Ferguson: Police Officer Kills 18yo Michael Brown; Protests/Riots Continue

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please define "racist" for us.

You're gonna have to define the term for us.

Okay well then educate us on its proper use.
Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Racist: a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another

It has NOTHING to do with "holding down the black man" or whatever nonsense people keep going on about. It means you believe a race superior to another. that is all the term means.

To label a whole party "racist" is just completely silly. Then the two main people the protesters are targeting are democrats.
 
I saw kb's posts last night and gingerly stepped over them.
duder came into the convo hours later to try to pick up where last dude left off, like he didn't even read the last 2 pages of the entire thread deconstructing dude's argument to pieces...
 
What if I told you all I had de ja vu of this situation 3 weeks ago?

Well I had a dream about the funeral and today that moment happened. It's kinda scary.

I was in the gym just like I am right now and a girl was in a green shirt on the abduction machine. Just like now and kirk Hawkins was live from the scene at the church. Crazy.
 
To be fair they're two different publications.

I'd imagine RS would write a brown profile a bit different than the times

Here's the full New York Times article that was posted yesterday. The paragraph pissing people off all across twitter is the fifth, not the third.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/u...eeks-grappling-with-lifes-mysteries.html?_r=0

The writer is a man named John Eligon, who is the Times' Kansas City correspondent.

image.jpg
 
Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Racist: a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another

It has NOTHING to do with "holding down the black man" or whatever nonsense people keep going on about. It means you believe a race superior to another. that is all the term means.

To label a whole party "racist" is just completely silly. Then the two main people the protesters are targeting are democrats.

And taking actions indicative of such beliefs makes you racist.
You don't need to SAY black people are inferior to make actions indicative of such.

For example black name vs white name job calls.
Black people are animals
Black people are violent
etc etc all these code words are still pointing towards people thinking that they are somehow better and black peoples complaints aren't valid because we can't see the truth past our own laziness.

Trying to play semantics with the word racist doesn't help the situation at all.
 
Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Racist: a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another

It has NOTHING to do with "holding down the black man" or whatever nonsense people keep going on about. It means you believe a race superior to another. that is all the term means.

To label a whole party "racist" is just completely silly. Then the two main people the protesters are targeting are democrats.

facepalm

Try looking up "racist" as an adjective instead of a noun.
 
I feel the tone changes when you take it completely out of context...

Because his life was tragically ended so early, moments that would otherwise be considered meaningless, are now the highlights of a young man's life. It's the reality of the situation, not an attempt to slander somebodies name.

you serious?
 
Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Racist: a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another

It has NOTHING to do with "holding down the black man" or whatever nonsense people keep going on about. It means you believe a race superior to another. that is all the term means.

To label a whole party "racist" is just completely silly. Then the two main people the protesters are targeting are democrats.

You messed up when you used a dictionary definition to understand a concept.
 
Damn.

When will enough be enough for this country?

When enough people that look like the Darren Wilson supporters start to get abused by our militarized police. Until then, well... Its all just our problem. And its mainly because we just can't help being unarmed, and attacking innocent armed police departments/officers/civilians.
 
For example black name vs white name job calls.

I've known people to attempt to argue that even this isn't a "real" example of racism, because black names are cultural, and black culture is largely destructive and violent (in their estimation), so people are responding to a negative culture rather than race. Hey presto, not-racism!

The mental gymnastics to avoid the dreaded R-word are quite extraordinary.
 
The writer is a man named John Eligon, who is the Times' Kansas City correspondent.

they won't all be black. I think the problem they're focusing on is the expectation. No one is an angel, but the contrast between the mike brown case and the bomber case is still high. The expectation isn't to say "where did mike brown go wrong?" He doesn't get the automatic 'bright light gone bad' treatment, because the expectation was that he wasn't a bright light. Even if he had been an honor student who collected pokemon cards, they'd still need to defend his weed smoking, social media braggadocio, rap star aspirations, and all the rest in the face of whether or not he could be seen as an actual threat, which could result in the "typical" result of him being in a shootout with police.

The tsarnev brothers were linked to actual drug dealers, were certainly not angelic, but that doesn't need to be pointed out, because what happened to them was so shocking and atypical. How does a kid with a life full of promise end up setting off bombs and getting into actual shootouts with police? Well apparently they start out as honor students, not as cool kids who suddenly get into internet extremism.

