Recommended Posts

  • Replies 318
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Come on now Jaydee, be nice.  The worst thing of all is to surround yourself with people who think exactly the same as you - you're guaranteed to never grow.  Are you completely right in everything yo

Hey Mitch; I have to ask; what is your reason for posting this?  Do black lives matter?  Of course they do but the phrase/slogan "Black Lives Matter! is a political statement intended to either;

Yep. Black lives matter. That phrase is used (by me and, as I understand it, by most others) because it's black people who are being discriminated against, systemically, in such a manner that their ve

Posted Images

2 hours ago, seeker said:

Are you actually in agreement with that post or are you posting it as an example of how disingenuous the BLM gang is?  If so, good one!

It is posted to raise the discussion of would BLM even exist if it wasn't for the extremely long time that people of colour have been mistreated in the U.S..  A sort of chicken and egg scenario.

Blacks are protesting because of mistreatment by whites.

Whites fight back because of damage being done.

What would the situation be if the blacks weren't abused as slaves in the first place?

More like Canada?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, deicer said:

It is posted to raise the discussion of would BLM even exist if it wasn't for the extremely long time that people of colour have been mistreated in the U.S..  A sort of chicken and egg scenario.

Blacks are protesting because of mistreatment by whites.

Whites fight back because of damage being done.

What would the situation be if the blacks weren't abused as slaves in the first place?

More like Canada?

deicer; 

I have some thoughts on this and would be happy to share them, and engage in a discussion with you,  but before I spend an hour typing them out - are you really interested in discussing this?  Don't want to invest the time to get a link to a CNN video as a reply.  I'm perfectly willing to get into it with an open mind but if you aren't  - let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, deicer said:

Is the discussion going to cover the endemic racism in society as well as on this board?

Would you care to point out a posting on this board that would qualify as 'racist'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of the memes and posts that indicate that blacks rioting are the problem.

They point to the blacks as being the problem without addressing why the situation exists.

Again, I would like to highlight the differences in this matter between Canada and the U.S..  While acknowledging that there was slavery and racism in Canada, it has been handled in a completely different manner and we don't have the same problems that are endemic in the U.S..

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, deicer said:

Is the discussion going to cover the endemic racism in society as well as on this board?

deicer;

Let's start fresh.  Here's what I propose;  I'll talk (write) to you as if I know nothing about you or your history here and you do the same for me - fresh conversation.  I would like to engage with you and discuss these topics.  I have, in full disclosure, found some of our previous exchanges to be frustrating but I do find value in having meaningful conversations with people I disagree with.  Let's talk.  No posting of memes or lazy links to outside sources as a reply.  What do you say?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

Deicer  hooks another one. Good Luck Seeker

44DFF8F5-DF00-40FB-84C6-4C50A1F0236B.jpeg

Come on now Jaydee, be nice.  The worst thing of all is to surround yourself with people who think exactly the same as you - you're guaranteed to never grow.  Are you completely right in everything you believe, is deicer, am I?  Unlikely.  The truth lies somewhere in-between, let's move in that direction.

Edited by seeker
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

Many of the memes and posts that indicate that blacks rioting are the problem.

The way of the left - big on vague, light on specifics.

If there are 'many', shouldn't be that difficult to pull one out the pile to illustrate what is racist. The poster may have thought it was merely a discussion point and you could set him/her straight. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

re racism, there are some who think it only exists if a white person is part of it, how about the racism that exists that does not include whites?   Hindus , vs Sheiks , Arabs vs Palestinians, those who hate gypsies, Chinese vs Japanese, those abainst Jews etc etc etc? Now that would indeed be a great subject for a debate.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, seeker said:

Come on now Jaydee, be nice.  The worst thing of all is to surround yourself with people who think exactly the same as you - you're guaranteed to never grow.  Are you completely right in everything you believe, is deicer, am I?  Unlikely.  The truth lies somewhere in-between, let's move in that direction.

In theory you are right, but many before you have tried and been sucked down that hole only to give up in exasperation. 
 

As I said...good luck. Maybe you will be the wordsmith that gets through and rings the reality bell. Ding Ding !

Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeker

To begin, would an acknowledgement that racism runs through all races, religions and colours and creeds be appropriate?

Having said that, where to start?  I used the analogy of smoking before.  We used to smoke everywhere.  Not it is restricted.

Shouldn't racism be the same?  Let's acknowledge it exists everywhere and work to eliminate it.

Part of that is eliminating blame, and working on root causes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The root of the problem is that the definition of racism depends on who, where and why and it is very hard to nail down.

