Bucks boycott playoff game!
- Thread starter 82hoosier
- Start date
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I hear everything you’re saying and agree that it’s an unanswered question. Someone somehow should be able to design such an experiment - even if on existing datasets.
That would be interesting, to be sure, but I don't even need all that. My point in bringing this up is simply that there really might be no reason for us all to talk past each other. I.e., the idea that there is a very understandable reason cops interact with blacks more and the idea that black citizens might rightfully be wary of the police need not be mutually contradictory. It's a tragedy, but there it is.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Second response: it is of course rooted in historical awfulness. Certainly. We aren’t far enough removed from Jim Crow-one of the darkest times in our history.
But today the data isn’t clear. And because it isn’t clear, we must, I say again we must, await for evidence of these anecdotal events to come to the surface before we ruin lives and livelihoods.
what’s utterly shocking to me is how far we’ve moved on from Ahmaud Arbery. Of all these events that have culminated in riots and violence, his was the most cut and dry example of evil and vile racism and he’s not even in the conversation. I fail to see how the tragic and unnecessary (and likely criminal) death of Floyd is cut and dry racist. I fail to see how the Blake shooting is racist. Arbery was hunted and murdered by an ex-cop redneck piece of trash and the arrest would’ve never came without the story going national.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Interesting take. I need to think on that...it’s deep.
But, in these last two cases that have sparked dangerous riots, the cops were called on Floyd and Blake. They weren’t random stops or interdictions. They were committing crimes. Why doesnt anybody factor that in to their pre-protest decisions?
Good point. The media shove us from story to story, but sometimes the ones we need to meditate on are forced back beyond recall.
I'm not sure. I'm not out there protesting. I can say why it doesn't matter to me, personally. My only take on all of these cases has consistently been that, regardless of why the cops are called to a situation, there is a very high standard they must meet before they start killing citizens, and whether or not said citizens are "bad guys" doesn't matter. I happen to know you agree with me on that, already, so I'm not really trying to be persuasive. Just laying my cards on the table.
As for the BLM angle, again, I don't know. Maybe for them, it doesn't matter, either? Maybe the perception they have of cops and their relationship to the black community isn't dependent whatsoever on what kind of a person any particular black victim/suspect/whatever might be. Maybe they feel as though the cops would treat anyone with dark skin, saint or sinner, the same way. Again, I'm not them, so I'm just speculating.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
With your first paragraph, I 100% agree, as I think I’ve made clear in this thread. With your second paragraph l also agree that is what they think. And I just don’t agree with them, it isn’t proven, and it isn’t worth destroying cities over.
As I was hinting at above, my point here isn't that they are right or wrong, but merely that their belief is reasonable. We need to engage reasonable belief in good faith. What I see in this debate are people who disagree with each other, but who have good faith arguments on both sides. I think recognizing that would be a good place to start.
Obviously, I hope it goes without saying that none of that justifies the destruction, but just in case it doesn't go without saying, I'm saying it.
Right on cue...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...llphone-video-shows-traffic-stop-her-n1002756
My guess is that there are actually people in this thread who believe that this arresting officer really isn't racist. Or that he would react similarly to a white lady he pulled over for the "horrible crime" of failing to signal...
I'm really curious as to what planet some of these folks live on? I've got to believe they wouldn't want their child to die in prison following an arrest over failing to use a damn turn signal.
And of course, if it did happen they'd be just as outspoken against the actions of their child and supportive of the cop just "doing his job", right? I mean you believe that don't you Sope- because consistency is their hallmark. Right?
well he was quick to defend Chinas human rights record wasn’t he?
I suspect it is going to get worse as the animosity & actions of BLM & “leaders” like LBJ is creating a more adversarial stance with law enforcement, how anyone thinks that will improve the situation is beyond me...
Goat and Ranger, thanks for the well thought out and interesting discussion. Refreshing for this observer of the Cooler.
I think Ahmaud Arbery remains a foundational element to the rest of the stories that we are discussing . . . it's the cumulative effect of Arbery, Breonna Taylor and Rayshard Brooks on top of George Floyd and Sandra Bland that gives us Jacob Blake. The horrific nature of Floyd's death (on camera), the completely unjustified shooting of Arbery (on camera), the shooting of Taylor while she slept (without any camera), the officer making an arrest of Bland for a traffic stop (on camera), plus the shooting of Brooks in the back (on camera) - and all of those officers/former officers have been charged - serve as a cumulative experience of police for the Black community . . . and now with cameras present, for the rest of us as well. That's the backdrop for seeing Jacob Blake shot in the back 7 times while his kids watched from the backseat of his car. The rest of the stuff - warrant for his arrest, whether or not there was a knife in the car and whether it was reachable, Blake's arrest record - just come across like excuses for pulling the trigger . . . .
The effects of the police actions on their face appear entirely out of proportion to any legal issues involved, if there are any legal issues. The question that seems to lurk in the background in each of these circumstances is whether the individuals killed or hurt are justified in not wanting to relinquish control of their person to someone trying to impose authoritarian control. The cumulative effect of these events - as shown on cameras for the most part - tends to favor those challenging the imposition of authority.
Now this is a very positive and tangible thing. Good on the NBA and NBAPA.
*Any bets on which party files lawsuits?
*Any bets on which party files lawsuits?
