote:
The main procedural concern of the shooting (and others alike) is the conflict of interest of having a prosecutor (who normally supports the police officers' actions) as the same prosecutor who is now supposed to objectively prosecute the police. The prosecutor behaved more like a defense attorney than a prosecutor.


Uh... What? The riots in Ferguson occurred well before there could have been a prosecutor assigned to anything related to the shooting. Who was this prosecutor you're talking about? The police do an investigation of all shootings. Typically some kind of IA investigation occurs as well. In high profile shootings an FBI investigation will occur as well. Prosecutors aren't involved until much later.

The reality is that the shooting of Brown was justified. Period. People rioted, not because the cop did something wrong, but because they believed a lie told about what happened. And after having expended so much effort protesting and rioting, they just couldn't accept that they were wrong. So they cast about looking for other things semi-related to the shooting to complain about. Which is basically what you're doing now.

So the result of the investigation was correct, but you're still upset because of... some procedural thing involving a prosecutor? That makes no sense. And no, people weren't rioting because of that. They rioted because of "hands up, don't shoot". They rioted because they were told a lie about what happened. Period. Stop trying to spin this into anything other than people rushing to judgement and then being horribly wrong. Not just once, but over and over and over.

Quote:
Stop lying. 3 minutes of research would have easily told you otherwise.


I did. I also understood what I was reading, and applied it to the broader context of this issue. You did not.

Quote:
I'm saying that the state of Black America is the result of both personal actions and institutionalized favoritism and that conservatives (like you) only focus on the former and liberals only focus on the latter.


Does the state of Black America justify the rioting in Milwaukee? It's funny because it's like you just can't say (write) the words: "The riots in Milwaukee are unjustified". It's like you're so stuck in an "us vs them" mindset that you see any condemnation of any action taken by those on your "side" (no matter how ill conceived or counter productive) as a retreat from a position you hold.

You can simultaneously condemn the violence we keep seeing from these events and support the cause of improving the condition of blacks in the US. In fact, I think that the hesitancy to do this is part of the problem. It makes those who engage in violence think that they're helping. They're not. But as long as prominent black leaders and blacks as a whole fail to roundly condemn these sorts of things, it's just going to get worse. And any hope of moving forward with actual solutions and improvements of the black condition will be stalled.

And this is why I have an issue with BLM. They don't seem to want solutions. They just want to stir the pot.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#324 Aug 15 2016 at 9:37 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,092 posts
gbaji wrote:
Let's pretend for the moment that I don't spend more than a tiny fraction of my time thinking about this subject and that I have no clue what "category" you're claiming I'm refusing to accept. Please tell me what category I'm not accepting and we can go from there. I'm quite sure I already asked you this just a few posts ago, and all you did was repeat the claim. I'll ask again: What is it you think I'm ignoring?
He's pointing to your insistence that bigotry/racism is a tiny part of the problem instead of the large part that it is.

Your insistence otherwise makes you look like a bigger douche than usual and that's saying a lot.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#325 Aug 15 2016 at 11:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Let's pretend for the moment that I don't spend more than a tiny fraction of my time thinking

I'm waaaayyy ahead of ya.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#326 Aug 16 2016 at 12:13 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,661 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Let's pretend for the moment that I don't spend more than a tiny fraction of my time thinking about this subject and that I have no clue what "category" you're claiming I'm refusing to accept. Please tell me what category I'm not accepting and we can go from there. I'm quite sure I already asked you this just a few posts ago, and all you did was repeat the claim. I'll ask again: What is it you think I'm ignoring?
He's pointing to your insistence that bigotry/racism is a tiny part of the problem instead of the large part that it is.


The problem with Alma is that he conflates "disagree" with "ignore". He'll make some claim about something. I'll respond that I disagree, and post several paragraphs explaining why I disagree. Then I'll propose an alternative claim, following that with several more paragraphs about why it's a better and/or more relevant claim. Then he'll say that I'm ignoring his claim in my explanation.

Um... duh. I've stated numerous times that I don't believe that bigotry by cops is more than an incredibly tiny factor to this issue. I'm not ignoring it. I'm not placing the same weight on it as I place things like black poverty and the environmental effects on a whole list of social stats that results from it.

