Page 22 of 48
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Tue August 25, 2020 12:58 pm
by BurtReynolds
B wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:
What he's arguing is fallacious and has been debated many times here and in other threads.
What's that?
That everyone from the center to left wants police gone and anarchy to reign.
That law enforcement organization bears no responsibility for the angry populous.
That everyone left of center relishes the destruction of property by people who were at an open, peaceful protest that did nothing to encourage looting and property destruction.
I don't see anyone here making the claim these people are "center left". On the contrary, I think the point he is making is that these people are far left (because they are), and that they are a bigger problem than you are willing to accept.
There are a lot of leftists who relish the destruction, but I assume many center left types are appalled by it.
I don't really care what daytime peaceful protestors do. They don't really matter. If they don't care about controlling the supposedly tiny minority (and it's not that tiny) who burn down downtowns, who cares what they think? They're just playing.
And I think durden is thinking that "abolish the police" actually means "defund/reform police", and that it's a settled issue no longer worth seriously considering. This is wrong, but whatever.
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Tue August 25, 2020 1:10 pm
by B
Burt Reynolds wrote:I don't see anyone making the claim these people are "center left". On the contrary, I think the point he is making is that these people are far left (because they are), and that they are a bigger problem than you are willing to accept.
Given the frequency and furiosity of Bi_3's anti-protester posting, I have had little choice but to imagine he thinks we relish destruction by "protesters" and is trying to convince us otherwise.
BurtReynolds wrote:I don't really care what daytime peaceful protestors do. They don't really matter. If they don't care about controlling the supposedly tiny minority (and it's not that tiny) who burn down downtowns, who cares what they think? They're just playing.
I'll answer this with a John Oliver quote that I've already posted twice before.
"If you're asking why a spontaneous, decentralized protest can't control every one of its participants, more than you are asking the same about a taxpayer-funded, heavily-regimented, paid workforce, you can suck my dick and fuck off. Fuck you."
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Tue August 25, 2020 1:15 pm
by BurtReynolds
Stop watching john Oliver. And ask Mickey what he thinks of the destruction.
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Tue August 25, 2020 1:45 pm
by B
I don't count Mickey as a real person.
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Tue August 25, 2020 1:45 pm
by B
By the way, THAT is a personal attack.
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Tue August 25, 2020 1:50 pm
by BurtReynolds
Mickey is my second account.
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Tue August 25, 2020 2:23 pm
by epilogue
BurtReynolds wrote:And I think durden is thinking that "abolish the police" actually means "defund/reform police", and that it's a settled issue no longer worth seriously considering. This is wrong, but whatever.
You're absolutely wrong. Except you are right about whatever.
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Tue August 25, 2020 2:49 pm
by Mickey
BurtReynolds wrote:I don't really care what daytime peaceful protestors do. They don't really matter. If they don't care about controlling the supposedly tiny minority (and it's not that tiny) who burn down downtowns, who cares what they think? They're just playing.
TFW you can see the impossible standard being inserted into the conversation!
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Tue August 25, 2020 9:41 pm
by Bi_3
BurtReynolds wrote:
And I think durden is thinking that "abolish the police" actually means "defund/reform police", and that it's a settled issue no longer worth seriously considering. This is wrong, but whatever.
The article I posted, an interview with the leader of a several hundred strong nationally recognized branch of BLM, says the inverse: "defund the police" means "abolish the police". The interviewer asked her that directly and she agreed. So, yet again, the options are listen to the actual black people on the front lines of the movement or stick your head in the sand and retweet your fragile little white lies until you believe them, but the leaders of the organization are crystal clear about this and have been for years. No cops, no jails, separate courts.
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Tue August 25, 2020 9:45 pm
by BurtReynolds
durdencommatyler wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:And I think durden is thinking that "abolish the police" actually means "defund/reform police", and that it's a settled issue no longer worth seriously considering. This is wrong, but whatever.
You're absolutely wrong. Except you are right about whatever.