I imagine you're joking. But I did see a cartoon from the time that showed a city "burning" which was captioned "He claims it's a peaceful march"...
However, it's probably instructional to look at some comments from notable politicos from the time. Sounds like some of the things you hear now as well...
"Many prominent Democrats made the argument that African-Americans should be happy with what they had, rather than asking for more.
“The Negroes in this country own more refrigerators, and more automobiles, than they do in any other country,” South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond told NBC News in the hours after the event. “They are better fed, they are better clothed, they have better houses here than in any other country in the world.”
“No one is deprived of freedom that I know about,” he added."
"Sen. Russell Long of Louisiana claimed that the push for equality violated the rights of business owners.
“Now what I as a Southerner plan to fight for is the right of a man to choose the neighbors among whom he will live, the right to decide who he’s going to trade with, who he’s going to do business with, who he’s going to associate with,” Long said.
“You see a lot of white folks out there in that demonstration,” he added. “If they want to mix with that mob, that’s fine. If somebody wants to be left alone by those people, I think he’s entitled to be left alone too.”
I don't think it's particularly bold to point out that I believe those exact sentiments are still a lot more prevalent in certain quarters today than many of us would like to believe...
The "business owner's rights" mantra was echoed by Rand Paul as recently as his 2010 run for Senate...
"In 2010, then-Senate candidate Rand Paul told the Louisville Courier-Journal and later the Rachel Maddow Show that he had issues with the part of the 1964 the Civil Rights Act that mandated private businesses could not discriminate."
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/back-the-day-what-critics-said-about-king
I
I wasn’t joking. This should be an example to the rudderless idiots involved in today’s “protests” how a peaceful, organized, well led demonstration can be effective & gain support rather than opposition.
I don't watch a lot of NBA games. But I know that people who do think your point about the NBA not playing defense is nonsense...
There was a time when George Carlin could say "Why don't they just give both teams 100 points and have them play for five minutes?" and everybody got the joke. The game has changed.
Mainly his constant harping on LeBron James and questioning his, Kaepernick and others’ motives all the time.
Are they beyond reproach? He makes many excellent points & is certainly more qualified than you to pass judgement on them or question their actions. Perhaps you‘d prefer to engage in willful ignorance rather than hear an opposing view...sounds about right.
• Nike has made a T-shirt that players can wear in pre-game warmups. It’s optional. It’s the brainchild of Houston safety and NFL Players Association executive committee member Michael Thomas, and designed by Vogue Wilborn of the NFLPA.
• End zones will have “It Takes All Of Us” on one end line, “End Racism” on the other
• Coaches and game officials will be able to wear patches on their cap with the name of a Black victim, or with one of four messages: “It takes all of us,” “Black lives matter,” “End racism,” “Stop hate.”
• Each week the NFL will select one victim’s name and tell the story of that person in and around the games
• As for the helmets, players can choose either a Black name or one of the four preferred phrases offered: “Stop hate,” “It takes all of us,” “End racism,” “Black lives matter.”
• Far and away, expect to see “BREONNA TAYLOR” as the most common victim’s name on the back of helmets.
profootballtalk.nbcsports.com
• End zones will have “It Takes All Of Us” on one end line, “End Racism” on the other
• Coaches and game officials will be able to wear patches on their cap with the name of a Black victim, or with one of four messages: “It takes all of us,” “Black lives matter,” “End racism,” “Stop hate.”
• Each week the NFL will select one victim’s name and tell the story of that person in and around the games
• As for the helmets, players can choose either a Black name or one of the four preferred phrases offered: “Stop hate,” “It takes all of us,” “End racism,” “Black lives matter.”
• Far and away, expect to see “BREONNA TAYLOR” as the most common victim’s name on the back of helmets.
FMIA: NFL's Suprise Team in '19 Doesn't Plan To Be 1-Year Wonder - Peter King, NBC Sports
Peter King's Football Morning in America column begins with a visit to Nashville and Titans traning camp, and also covers NFL social justice plans and more.
Nondiverse multimillionaires, working for even less diverse billionaires, finger-pointing at middle-class Americans on the evils of privilege, in the pay of the Chinese Communist Party, is not a way to win back fans.
Good luck NBA.
Good luck NBA.
That’s a lot of vitriol for one post. How many NBA players bootstrapped their way into becoming millionaires by hard work and dedication? Or does their rise up the ladder not count for some reason?
Ask and ye shall receive...
Sounds like an upstanding young man
This is a really bad look for you. And it's all too common.
Ranger pointed out that Arbery's death was a clear-cut case of racial bias. It was. The video makes that clear. It's possible for someone to be killed for reasons of racial bias, and also for that victim to not be a very good law-abiding citizen himself. If Arbery was a bad sort of fellow, that doesn't change the fact that his killers were clearly motivated by racial animus. And to throw this sort of thing into the conversation screams "N***** deserved it."
Now, I'm not saying that's your subtext. But it's clearly the subtext of many people who follow this avenue of deflection. Ranger claims racism, you counter with "He's a bad guy." Well, as an answer to a claim of racism, "He's a bad guy" only works if you intend it to justify the racism. That's not an argument I think you want to be seen making.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I think it only becomes interesting if these defendants can prove they know of Arbery’s antics and that’s why they were following him (and obviously those antics needs to be proven too).
Similar threads