Quote:
Your insistence otherwise makes you look like a bigger douche than usual and that's saying a lot.


No. It means I'm willing to look past the simplistic emotional rhetoric of the issue and make an objective assessment. I've said this many many times (certainly, have not "ignored" it). We could make every change to police procedures, hiring practices, training, equipment, etc, etc, that you could ever propose and it will still not change the relative rate at which black people suffer negative encounters with police versus white people. Even if we could somehow magically click our heels and make it so that the police could do their jobs without ever harming anyone in any way, such that no black lives were ever lost in encounters with police, we'd still have a disproportionate number of stops, searches, arrests, convictions, etc. And that would be used by the same groups to make the same bias/bigotry arguments that are being made today.


It's not really about black lives. Again, if it was, there would be more efforts focused on the things that actually cost the most black lives. It's about creating a conflict, knowing that two "sides" will have to form, and knowing that this can be used as a lever to push people to "pick a side". It's about creating a narrative and pushing it hard. It's about labeling anyone who disagrees with that narrative as a bigot or racist. It's about drowning out rational discussion in favor of emotional name calling. All the while, things don't get better, they get worse. The victims stay victims. Because we're not actually look at solving the problem. We're so caught up in blaming the other guy that we're not actually stopping and examining the problem.


It's *easy* to look at disproportionate police stats and conclude that it must be racial bias. What's hard is looking at the bigger socio-economic picture and realizing that those police stats are the result of that bigger picture. What's hard is realizing that cops are painfully aware of this. They're aware every single time they pull over someone who is black that even though they know they're pulling them over for something they'd pull a white person over for, the fact that the driver is black will be counted in some 'driving while black' stat somewhere. Every time they roll up to a call, they're hoping the people involved wont be black, so they don't have to worry about being accused of bigotry. They have no choice about where they go. They have to police a neighborhood. They have to respond to calls. That's their job.

I'll ask again: What should officer Wilson have done differently in the Brown shooting? Let's add the Smith shooting in Milwaukee now too. I just see a huge disconnect when people are using broad police stats to "prove" bigotry by police, but the cases where we see anger and rioting seem to consistently be the worst case examples. As I mentioned earlier, it almost seems like the purpose is to create argument and polarization. The cases where it's clear that the officer in question acted incorrectly, everyone agrees on that fact and we move on. It's the cases where the victim was black, but the officer did *not* act incorrectly that the BLM type folks seem to jump on so hard. Why do you suppose that is? It's because you can't create the perception of a "side" that supports racism when they agree with you. So you have to pick cases where you know that they will support the police. Then you can create conflict. Then you can label all those who defend the police officer's actions as racist bigots. And you get to grow the perception of racial victimization. You can't find overt evidence for the supposed "systematic racism" in society, but you can create a false impression of it by doing this sort of thing.

IMO, that's what BLM is trying to do. And it's ugly as ****.

Edited, Aug 15th 2016 11:14pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#327 Aug 16 2016 at 3:11 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,092 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... duh. I've stated numerous times that I don't believe that bigotry by cops is more than an incredibly tiny factor to this issue.
Yes, we know.

Douche.

gbaji wrote:
I'm not placing the same weight on it as I place things like black poverty and the environmental effects on a whole list of social stats that results from it.
Right. Because of racism.

Douche.
gbaji wrote:
No. It means I'm willing to look past the simplistic emotional rhetoric of the issue and make an objective assessment.
Right. Ignoring reality.

Douche.





Your realize that every time you post this shit you drive home - further and further- the evidence that you have been a sheltered middle-to-upper-class suburban dingle your whole life. Your tired stories of bootstrapping look sillier and more obvious every day.

Just put on the robes, already
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#328 Aug 16 2016 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
******
49,065 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Let's pretend for the moment that I don't spend more than a tiny fraction of my time thinking
I'm waaaayyy ahead of ya.
Heh, pretend.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#329 Aug 16 2016 at 9:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,100 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Your realize that every time you post this shit you drive home - further and further- the evidence that you have been a sheltered middle-to-upper-class suburban dingle your whole life.
That's crazy talk. Don't things work the same way with these demographics as with these?

Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#330 Aug 16 2016 at 9:56 AM Rating: Good
******
49,065 posts
They're both circles, so obviously the racial make ups are the same.

Edited, Aug 16th 2016 12:37pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#331 Aug 16 2016 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,100 posts
Exactly; which makes this the perfect place to test race relations of a police force.

People are missing the big picture, IMO. It not like we're testing race relations on triangle populations, or with squares, or pentagons. We're all circles here, and it's that similarity that unites us. People are focusing too much on the color of the circles and not the circles themselves! That's why they're wrong. Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#332 Aug 16 2016 at 11:40 AM Rating: Good
******
49,065 posts
Not I, for long ago I learned that it was hip to be square.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#333 Aug 16 2016 at 11:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,100 posts
Hey that's cool. You should be proud of who you are. It's all those circles walking around acting like squares that are the problem. Wearing square pants, awkwardly trying to have points. They're hijacking and perverting square culture with their round ways, and it's embarrassing. They could never know what it's like to really be a square, but that won't stop them from acting like it. At the end of their day they roll back home to their round homes in their upscale neighborhoods while the real squares are still suffering in the streets. It's criminal I tell ya. Smiley: disappointed

Edited, Aug 16th 2016 11:11am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#334 Aug 16 2016 at 1:27 PM Rating: Good
******
49,065 posts
It's all these circles trying to appropriate the square culture that is truly ruining everything. Smiley: mad
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#335 Aug 16 2016 at 1:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,223 posts
All I get are 404's
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#336 Aug 16 2016 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,308 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
All I get are 404's

I had to manually add the http:// to be able to see them.
#337 Aug 16 2016 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,223 posts
Oh, that fixed it! I didn't even look for that.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#338 Aug 16 2016 at 4:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,661 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... duh. I've stated numerous times that I don't believe that bigotry by cops is more than an incredibly tiny factor to this issue.
Yes, we know.


And you also know that I'm right?

Quote:
Douche.


Calling me names doesn't change the fact that I'm right.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm not placing the same weight on it as I place things like black poverty and the environmental effects on a whole list of social stats that results from it.
Right. Because of racism.

Douche.


Sigh... And this is you doubling down on rhetoric. When you can't make an argument, just call the other person names. Seems to be a consistent methodology at least. I've already linked to a number of articles and studies saying the same thing I am. Other than name calling, do you have any support for the idea that racism is a major component to the stats we're looking at? Again, it's easy to just point at the disparate stats and leap to "racism" as the explanation. But I've explained several times that this isn't the correct answer.

If you disagree, then by all means provide some kind of source and/or argument to support said disagreement. When all you do is call me names, that kinda tells me that you know I'm right, but don't want to admit it.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
No. It means I'm willing to look past the simplistic emotional rhetoric of the issue and make an objective assessment.
Right. Ignoring reality.

Douche.


Same thing again. Ignoring reality is what you are doing, not me. You're looking at the easy emotion laden thing and latching onto it no matter how many facts, stats, studies, and other bits of "reality" don't agree. Then you call the guy looking at those things a racist. Well, that's typical.

Quote:
Your realize that every time you post this shit you drive home - further and further- the evidence that you have been a sheltered middle-to-upper-class suburban dingle your whole life. Your tired stories of bootstrapping look sillier and more obvious every day.


Where I'm from, or what my background is, doesn't have any bearing on me being right. Do you have any response that isn't just an attack on the guy posting the things you don't like? Anything at all? Even a tiny bit of self-reflection should clue you in to the flaw in your own position. How about not doubling down on that and maybe trying to open your mind a bit?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#339 Aug 16 2016 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,092 posts
gbaji wrote:
Where I'm from, or what my background is, doesn't have any bearing on me being right.
That's true.

It has quite a bit of bearing on how you chose to compile and interpret information and which sources for said information are valuable and which sources you chose to discard because they don't fit your personal narrative.

