Hate feeds hatred, which in turn feeds more hatred, which in turn poisons with hatred. it takes a great strength to reject it. I don't see that strength much in the public discourse. Sadly not much at all. I see more the opposite. Feeding the monsters inside with fear. It will get so much worse if you don't stop. Don't you understand?
i'm picking up what you're laying down here
and all of this anger, like this guy strolling through a traffic jam with a firearm is totally irresponsible and dangerous af
we've got to introduce and encourage some sort of reason and logic into public discourse
a rational discussion and/or trying to persuade or influence a rational person is much more effective than polarizing speech/behavior
Also ability to smile for mugshot. Not roughed up by police while being taken in. Knowing that with a call to his attorney he will be home tonight, and with a call to his new PR firm he will get favorable news coverage to mitigate any sense of racial motivation for pulling a gun on those differently colored kids....
So...his rights as a criminal defendant were respected, because white male privilege, which is bad.
So...he should have been shot 16 times?
He should have been roughed up?
He shouldn't be able to call a lawyer?
He shouldn't be able to tell his story?
Just trying to follow the logic here, if any. Identity politics has distorted the very language we use to discuss these issues. The implication here is that all would be well with the world if white people were abused by the police as often and as badly as black people. That is entirely backwards. This is the outcome we should all expect, regardless of race.
He doesn't have more rights than black people, but in this instance they were respected. The problem to fix isn't that his were respected but that others' weren't. The problem isn't solved when we all get abused equally, but when we all have our rights respected.
I didn't assert that he should have been shot 16 times or that any of those things should've happened to him, nor was I following that line of logic. Of course we should all have our rights respected equally and expect the same outcomes. My point (which I prefaced with a "maybe") was that if he were a darker-skinned man, waving a loaded handgun around and pointing it at people, there is (in recent history), a higher likelihood that he would've been shot by the police. Obviously, there are a lot of variables: the location, the behavior of the person, their compliance with the police, the behaviors of the other people involved, etc.; I was just submitting an answer to your question.
Now that is a fair point, but the context of this is even more complex. Is it this way purely because cops are racist and need to change or is it because most of the incidents that occur are usually in poverty stricken areas where the majority of residents are people of color and crime is high? The short answer is yes. The police in these areas face this everyday and most of their perpetrators look a certain way and many are doing bad things, there are natural biases that build over time resulting in over hyped reaction based upon the appearance of the suspect. Are there racist cops? Of course there are, but again things are not so clear in this area as they were in the 60s and prior. And of course Lazy's point is well on point as usual as well.
I didn't assert that he should have been shot 16 times or that any of those things should've happened to him, nor was I following line of logic. Of course we should all have our rights respected equally and expect the same outcomes. My point (which I prefaced with a "maybe") was that if he were a darker-skinned man, waving a loaded handgun around and pointing it at people, there is (in recent history), a higher likelihood that he would've been shot by the police. Obviously, there are a lot of variables: the location, the behavior of the person, their compliance with the police, the behaviors of the other people involved, etc.; I was just submitting an answer to your question.
...but not addressing the issue I raised: that the whole concept of privilege in this context is bogus.
It's not a privilege to not be shot, it's a right. Failing to respect one set of people's rights does not privilege the rest, it disadvantages those whose rights aren't respected. This is not a subtle distinction, it goes to the heart of the debate about abuse at the hands of the state.
Nobody should be abused by the state. Highlighting an instance where it didn't happen as the problem distorts the debate.
Also ability to smile for mugshot. Not roughed up by police while being taken in. Knowing that with a call to his attorney he will be home tonight, and with a call to his new PR firm he will get favorable news coverage to mitigate any sense of racial motivation for pulling a gun on those differently colored kids....
So...his rights as a criminal defendant were respected, because white male privilege, which is bad.
So...he should have been shot 16 times?
He should have been roughed up?
He shouldn't be able to call a lawyer?
He shouldn't be able to tell his story?
Just trying to follow the logic here, if any. Identity politics has distorted the very language we use to discuss these issues. The implication here is that all would be well with the world if white people were abused by the police as often and as badly as black people. That is entirely backwards. This is the outcome we should all expect, regardless of race.
He doesn't have more rights than black people, but in this instance they were respected. The problem to fix isn't that his were respected but that others' weren't. The problem isn't solved when we all get abused equally, but when we all have our rights respected.
I didn't assert that he should have been shot 16 times or that any of those things should've happened to him, nor was I following that line of logic or implying "equal mistreatment". Of course we should all have our rights respected equally and expect the same outcomes. My point (which I prefaced with a "maybe") was that if he were a darker-skinned man, waving a loaded handgun around and pointing it at people, there is (in recent history), a higher likelihood that he would've been shot by the police. Obviously, there are a lot of variables: the location, the behavior of the person, their compliance with the police, the behaviors of the other people involved, etc.; I was just submitting an answer to your question.
Also ability to smile for mugshot. Not roughed up by police while being taken in. Knowing that with a call to his attorney he will be home tonight, and with a call to his new PR firm he will get favorable news coverage to mitigate any sense of racial motivation for pulling a gun on those differently colored kids....
So...his rights as a criminal defendant were respected, because white male privilege, which is bad.
So...he should have been shot 16 times?
He should have been roughed up?
He shouldn't be able to call a lawyer?
He shouldn't be able to tell his story?
Just trying to follow the logic here, if any. Identity politics has distorted the very language we use to discuss these issues. The implication here is that all would be well with the world if white people were abused by the police as often and as badly as black people. That is entirely backwards. This is the outcome we should all expect, regardless of race.
He doesn't have more rights than black people, but in this instance they were respected. The problem to fix isn't that his were respected but that others' weren't. The problem isn't solved when we all get abused equally, but when we all have our rights respected.
Also ability to smile for mugshot. Not roughed up by police while being taken in. Knowing that with a call to his attorney he will be home tonight, and with a call to his new PR firm he will get favorable news coverage to mitigate any sense of racial motivation for pulling a gun on those differently colored kids....
Sans the roughed up part most of those things are dependent on green not white or black. Poor people of all colors and persuasions generally as Southpark would say "Are going to have a bad time" with any contact with the authorities or legal system. His privilege is his wallet, now you can argue wider generational factors that produce a society where white people have more money in general, but this is not 1963.
Also ability to smile for mugshot. Not roughed up by police while being taken in. Knowing that with a call to his attorney he will be home tonight, and with a call to his new PR firm he will get favorable news coverage to mitigate any sense of racial motivation for pulling a gun on those differently colored kids....
Hate feeds hatred, which in turn feeds more hatred, which in turn poisons with hatred. it takes a great strength to reject it. I don't see that strength much in the public discourse. Sadly not much at all. I see more the opposite. Feeding the monsters inside with fear. It will get so much worse if you don't stop. Don't you understand?
This is an excellent article on a very interesting film. If you widen the ripple from the core of what is discussed regarding the reasons for extremism, the same principles apply for the less extreme though just as divided social atmosphere of modern society and the lessons learned regarding these extremist can be applied to us all.
Last week, as the new Congress was sworn in, Mr. King sat on his side of a chamber sharply delineated by demographics. The Democratic majority included record numbers of African-Americans and women, including the first Native American and the first Muslim women. Mr. Kingâs side was mostly people who look like him.
âYou could look over there and think the Democratic Party is no country for white men,â he said.
Has the message of anti-racism become as harmful a force in American life as racism itself?
That was the resolution at a public debate hosted by the Soho Forum on November 14, 2018. It featured John McWhorter, associate professor of English at Columbia University, and Nikhil Singh, professor of social and cultural analysis and history at New York University. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated.
