Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

here's a study that proves BLM right in every way but one, which I'm cherry-picking here to say they are wrong''?

(1) LOL. I mean--that strikes me as stupendously dishonest--Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln? Police "hunting" AAs is, as I said, THE sine non qua of the movement. If you disagree with that, then make your case. IMO, that is THE critical issue to the urgency of BLM. If you disagree with me, that's fine. Just say so. But don't pretend I haven't already explained my position to you.

If BLM wants to organize a movement based on the fact that, e.g., AAs are 20% more likely to encounter use of force from police than white folks, then so be it. I haven't heard that in talking points, though. We all know BLM started with T. Martin and took off with Ferguson -- you know, two "extrajudicial" killings of black folks. I can't really fathom someone pretending otherwise.

(2) Further, one can agree that there is a problem and still reject a group based on the solution. As I said (and you quoted), I also reject BLM based on their proposed solutions and platform, which is so acutely progressive that it's probably considerably left of Bernie. I ardently reject the vast majority of the BLM "platform" without reservation.

(3) I find it odd that you'd accuse me of "selective approach" when my initial was response was: "Nothing said about Harvard study finding AAs aren't shot more than anyone else by police? (though they are subjected to rougher treatment)?" I'm taking issue with what I've inferred from DSL's post while acknowledging the study DID find problems with the way AAs are treated by police.

(4) What's your position? I will give you credit for backing off your laughable "oooh, the study may be wrong" tact, though I don't find this one any better. I also give you credit for, as is often the case, taking no affirmative position. However, based on your snarky questions I assume you are all-in on BLM. I assume you believe black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. I assume you believe there are named and unnamed wars on black people ongoing in this country. I assume you believe that Black poverty and genocide is state violence. I assume you believe that black lives are uniquely, systematically, and savagely targeted by the state.

I reject those positions.

[hack]

What I think in general about racism and blacks today:

1. Tribalism of all forms is ignorant, but in a handful of Western democracies we can get past it in the next few generations, and that would count as genuine human progress. A truly post-racial society is just and fair, and therefore a goal on its own, but I think it is also the best possible argument and recruiting tool for Western democracy. When people can come here, have a say, make a living, and be judged on merit, they tell everyone they know back home.

2. Never attribute to malice what you can to incompetence. I do believe black people get a raw deal but I don’t believe it is intentional at a systemic level. I have a limited faith in the capacity of public institutions, but one thing they can do is fire people who fail to live up to the standards of public service, and that should happen as much as possible.

3. I think that within any movement you have a gauntlet of approaches from gentle to extreme. I hear a lot of complaints about what BLM does but those tactics strike me as no different than what any movement’s extremists do these days.


What I think about this study and how you are using it:

1. Almost all the data confirm the problem.

2. BLM is obviously about more than just police shootings. You’ve pasted in their language here, so you may have visited their web site. It takes less than a minute on the site to see that the scope of that movement is much wider than police shootings.

3. You seem to feel that the only legitimate interpretation of this study is to throw out or minimize everything that confirms what BLM has been talking about, and highlight the sole data point that allows you to call them wrong. Based on the narrowest possible understanding of their mission. I'm at a loss to understand what else I should think other than you are cherry-picking the facts. But you prefaced that cherry-picking with a claim that you're facts-based. That's a very obvious inconsistency.

4. If you really want a facts-driven debate and policy process, then you have to accept all of the facts and not just some, and you have to reject all the propaganda and not just some. Which is admittedly difficult sometimes. All of us should strive to do better.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump's in Cleveland and he had beloved Cleveland icon Don King (who once beat a man to death over $600) on before him as an endorsement. During his 'speech" King let an n-word or two drop. Look at Mike Pence's face vs General Flynn in the back. Pence struggling to hide his disgust/contempt; Flynn delighted.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Oops

[ame]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/704000092840325120[/ame]

[Dr. Strangelove]

Also Trump was lying about Romney not releasing his taxes until then

[iam416]

Never attribute to malice what you can to incompetence. I do believe black people get a raw deal but I don’t believe it is intentional at a systemic level.

It would seem you reject BLM's underyling premise as well. You've read the website. You know their absolute core belief is that the US is systemically and intentionally targeting the demise of black folks.