And you're right; calling you a douche is silly. An actual douche has a useful function and doesn't claim to be anything but what it is.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#340 Aug 16 2016 at 4:58 PM Rating: Good
******
49,065 posts
gbaji wrote:
Where I'm from, or what my background is, doesn't have any bearing on me being right.
Weird, since you recently argued that where you're from is all the bearing you needed to be right about immigration.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#341 Aug 16 2016 at 7:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,661 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Where I'm from, or what my background is, doesn't have any bearing on me being right.
That's true.

It has quite a bit of bearing on how you chose to compile and interpret information and which sources for said information are valuable and which sources you chose to discard because they don't fit your personal narrative.


Ok. What sources are you using then? Has it occurred to you that maybe the same applies in reverse? I'm at least looking beyond the bumper sticker slogans. How you are arriving at your position? Cause it seems like you're just joining the chanting crowd and not really engaging in any sort of thought at all.

It's just funny that I've asked several times now for you to provide an argument to support your actions. Evidence that racism by cops is the problem, would be a great start. And again, the end stats don't count, since we're trying to determine the cause of those stats. They are the result of something. Evidence of the sort of rampant racism you'd need to have in our police forces to contribute even a small amount to the stats we're seeing should be everywhere. We should be seeing cops running around using racial epithets all the time. We should be catching them on video, taking black people out of cars and beating them silly,every night, in every major city. We should be hearing reports of folks in the police departments blowing the whistle on this sort of thing. Going to the papers with stories of how the cops talk about black people when no one is around.

Racism of that scale can't exist just inside this guy, or that guy. It's a group thing. Back in the 50s and 60s, you knew where racism was rampant because people spoke openly among themselves about it. I don't see how you could possibly have such rampant racism by so many cops, and none of them mention it to any of the others? Not even a nod and a wink from time to time? Because this is the sort of thing that should be being reported if this was actually going on. Not this one time. Or once in a great while. All the time. Everywhere. Because that's the scale you'd need for racism by cops to be the source of the problem.

It's just not there. The occasional example? Sure. But nothing anywhere near enough to account for the stats we see.

Poverty, and its effect on crime, especially when in densely populated urban environments, is well documented. And there's a ton of research that strongly supports the notion that this effect alone can easily account for the difference in crime/police stats between black and white in this country. Why insist on ignoring this as the most likely explanation? There's actual data. Where's the data on the kind of widespread racism that would have to exist for it to be the explanation? Nowhere, right? Speculation. Guesses. Innuendo. That's it. It's the cause people leap to because it's the cause they want to leap to. Nothing more.

I'm serious here. How do you think "racism" can explain the stats? I'm just not seeing it. And you can sit there and call me names as long as you want, but it's not going to change the fact that I just don't see it. What might be a step in the right direction would be some kind of logical argument, maybe even backed up with some data. But I've been asking for that for the entirety of this thread, and all I've gotten is name calling in response.

Do any sort of goggle search on why blacks are killed by cops more than whites and you'll get page after page after page of hits, the vast majority of which will say the same thing I've been saying. That when you look at the crime rates, which affect the rates of interaction with police, the shooting/harming rates by police are virtually identical between white and black. And when you look at poverty rates as they related to higher crime rates, and then look at relative poverty rates between blacks and whites, the entire picture fills in and makes sense. The cops aren't the cause of this. They're just stuck in the middle. Blacks are 4 times more likely to live in a high poverty neighborhood than whites. That's your stat right there, and that's ultimately the cause of the difference in police shootings as well. And it's also the difference in literacy rates, school drop out rates, gang membership rates, drug addiction rates, employment rates, etc, etc, etc.

Let's assume for a moment that not only the existence of black life matters, but that the quality of black lives matter. Isn't going after the cops a non-starter here? Even if you could somehow manage to artificially change the resulting death rate of blacks by cops to be identical to that of whites, you're only treating a symptom. And the rest are still going to be intact. Isn't the more important thing to look at why there's such a massive poverty difference between black and white in this country and maybe fix that instead?

Why are people, especially liberals who claim to care the most, so opposed to this? I'd think they'd be right there with me on this one. But, oddly, that's not the case.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#342 Aug 16 2016 at 9:02 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,092 posts
gbaji wrote:
And again, the end stats don't count, since we're trying to determine the cause of those stats.
This type of thinking on your part makes it likely that anything anyone ever cites will be an utter waste of time as you simply discount reality.