All humans develop attitudes about how the world works and prejudices that guide their choices based on their lived experience.  I don't mean "prejudice" in a bad way.  Here's a small example;  one day when my son was 6 years old a dog jumped up on him while waiting for the school bus and he got several painful scratches on his arm and leg.  The dog, which some parent had brought along to the bus stop, was not aggressive just poorly trained. 

For years after this event he was afraid of dogs.  Was he wrong to be afraid or to pre-judge how an encounter with a dog might go?  You or I, with a different history, might feel so but to him it's perfectly reasonable.  Eventually, over time, he had enough good encounters to change his attitude - he's cautious not fearful.  Now imagine if he had another bad experience and then another - at some point being fearful becomes the correct choice.

I read a news article about a shopkeeper who was being called racist and there was a movement to boycott his business.  He had noticed that when black teenagers would enter his store that they wouldn't buy anything however there would be empty spots of the shelves when they left - suspected them of shoplifting.  He directed his staff to stand at the end of the aisle and watch them and the inventory problems stopped.

Was the shopkeeper prejudiced against the black teenagers?  Well, one definition I found says that "prejudice" is an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.  Using that definition he was not prejudiced because he did have knowledge and reason for his opinion.  Of course he doesn't know anything about the specific black teen that might enter his store but he did detect a pattern, respond to it and, apparently, the response was correct at least as far as fixing the problem.

Was the shopkeeper racist?  The activists who were trying to organize the boycott were convinced that he was and wanted him out-of-business.  So, there are two possible choices for the shopkeeper; watch none of the customers in which case the inventory problems return or hire more staff to watch every customer with the same diligence which is like having firefighters go around the neighbourhood to spray water on every house just in case there's a fire they don't know about.  Both choices are unsustainable.

So, I put it to directly;  1) how do you fix the shoplifting problem?  and 2) how do convince the world that you aren't racist?

As you point out, racism is part of the human condition - it exists in every race and culture.  I believe this and you do too but there are many in the BLM and black community who do not.  I've seen speeches from BLM and black commentators who say (with a straight face even) that whites can be racist against blacks but blacks cannot be racist against whites.  Their specious explanation for this is that "racism" requires a power structure - whites have, in the past, had more political power and therefore anything they do which affects blacks is racist but anything a black might do against a white isn't.  (Do a search on youtube for "blacks can't be racist" if you want to explore this rabbit hole.) 

I take you back to the shopkeeper example and ask; where is the power structure that makes this racist?  Spoiler - there isn't one.

Edited by seeker
spelling
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

300 and counting: Push by feds to arrest in US protests

By MICHAEL BALSAMO, ALANNA DURKIN RICHER and COLLEEN LONG42 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a private call with federal prosecutors across the country, Attorney General William Barr’s message was clear: aggressively go after demonstrators who cause violence.

Barr pushed his U.S. attorneys to bring federal charges whenever they could, keeping a grip on cases even if a defendant could be tried instead in state court, according to officials with knowledge of last week’s call who were not authorized to publicly discuss the matter and spoke on condition of anonymity. Federal convictions often result in longer prison sentences.

The Trump administration’s crackdown has already led to more than 300 arrests on federal crimes in the protests since the death of George Floyd. An AP analysis of the data shows that while many people are accused of violent crimes such as arson for hurling Molotov cocktails and burning police cars and assault for injuring law enforcement, others are not. That’s led to criticism that at least some arrests are a politically motivated effort to stymie demonstrations

“The speed at which this whole thing was moved from state court to federal court is stunning and unbelievable,” said Charles Sunwabe, who represents an Erie, Pennsylvania, man accused of lighting a fire at a coffee shop after a May 30 protest. “It’s an attempt to intimidate these demonstrators and to silence them,” he said.

Some cases are viewed as trumped up and should not be in federal court, lawyers say, including a teenager accused of civil disorder for claiming online “we are not each other’s enemy, only enemy is 12,” a reference to law enforcement.

The administration has seized on the demonstrations and an aggressive federal response to showcase what President Donald Trump says is his law-and-order prowess, claiming he is countering rising crime in cities run by Democrats. Trump has derided protesters and played up the violence around protests, though the majority of them are peaceful.

Pockets of violence have indeed popped up in cities, including Portland, Oregon, where protests devolved into clashes with law enforcement for weeks on end. Nights of looting and other unrest have occurred elsewhere: Rochester, New York; Minneapolis, Louisville, Washington, D.C., and Chicago.

Federal officials were called into to Kenosha, Wisconsin, after large protests and unrest following the shooting of Jacob Blake and the gunning down of two protesters and later arrest of a 17-year-old in their deaths. Notably, that teenager has not been charged with any federal crimes. Neither was a man accused of shooting and killing a demonstrator in Louisville following the death of Breonna Taylor.

While Barr has gone after protest-related violence targeted at law enforcement, he has argued there is seldom a reason to open sweeping investigations into the practices of police departments. The Justice Department, however, has initiated a number of civil rights investigations into individual cases. Barr has said he does not believe there is systemic racism in police departments, even though Black people are disproportionately more likely to be killed by police, and public attitudes over police reforms have shifted.

During the call with U.S. attorneys, Barr raised the prospect that prosecutors could bring a number of other potential charges in unrest cases, including the rarely used sedition statute, according to the officials familiar with the call. Legal experts cautioned the use of that statute is unlikely, given its difficulty to prove in court.

Federal involvement in local cases is nothing new. Officials across the country have turned to the Justice Department for decades, particularly for violent crime and gang cases where offenders could face much stiffer federal penalties and there is no parole.

Police chiefs in several cities have pointed to the importance of their relationships with federal prosecutors to bring charges that can result in long prison sentences to drive down violent crime.

Even before the unrest earlier this year, the Justice Department was stepping in to bring charges in states where the government believes justice is not being fully pursued by local prosecutors. In January, for example, the department brought federal hate crime charges against a woman accused of slapping three Orthodox Jewish women in one of several apparently anti-Semitic attacks reported throughout New York during Hanukkah.

It is not clear whether protest-related arrests will continue apace. Demonstrations have slowed, though not necessarily because of the federal charges. Wildfires in the West and hurricanes in the South have lessened some of the conflict.

While many local prosecutors have dismissed dozens of low-level protest arrests, some are still coming down hard. A Pennsylvania judge set bail at $1 million for about a dozen people in a protest that followed the death of a knife-wielding man by police.

Even some Democrats, including District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser, have called for the Justice Department to pursue federal charges against violent demonstrators, going as far as accusing the administration of declining to prosecute rioters. Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department had arrested 42 people one August weekend after a protest left a trail of vandalism. But prosecutors said the arrest paperwork did not identify specific crimes tied to each suspect.

The federal confrontation with Bowser seemed counterintuitive, though Trump has a history of squaring off against the mayor.

About one-third of the federal protest-related cases are in Portland, for crimes such as assaulting a deputy U.S. marshal with a baseball bat, setting fires and setting off explosives at the federal courthouse and throwing rocks at officers.

Three purported “Boogaloo” members, who use the loose movement’s name as a slang term for a second civil war or collapse of civilization, were charged with possessing a homemade bomb and inciting a riot in Las Vegas.

An El Paso, Texas, man was accused of promoting hate speech, posting a video online with a racist epithet and making threatening comments to Black Lives Matter protesters while holding a military-style rifle at his feet. A Minnesota man was accused of helping burn down a police precinct headquarters there after Floyd’s death.

But other cases simply do not belong in federal court, lawyers say.

In Seattle, 35-year-old Isaiah Willoughby, who’s accused of setting fire to the outside of a police precinct, faces a mandatory minimum of five years in prison if convicted of arson in federal court. He could be looking at about a year behind bars in state court, where his lawyer said the case belongs.

“This is city property that has been destroyed and you have a local prosecutors office that is ready and willing and able to charge these cases in state court, but the federal government is attempting to emphasize these protest-related crimes for whatever agenda they are seeking to pursue,” said assistant federal public defender Dennis Carroll.

Carroll accused federal authorities of using the cases to try to make the protests seem more violent and disruptive than they really were.

Federal prosecutors this month agreed to dismiss the charge against a man who authorities said was found with a Molotov cocktail in his backpack after he and other protesters were arrested in May for blocking traffic in Jacksonville, Florida. Video showed that 27-year-old Ivan Zecher was wrongfully arrested because he was actually on the sidewalk — not in the street — meaning prosecutors could not pursue their case, Zecher’s attorney, Marcus Barnett said.

“There is absolutely an agenda here to blow these out of proportion, make these look more serious or more sinister than it is,” Barnett said of the pursuit of federal charges. “This is the Justice Department, from the top, furthering an agenda that has nothing to do with justice,” he said.

___

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, seeker said:

The root of the problem is that the definition of racism depends on who, where and why and it is very hard to nail down.

All humans develop attitudes about how the world works and prejudices that guide their choices based on their lived experience.  I don't mean "prejudice" in a bad way.  Here's a small example;  one day when my son was 6 years old a dog jumped up on him while waiting for the school bus and he got several painful scratches on his arm and leg.  The dog, which some parent had brought along to the bus stop, was not aggressive just poorly trained. 