Non-response
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Tue August 25, 2020 9:48 pm
by Bi_3
B wrote:
"If you're asking why a spontaneous, decentralized protest can't control every one of its participants, more than you are asking the same about a taxpayer-funded, heavily-regimented, paid workforce, you can suck my dick and fuck off. Fuck you."
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Wed August 26, 2020 1:18 am
by 96583UP
So you have not requested a meeting with the police leadership or the mayor or anything like that?
Absolutely not.
Do you think that that might be helpful, if you were to get in a room with them? Or — you said that that wouldn’t go anywhere, then, if you were to speak with them face-to-face?
Absolutely not, especially since both of them are highly surveilling me — I, not only as an individual, wouldn’t feel safe. But also again, I think that they are politicians — [and] that does include Peter Newsham — and I believe that anything that they say is not just about me, or just about Black Lives Matter. That they owe change, and they owe an end to the lip service to all Black people in D.C.
This to me was maybe the most disappointing part.
I would think a much more effective way to promote change would be to meet with the leaders directly, be clear on the 'ask', then afterward continue to apply pressure publicly to get the 'ask' met.
Right now, the leaders get to dodge responsibility, because the ask has not been made explicit.
But perhaps it's moot bc if the ask is actually to abolish policing, it will be a non-starter.
Abolishing police is the minority view in this country right now. They are loud about it but they don't reflect the majority view.
A more reasonable view is to improve policing through better incentives / accountability structures. Make those cops afraid to use their guns.
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Wed August 26, 2020 2:44 am
by epilogue
BurtReynolds wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:And I think durden is thinking that "abolish the police" actually means "defund/reform police", and that it's a settled issue no longer worth seriously considering. This is wrong, but whatever.
You're absolutely wrong. Except you are right about whatever.
Non-response
Untrue. You posted something that was incorrect. I responded that it was incorrect. Are you sure you know what words mean?
Here's one I know you know... Whatever.
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Wed August 26, 2020 2:45 am
by BurtReynolds
durdencommatyler wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:And I think durden is thinking that "abolish the police" actually means "defund/reform police", and that it's a settled issue no longer worth seriously considering. This is wrong, but whatever.
You're absolutely wrong. Except you are right about whatever.
Non-response
Untrue. You posted something that was incorrect. I responded that it was incorrect. Are you sure you know what words mean?
Here's one I know you know... Whatever.
feel free to clarify what you meant at any time.
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Wed August 26, 2020 2:47 am
by epilogue
BurtReynolds wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:And I think durden is thinking that "abolish the police" actually means "defund/reform police", and that it's a settled issue no longer worth seriously considering. This is wrong, but whatever.
You're absolutely wrong. Except you are right about whatever.
Non-response
Untrue. You posted something that was incorrect. I responded that it was incorrect. Are you sure you know what words mean?
Here's one I know you know... Whatever.
feel free to clarify what you meant at any time.
Feel free to reveal what needs clarification at any time.
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Wed August 26, 2020 2:50 am
by BurtReynolds
Have you graduated from cheerleading other people's thoughts to just talking in circles? Frankly, I respect that.
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Wed August 26, 2020 2:52 am
by epilogue
BurtReynolds wrote:Non-response
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Wed August 26, 2020 2:56 am
by 96583UP
<camera pans to bleak teen sitting in bedroom next to lava lamp thinking about how epic life is>
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Wed August 26, 2020 3:16 am
by Mickey
BurtReynolds wrote:Have you graduated from cheerleading other people's thoughts to just talking in circles? Frankly, I respect that.
As opposed to Burt, who manages to do both.
Re: Black Lives Matter
Posted: Wed August 26, 2020 9:16 am
by Bi_3
96583UP wrote:
A more reasonable view is to improve policing through better incentives / accountability structures. Make those cops afraid to use their guns.
I think we covered this a bit in the cop thread, but I agree. Bernie’s perspective on this, increasing funding and hiring trained specialists, is the best plan I have heard. Make the jobs matter to the cops so they don’t take on aggressive risky behaviors. It seems so obvious that you have to wonder if “Abolish the Police” isn’t really about the police at all.