Which is what I keep saying.


Seriously; it's pretty much you saying "show me proof that the boson exists, but don't use any data from a particle accelerator to do it".


Edited, Aug 16th 2016 9:09pm by Bijou
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#343 Aug 16 2016 at 9:09 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,092 posts
gbaji wrote:
Isn't the more important thing to look at why there's such a massive poverty difference between black and white in this country and maybe fix that instead?
We've all answered that and you handwaved it away. Because in your world there is no racism. Because if there was you would have to admit you are part of the problem. Which you are to much of a coward to do. Which leads to you claiming there's no racism...ad nauseum

ALSO: See the ratedowns? I thought I'd mention that's not me. I told you some time ago that I'd stop doing that and I've held to it.

Just in case, you know, you thought that was me.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#344 Aug 16 2016 at 9:17 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,131 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Let's pretend for the moment that I don't spend more than a tiny fraction of my time thinking about this subject and that I have no clue what "category" you're claiming I'm refusing to accept. Please tell me what category I'm not accepting and we can go from there. I'm quite sure I already asked you this just a few posts ago, and all you did was repeat the claim. I'll ask again: What is it you think I'm ignoring?


Gbaji wrote:
I can't ignore a point that was never made. If you think I'm ignoring something, it's usually because I don't have a clue what you're talking about because you seem to go out of your way to be vague. You respond to a statement I make with something else totally unrelated. You reference past posts, that don't appear to have anything to do with the current one. Then you sit back and insist that I'm ignoring you when I ask you to clarify what exactly it is you're talking about. See how that's a problem? Focus your mind. You wander all over the place.


Gbaji wrote:
Uh... What? The riots in Ferguson occurred well before there could have been a prosecutor assigned to anything related to the shooting.


Gbaji wrote:
I did. I also understood what I was reading, and applied it to the broader context of this issue. You did not.
I'm saying that the state of Black America is the result of both personal actions and institutionalized favoritism and that conservatives (like you) only focus on the former and liberals only focus on the latter.

Gbaji wrote:
I'm not going to reopen a 3 year old thread Alma.
Fine with me. Let it stay there.


Gbaji wrote:
Does the state of Black America justify the rioting in Milwaukee? It's funny because it's like you just can't say (write) the words: "The riots in Milwaukee are unjustified". It's like you're so stuck in an "us vs them" mindset that you see any condemnation of any action taken by those on your "side" (no matter how ill conceived or counter productive) as a retreat from a position you hold.

You can simultaneously condemn the violence we keep seeing from these events and support the cause of improving the condition of blacks in the US. In fact, I think that the hesitancy to do this is part of the problem. It makes those who engage in violence think that they're helping. They're not. But as long as prominent black leaders and blacks as a whole fail to roundly condemn these sorts of things, it's just going to get worse. And any hope of moving forward with actual solutions and improvements of the black condition will be stalled.

And this is why I have an issue with BLM. They don't seem to want solutions. They just want to stir the pot.
I'm pretty sure that I said that those riots (Milwaukee, Ferguson, Baltimore, LA, random championship,etc) are unjustified. See my first response in this post.
#345 Aug 17 2016 at 9:01 AM Rating: Good
******
49,065 posts
gbaji wrote:
Do any sort of goggle search on why blacks are killed by cops more than whites and you'll get page after page after page of hits, the vast majority of which will say the same thing I've been saying.
Do any sort of google search on (literally any opinion) and you'll get page after page after page of hits, the vast majority of which will say the same thing you've been saying.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#346 Aug 17 2016 at 9:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,100 posts
Just because I was having trouble waking up and this was easier than thinking about proteins...