There are these expectations and the media writes to them. America doesn't expect Mike Brown to be the kind of kid who can take apart a game console and repair it, the country doesn't look at him and think college bound with a future.It thinks, 'what could he have done to provoke his own death?' Automatically, so the media starts off with trying to defend and define rather than explain, as if we all knew he obviously had to have something wrong with him. But that's the expectation.
 
how about, if you guys want to argue over what is or isnt racist, who is or isnt, racist or what the word racist implies, take it to another thread?
 
So 16 cops shot the shit out of an unarmed white 18 year old in Ottawa, Kansas yesterday last Saturday, hitting him 16 times.

http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/Kansas-teen-killed-in-officer-involved-shooting-272503211.html

http://www.kctv5.com/story/26355241/ottawa-police-involved-in-shooting

Not their vets tho, those need to pull their bootstraps...even tho some of them are lacking boots or legs.

Pretty much, just like the "right to lifers" after the fetus is outside the womb.
 
I am still not understanding how most of the right wing cannot be called racist. Or sexist. Or homophobic.

Considering the laws they attempt to pass, the stance they take on issues, the public and private comments they've made...'fiscally conservative' means nothing anymore. Or it means 'spending a metric shit ton on the military even when we don't need it, but fuck the soldiers when they get home/retire. Also, fuck anyone that isn't rich already.'

They can be called those things. Keep doing it. The label is accurate. Right wing leadership routinely displays bigoted behavior. If Conservatives don't want to be considered as generally bigoted they can either change leadership or change parties. The labels stay until they change their behavior and attitudes.
 
When enough people that look like the Darren Wilson supporters start to get abused by our militarized police. Until then, well... Its all just our problem.

I mentioned this when discussing this with someone yesterday. We don't see real changes on things like this until it is legitimized by White protestors. There need to be overwhelming more White supporters in places like Ferguson for this to matter (I'm talking like 3:1). It has to, otherwise, it will continue to be marginalized as a Black problem.

My example is this: When did Barack Obama become a legitimate candidate for White voters? IMO, it was when he won the caucus in Iowa, a place where the faces in the crowd at his rallies were predominantly White. Iowa is about as "American heartland" as it gets.

Had Obama continued to be at rallies surrounded by Black supporters as the majority, he would have been another Jesse Jackson in 1984.

In social issues like this, it crucial that the majority show support. Absolutely crucial.
 
I mentioned this when discussing this with someone yesterday. We don't see real changes on things like this until it is legitimized by White protestors. There need to be overwhelming more White supporters in places like Ferguson for this to matter (I'm talking like 3:1). It has to, otherwise, it will continue to be marginalized as a Black problem.

My example is this: When did Barack Obama become a legitimate candidate for White voters? IMO, it was when he won the caucus in Iowa, a place where the faces in the crowd at his rallies were predominantly White. Iowa is about as "American heartland" as it gets.

Had Obama continued to be at rallies surrounded by Black supporters as the majority, he would have been another Jesse Jackson in 1984.

In social issues like this, it crucial that the majority show support. Absolutely crucial.

I thought people outside of Ferguson were told by the people of Ferguson not to show up in Ferguson to protest Mike Brown's death?
 
I thought people outside of Ferguson were told by the people of Ferguson not to show up in Ferguson to protest Mike Brown's death?

Is this based on..something random and not too widely reported..as..a myriad of people, went down to support. I can't imagine that message, if its real, was towards people peacefully protesting. But that Chicago Anti-Cop group (Which I think initiated the whole fucking thing:: Anyone remember the streams earlier on, with that bald guy from Chicago calling the cops pigs? And questioning how many of those pigs killed people in the war..? Bald white dude, glasses, little stache beared.)

Nor do the "people of ferguson" have some leader that has decreed such a message...
 
What "battery"? Having a fight with a neighbor and shoving someone hardly constitutes battery. Was he a bully? Seems so, but that's also normal teenage stuff.

Take it up with the dictionary/law? He is alleged to have made violent, non-consenting physical contact with a person.

Theft absolutely is. And a kid pushing someone that's barring the door also would be if that situation arose.

Well, I suppose we'll have to accept our differing opinions on normalcy. I certainly don't see the majority of young people in this country, coming of age without having committed any felonies (if done by adults) as freaks. Edit: Just to look at the numbers, in 2010, Juvenile arrest rates nationally for Burglary was just under 200/100000 and for 'simple assault' at ~550/100000 (http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05211) - you would have to assume arrest vs. occurrence rates under 1% to get these to approach anything close to median value.

Calling this poor young man troubled doesn't seem unfair given the evidence in the article, and given the nature of the incident, the character of those involved is a big factor in public opinion, like it or not.
 