Otherwise, I don't think any further response is going to advance anything. My posts clearly articulate my opinions:

http://www.detroitlionsforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1046396&postcount=11499

http://www.detroitlionsforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1046411&postcount=11504

http://www.detroitlionsforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1046471&postcount=11514

http://www.detroitlionsforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1046593&postcount=11521

I can't control how they strike you nor your interpretations of how I "seem to feel." I can only clearly state my opinion, and I've done that.

[hack]

My bottom line is that if you want to be about the facts then be about all the facts rather than just some. If you want to consider the groups and goals of the movement then consider all of its groups and goals rather than just some.

I'll remove ``seem to feel''. You think the only interpretation of the study is the one that throws out everything save for what proves BLM wrong. You want to make a fact-based case for throwing out most of the facts? Give it a try. Nothing you've said so far justifies that degree of selectivity though.

[iam416]

If you remove "seem to feel" then please quote me. I'll quote myself:

I want an honest discussion, DSL. I want to talk about Tamar Rice and Garner and the poor guy in Tulsa and, more importantly, how and where the PD can perform better.

The larger conversation about policing, violence and poverty has to be uncomfortable BOTH ways. It has to involve acknowledgement of police failures and it has to involve community accountability. It has to involve an examination of "broken windows" policing vs "ACLU" policing (Chicago this year) and everything in between. I'm all for that discussion. I'm all for police accountability.

However, rejecting BLM doesn't mean I reject honest discussion and prudent policy decisions to remediate a proven problem.

I agree that [a lot of the people who reflexively defend the police aren't much interested in debate either.]

If someone is going to claim they want an honest discussion, they ought to at least start out being honest. You were right to say "seems to feel" because that provided the cover of your own interpretations. Now I ask that you prove up your direct assertion about my views on the Harvard study.

[hack]

You say you want an honest discussion grounded in the facts, and yet insist on throwing out most of the facts. I have no way to reconcile quote three with your mockery of any interpretation of the paper that includes all of its facts. You can say till you're blue in the face that you want a balanced, fact-based discussion. Repeating it over and over again is worth less than showing it to be true.

[iam416]

As I suspected. You have nothing. You've read my posts through your own prism and applied your own view to them. Perfectly understandable, but untenable when you then take your own understanding and assert it as fact.

I'd say that brings this to an end. You don't seem to have any genuine interest in engaging me in any real discussion. As I've said, I'm happy to discuss how to remediate the proven problems raised by the Harvard study, but I get the sense you'd rather defend BLM than do that -- I could be wrong on that because that's just my own sense. I hope I am wrong that.

[hack]

What's to ``understand"? The paper has a suite of facts and you want to have an honest fact-based discussion in which almost all of them have been thrown out. I agree that we're done here. I'll believe you want to have an honest discussion about it when you commence participation in an honest discussion about it. Mocking those of us mentioning all of the facts is the opposite of that.

[iam416]

Likewise.

[Rocky Bleier]

Let's balance out Strangelove:

http://victuruslibertas.com/2016/09/temper-temper-killary-goes-on-rampage-for-over-an-hour-throwing-glass-at-staffers-head/

[hack]

I don't think you get to make an equivalent argument. You're the one wanting to be selective; I'm the one advocating heeding all the facts. You want to throw out the facts, and I don't understand why. Rather than explain why you think it's legit to pay attention only to some of the facts you've cited examples of past bipartisan statements. I don't see why claiming bipartisanship would be licence to discard facts without explaining why - if your goal is to have an honest discussion. If your goal is merely to discredit a particular group, I can see why you would want to. I think the reality here is that you can't have it both ways. You can discredit BLM using this study, and hope nobody calls you on the cherry picking, or you can have that honest discussion you claim to want.

[iam416]

I've cited statements where I'm relying on the "facts" you accuse me of "throwing out." i.e. -- there is a proven problem. Meanwhile, when I ask for direct quotes from you, none are forthcoming. At this point my assumption is that this is a pure troll effort. I suppose you've won in that regard insofar as I've responded. Good job. I sort of knew that's what you we're doing, but I couldn't help making the effort. Shame one me since this isn't the first time I've been hustled like this. My compulsion to try to engage gets the better of me.