For years after this event he was afraid of dogs.  Was he wrong to be afraid or to pre-judge how an encounter with a dog might go?  You or I, with a different history, might feel so but to him it's perfectly reasonable.  Eventually, over time, he had enough good encounters to change his attitude - he's cautious not fearful.  Now imagine if he had another bad experience and then another - at some point being fearful becomes the correct choice.

I read a news article about a shopkeeper who was being called racist and there was a movement to boycott his business.  He had noticed that when black teenagers would enter his store that they wouldn't buy anything however there would be empty spots of the shelves when they left - suspected them of shoplifting.  He directed his staff to stand at the end of the aisle and watch them and the inventory problems stopped.

Was the shopkeeper prejudiced against the black teenagers?  Well, one definition I found says that "prejudice" is an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.  Using that definition he was not prejudiced because he did have knowledge and reason for his opinion.  Of course he doesn't know anything about the specific black teen that might enter his store but he did detect a pattern, respond to it and, apparently, the response was correct at least as far as fixing the problem.

Was the shopkeeper racist?  The activists who were trying to organize the boycott were convinced that he was and wanted him out-of-business.  So, there are two possible choices for the shopkeeper; watch none of the customers in which case the inventory problems return or hire more staff to watch every customer with the same diligence which is like having firefighters go around the neighbourhood to spray water on every house just in case there's a fire they don't know about.  Both choices are unsustainable.

So, I put it to directly;  1) how do you fix the shoplifting problem?  and 2) how do convince the world that you aren't racist?

As you point out, racism is part of the human condition - it exists in every race and culture.  I believe this and you do too but there are many in the BLM and black community who do not.  I've seen speeches from BLM and black commentators who say (with a straight face even) that whites can be racist against blacks but blacks cannot be racist against whites.  Their specious explanation for this is that "racism" requires a power structure - whites have, in the past, had more political power and therefore anything they do which affects blacks is racist but anything a black might do against a white isn't.  (Do a search on youtube for "blacks can't be racist" if you want to explore this rabbit hole.) 

I take you back to the shopkeeper example and ask; where is the power structure that makes this racist?  Spoiler - there isn't one.

Seeker

I think that saying the root of the problem is not the definition of racism.  We all can see it exists and we know what it is. 

I see and understand your analogies about what happens.  We have all experienced such things in our lives and it makes us who we are.

If I may, I think the root of the problem started with the slavery that created the United States( in this case).  Human beings were made to submit to authority which they had no choice in.  (Yes, it occurred elsewhere and still does)  They were treated as something less than human, and the power wielded over them was not kind or fair.  That continues in the U.S. to this day.  Only now, it also includes the Latinos that are brought in as defacto slave labour as well.  

Why do they need 'slaves' even in these modern times?  Probably because, like it has always been, it is profitable.  Why would you need slaves if when you have unemployment in your country? 

Blacks and 'others' were always seen as being inferior in the U.S.  It is that attitude that continues.  They are human beings just as we all are.   In your examples you raise the shopkeeper.  Yes, that happens.  It is a way of striking back, even as we see it happening today in the protests.  But why did it start in the first place?

That is what needs to be addressed.

Do I think that modern blacks need to be paid reparations for the sins of the past?  No.

Like the smoking analogy I like to use, it used to be everywhere, then we smartened up, realised it was wrong and changed our ways.  Yet to this day there are still those who complain about the 'rules' around smoking.  As time goes on, they either adapt, or die off.

To me it is the same with racism. It used to be everywhere, but now that we have gotten smarter, and realise it's wrong, we need to work to eliminate it.  Yet there are still those, like those smokers, who still want to have it the way it was.

How then, do we move forward to a more equitable society that doesn't exclude someone just because of their colour?  

To me, what we are seeing is the younger generations waking up and deciding to push for fairness.  

There are bad apples on both sides, and they will both have to be dealt with, and it won't be easy or quick.

As we are seeing, the way things were will no longer be tolerated.  So how do we make it a peaceful change?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

deicer; 

Thanks for the reply.  Thoughtful, but I do find some points I disagree with.  I'm busy today and tomorrow but I'm working on my reply -give me some time.

First though, perhaps we have to set some limits.  Are we going to discuss Canada, the USA, the whole world?  Gonna be a big discussion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, deicer said:

To me, what we are seeing is the younger generations waking up and deciding to push for fairness.

These the same woke, wise beyond their years young people selfishly congregating during a pandemic and throwing vulnerable others under the bus or are they all earnest girls with glasses?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.