Take it up with the dictionary/law? He is alleged to have made violent, non-consenting physical contact with a person.

When you say it like that it sounds much worse than what you can see in the video: He went for some cigars and forcibly took them, shoving aside the store clerk as he went out. If anything it would be assault.
 
So 16 cops shot the shit out of an unarmed white 18 year old in Ottawa, Kansas yesterday.

http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/Kansas-teen-killed-in-officer-involved-shooting-272503211.html

http://www.kctv5.com/story/26355241/ottawa-police-involved-in-shooting

Pretty much, just like the "right to lifers" after the fetus is outside the womb.

Whatever you do, don't read the comments. Seems like the only thing police are really trained to do is hand out speeding tickets.
 
When you say it like that it sounds much worse than what you can see in the video: He went for some cigars and forcibly took them, shoving aside the store clerk as he went out. If anything it would be assault.

Technically it is battery and assault.

If you want to argue to reduce to just assault I don't really care; it's still not something I would suggest is anything close to 'normal' teenage behavior in our society.
 
I mentioned this when discussing this with someone yesterday. We don't see real changes on things like this until it is legitimized by White protestors. There need to be overwhelming more White supporters in places like Ferguson for this to matter (I'm talking like 3:1). It has to, otherwise, it will continue to be marginalized as a Black problem.

In social issues like this, it crucial that the majority show support.

In that vein I saw this recently and was pretty impressed.

http://www.thevillagechurch.net/the-village-blog/more-on-ferguson-and-white-privilege/

It's not anything big or new in that article, but it's more important who is saying it. Matt Chandler is an Evangelical, conservative pastor of a mega church in Texas who's pretty influential in church culture. He's not in a position where talking about racial privilege and how it relates to Ferguson is going to win him bonus points with his constituency. But he still put it out there, and that's what I'd love to see more of. Conservative culture has a pretty hefty disrespect for much of the media, so sometimes it takes someone on their side, who they actually respect, standing up and talking honestly about these things to actually change minds on the matter.

What is so deceptive about white privilege is that it is different from blatant racism or bias. A privileged person’s heart may be free from racist thoughts or biased attitudes, but may still fail to see how the very privilege afforded to him or her shapes how he or she interprets and understands the situations and circumstances of people without privilege.

I don’t have to warn my son in the same ways that a black dad has to warn his son. I have never had to coach my son on how to keep his hands out of his pockets when going through a convenience store. Many of my black brothers are having these conversations with their boys now. Again, the list goes on.

It has been my experience that there are few things that enrage a large portion of white people like addressing racism and privilege. We want to move past it, but we are not past it. Clearly, we are not past it. So, let’s press in to it.

but the way white people tend to perceive the situation in Ferguson, Missouri and in situations like this is through distinctively white lenses. We believe that our experiences, histories and benefits of our hard work are universal experiences for everyone. This is simply not true.
 
Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Racist: a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another

It has NOTHING to do with "holding down the black man" or whatever nonsense people keep going on about. It means you believe a race superior to another. that is all the term means.

To label a whole party "racist" is just completely silly. Then the two main people the protesters are targeting are democrats.

This ignorance is why racism continues to grow despite views on "tolerance" increasing. A systematic system treating minorities different and/or inferior to whites isn't racist now, because...the dictionary? Fucking ignorance of the highest degree. Racism isn't just a "thought," it's an action: and those that use anything, be it government or jobs or hiring or financing etc, to mistreat a race=racism.

I don't think republicans are racist as a party BTW.
 
10410604_752196978152581_5662350980287584725_n.jpg


I know this painting poorly composed photoshop is politically and morally offensive, but I can't help but be fascinated by it as a work of art. Why is it that the American ultra right is so talentless? Of course the artist has technical skill, but their ability to convey ideas artistically is so limited and literal. There's no synthesis of the ideas the artist wants to convey. Literally everything the artist wants to discuss is thrown onto the canvas - a fully rendered officer, his hyper masculine appearance, protecting a blond haired white girl, who's clutching a teddy bear, and shielded by the officer's angel wings, which are adorned with stars and stripes, and behind them is another American flag, and in that image a superimposed eagle looking down, in the background, golden wheat fields in 'heartland' America, but the color pallet suggests some kind of dystopia, America in peril... And on top of all that is a fascist, racist inscription in shitty calligraphy for those who might not have gleaned the point.

The lack of subtlety is astounding. And you see this in American radical right wing art all the time. Why is that?

I'm trying to figure out how they made those angel "wings," which are hairy, not feathered. Honestly, the effect I see is spider legs (look at the tips). Maybe it was an image of a fur coat before they applied the effects? Overall, it's just a creepy picture, which is available for framing!
 