Provisional model of causes
Border racism stuff
Race and racism as causes probably won't like this one as it doesn't go much beyond stats
Analysis of Police shootings Yes this one is a "stats paper" at heart, but there's analysis beyond that.
Explaining Police Bias
Racial insults in police interrogations
Driving while black
Race-related stress

That's only going back to 2000, and just with a "racism police causes" search in google scholar (and only went through the first 5-6 pages). But hey, that's pretty good for a before coffee search by my accounts. Biggest probably with getting a full picture is problem that the field seems to have moved beyond that point. A lot more articles examining different aspects of racism and police action, rather than "proving" that it exists. Probably should have gone back further to grab more fundamental articles as there seemed to be a lot done in the 90's in the aftermath of the whole Rodney King thing. Also tracing through some of the citation trees would probably be a good thing to do, but I've got to actually research protein stuff too today, so can't spend too much time on it. Big disclaimer that I'm not involved in the field, so I'm probably missing the more fundamental cited papers, as would be typical when someone blindly tries to research outside of their own field.

Edited, Aug 17th 2016 8:15am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#347 Aug 17 2016 at 9:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,100 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's just funny that I've asked several times now for you to provide an argument to support your actions. Evidence that racism by cops is the problem, would be a great start. And again, the end stats don't count, since we're trying to determine the cause of those stats. They are the result of something. Evidence of the sort of rampant racism you'd need to have in our police forces to contribute even a small amount to the stats we're seeing should be everywhere. We should be seeing cops running around using racial epithets all the time. We should be catching them on video, taking black people out of cars and beating them silly,every night, in every major city. We should be hearing reports of folks in the police departments blowing the whistle on this sort of thing. Going to the papers with stories of how the cops talk about black people when no one is around.
I think, one of the hardest thing to explain to someone in the majority, who doesn't "see" racism is explaining how non-overt actions can have a negative impact on minority well-being. It's easy to see how someone shouting a racial epitaph at someone else is racism, it's harder to explain how rezoning, or choosing the location of a public library, or similar could cause harm. Things like policy decisions, criminalization of different activities, lack of funding for research into diseases that afflict minorities at a higher rate, or whatnot can disproportionately affect minorities without raising alarm. A nice modern example is how there's studies now showing how teaching people about the threat of terrorism in a post-9/11 world is encouraging racism against middle-eastern people. Those kinds of things aren't overt, but still cause great harm. That's of course going beyond how individual people's actions can be harmful without knowing it.

Problem with much of this subtle racism is that you really aren't going to see it as long as you're in the majority. You'd need to really spend time in a place where your culture isn't the driving force in policy making before you can even get an inkling of it. That's not really something that you can do with most people, so they'll often remain blissfully unaware that their actions are causing harm. The idea that you have to be shooting a black guy or shouting racial slurs at someone to be racist is a very narrow view of it, that's only a small slice of potential racist activities.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#348 Aug 17 2016 at 9:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji's schtick is to continually ignore end results or even causes leading to those end results and instead insist that there's a nebulous, unprovable base reason that everyone else refuses to accept. Any citation of stats or research is dismissed with "Yes, but the cause of THAT is really...". and, of course, he tries his damnedest to shift the burden of evidence on you to disprove him ("No one has come up with a better reason...") instead of actively showing evidence supporting his claims.

This is his new "It's just obvious!" but with "black poverty (caused by Democrats, no doubt)" substituted for "to encourage marriage".

Edited, Aug 17th 2016 10:43am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#349 Aug 17 2016 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,100 posts
Was kind of hoping to see him link some of his sources. I mean the last one was interesting, but the whole "don't take these results and universalize them" part in the articles citing it sucked some of the wind out. I mean it was still interesting and all regardless, but the nature of the experiment did limit the usefulness of the data. Seemed to have some interesting methodology, and reasonable critical thinking though. Another hit of that could be fun.

What can I say, I'm a sucker for science stuff. Smiley: blush
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#350 Aug 17 2016 at 10:13 AM Rating: Good
******
49,065 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I mean the last one was interesting, but the whole "don't take these results and universalize them" part in the articles citing it sucked some of the wind out.
I felt that was the best part of the article.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#351 Aug 17 2016 at 10:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,100 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
I mean the last one was interesting, but the whole "don't take these results and universalize them" part in the articles citing it sucked some of the wind out.
I felt that was the best part of the article.
It has made the last page or two of posts that much more amusing.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 53 All times are in CDT
Snorre, Anonymous Guests (52)