In that vein I saw this recently and was pretty impressed.

http://www.thevillagechurch.net/the-village-blog/more-on-ferguson-and-white-privilege/

It's not anything big or new in that article, but it's more important who is saying it. Matt Chandler is an Evangelical, conservative pastor of a mega church in Texas who's pretty influential in church culture. He's not in a position where talking about racial privilege and how it relates to Ferguson is going to win him bonus points with his constituency. But he still put it out there, and that's what I'd love to see more of. Conservative culture has a pretty hefty disrespect for much of the media, so sometimes it takes someone on their side, who they actually respect, standing up and talking honestly about these things to actually change minds on the matter.

Good on him.
 
Edit: Shit looks like I can't post the daily mail here.


Cop who killed Michael Brown started his career at disgraced unit that was DISBANDED over racial tensions - after officers opened fire on fleeing mother and child and beat up another woman
Darren Wilson was a rookie cop in Jennings, Missouri
The small city had a majority of black citizens but an almost completely white police force
The entire department was dismissed amid allegations of racial prejudice, unnecessary use of force lawsuits and corruption
Wilson's next job was in Ferguson, from which he's on leave pending the investigation into the death of Michael Brown
Wilson shot Brown, 18, six times on August 9
There have been mass protests and demonstrations in Ferguson since

source is daily mail
 
10410604_752196978152581_5662350980287584725_n.jpg


I know this painting poorly composed photoshop is politically and morally offensive, but I can't help but be fascinated by it as a work of art. Why is it that the American ultra right is so talentless? Of course the artist has technical skill, but their ability to convey ideas artistically is so limited and literal. There's no synthesis of the ideas the artist wants to convey. Literally everything the artist wants to discuss is thrown onto the canvas - a fully rendered officer, his hyper masculine appearance, protecting a blond haired white girl, who's clutching a teddy bear, and shielded by the officer's angel wings, which are adorned with stars and stripes, and behind them is another American flag, and in that image a superimposed eagle looking down, in the background, golden wheat fields in 'heartland' America, but the color pallet suggests some kind of dystopia, America in peril... And on top of all that is a fascist, racist inscription in shitty calligraphy for those who might not have gleaned the point.

The lack of subtlety is astounding. And you see this in American radical right wing art all the time. Why is that?

Not to defend that artwork but you sound pretty pretentious here.

I think with things like that you have to know your audience and for a particular audience that piece of artwork is genius. I had a boss who was a former New York fire fighter and he had "shitty" artwork everywhere. Eagles with flags on their feathers. One of those "Teamwork" motivational posters that get joked about a lot. I actually chuckled when I first saw it but I realized quickly he was serious.

The people who appreciate that kind of artwork do exist and that's who you create for. Everything you hate about it, someone else loves.
 
Edit: Shit looks like I can't post the daily mail here.




source is daily mail

already covered yesterday. it was also in the washington post.
Wow, are people really commenting on that article with "unlike those blacks, when one of US gets shot, we don't riot".

Death Elitism, really?

that's been like argument #2 since day one of ferguson. focus on the "rioting" and criminals disobeying lawful police orders and ignoring everything else because the man attacked a cop and deserved what he got. nice open and shut, black and white, and has "nothing to do with race".

Not to defend that artwork but you sound pretty pretentious here.

forget pretense. the art is incredibad. Go look at his page, it's full of all of that and more. I mean, the dude has a mean hustle, but you don't have to be an art snob to say this stuff is borderline offensive.

gPt8pGu.jpg
 
Wow, are people really commenting on that article with "unlike those blacks, when one of US gets shot, we don't riot".

Death Elitism, really?

Not death elitism. Racism and agreement with the shooting in both instances, so it's their way of covering both at once.

There's a strong overlap between white people who are OK with Michael Brown getting gunned down and white people who are OK with the police gunning down anyone in similar circumstances. The racist tripe comes out in the situation of the minority victim, but the white victim is still justified too for "not doing what the police said" or some such shit.

EDIT: point being, they still want to get their digs in at the black victim and black people, but they also have no problem with what the police did to the white victim, so they look for other means to separate themselves as better. Nauseating stuff.
 
Not death elitism. Racism and agreement with the shooting in both instances, so it's their way of covering both at once.

Every new day, people seem to be adding a new thing to the racism pot.

It's basically saying "better dead than black". It's so ridiculous.

Anything but the white police officer could be in the wrong.

It's seriously almost comical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom