Police treatment of protesters

Post Reply New Topic

What I meant is that they were unheard by mainstream. Yes, the mainstream saw their protests but they were refusing to take their point seriously.

Today, on the other hand, the mainstream very much "does" take them seriously. Thats the difference.



There was no confirmation bias because -- before coming to the US -- I haven't ever heard of or thought about the racial issues. I certainly weren't expecting to hear about them in the US. So there was no "confirmation".

I guess to be honest I didn't really care about what they do in English class altogether, so I was just taking whatever they say as it comes, writing whatever they wanted me to write, and then going back to my math. But, in the retrospect, yes, the majority of topics pertained to blacks.

If I try to remember what did we do from the classics, I only remember "The tempest" and "Scarlet letter". In contrast, they did quite a bit of short stories pertaining blacks, too many to count.

And as far as "city planning" class, I don't remember them saying anything about the "planning". Not a single thing. Yet I very much do remember lots of sociological discussion -- majority of which pertained blacks.

Smiles, it's all Just A Poem And A Metaphor;
No Different Really Than A Bible Written by
Innumerable Ghost Authors Then Both Changed
By Mistake and Intention by Innumerable Scribes
Copying by Pen over Centuries too; i've read more than
the Bible; That's why i understand More in Life than the Bible And God As Well.

i 'Dance'; That's Why i Understand More Than 'Song'.

God Is Bigger than A Bible;
And Surely Bigger than Any Man;
For God Is Nature Hard to Miss on Any
Spring Day With Flowers, Birds, And Bees Free
In Any Season Where Love Breathes As Us and the
Rest of Nature Breathes
God True
DarK
Thru
LiGhT NoW;
As FLoWeRS
And THoRNS
Complete
Colors
iN Rise oF
Rose Real too.

i Don't LiVE iN
An Ivory Tower;
Or A Bible; i AM
Nature i Dance Sing
BReATHE iN All That Exists Free

-God

And Remember Please;
i am only Writing A Poem;
No Different than any Other
Art Form that Attempts to Relate
Essence of All that Is NoW For ReaL (God);

If you Don't Understand Poetry;
You'll Never Understand the
Bible for that is Precisely what
It Is; Just A Story And Just A Poem;
Only Difference Here is One Author
Or ArThur, Depending on How one Spells my 'Middle Name';

THere is No Way Anyone Can 'Make'
Someone Understand 'Poetry' Only 'They' will come to 'Breathe'.

Accredited Divinity Schools Agree Jesus the Man was Illiterate and Probably Lived.

And Even If He could Write; No Written Words Came Until Decades and More After His Death.

And on Top of that; It was the 'Catholic Officials'; the Same Overall Organization that Protects
Pedophile Priests From the Top of the Organization until Modern Days that came to a Decision
That Transformed A Humble Little Brown Dude Who Taught the Last are First and the Meek Inherit
the Kingdom of God On Earth Within Now; Yes, Who Changed Him Into A Myth Instead of a Humble Teacher
Who Emptied His Pockets and Only went out to Teach a Lesson of Love to All for Free Living off the Kindness of
others
for
Free;
in Other Words, Jesus
is Truly that Dude with
No Shoes on under a Bridge (Homeless Folks);
And Not the Troll in the White House for Damned Sure For Real Now;
And Yes, of course, the Brown/Black Man Who Was Crucified for NO Good
Reason at all Under A 'Bended Knee'.

It's Not a Question of
What is Right or Wrong;
It is the Answer for Why;
Folks Do what they Do; War and Peace Happens that's Life.

Love
Comes
And Goes too;
And Love Never Goes Away Now
Either at Least as Long as Human 'Breathes'...

Without 'that'
Even the
Myth
of
JeSuS Is Dead
Crucified 'Suffocated' To Death NoW

Dude, I was THERE (Chicago, Detroit, and cities in-between).  You weren't even born yet, so don't even try to pretend that you know more than I about the subject.  During the Watts Riots of 1965, there were similar protests in sympathy, with many interviews of blacks by local and national news outlets.  Rosa Parks was even interviewed many times after her refusal to move to the back of the bus in 1955!

The Civil Rights movement has been going on far longer than either of us have been around.  Get woke!

World peace through nonviolent means is neither absurd nor unattainable. All other methods have failed. Thus we must begin anew. Nonviolence is a good starting point. Those of us who believe in this method can be voices of reason, sanity, and understanding amid the voices of violence, hatred, and emotion. We can very well set a mood of peace out of which a system of peace can be built.

Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.

In struggling for human dignity the oppressed people of the world must not allow themselves to become bitter or indulge in hate campaigns. To retaliate with hate and bitterness would do nothing but intensify the hate in the world. Along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate. This can be done only by projecting the ethics of love to the center of our lives.

Everything I find from hI’m speaks of peace, and love not hate.

Then America must the most incompetent police in the developed world.
One has to wonder why conservative cries for non-violence are directed at protesters and rioters and not the police who killed a man without cause. Why is all the cynicism directed at the protesters and not at the police? Conservative cynicism about government seems to mainly apply when they raise taxes or overregulate business. But if the army or the police kill citizens without due process, the conservative supports them unconditionally. Their love for the 5th amendment evaporates the moment the government's thugs cry "self defense!"

As was mentioned, the Black Panthers in the 60s conducted armed marches as well. Why? To make it clear to the police that they would not be easy targets for their violence. They were carrying out patrols of the own neighborhoods because the police would not prevent crime. (If anything, they added more violence to the equation). They were watching the watchmen. Conservatives claim to believe we should own guns so that we can deter the government from oppressing us. So that the government's armed thugs will think twice, or at have a real fight on their hands if they go too far. But what did the Republicans of California do in 1967 in response to these marches and patrols? They worked with Democrats to pass the Mulford Act, which banned the public carrying of armed weapons in California. It seems the best way to get conservatives on board with gun control is to put guns in the hands of non-conservatives. (Disclaimer for those who did not see: I believe in my right to arm myself, so that isn't exactly something I want).

Black gunowners stage an armed march? We got bipartisan gun control. White gunowners stage an armed march? (Despite being so appallingly unoppressed?) Republicans give them a pat on the back.
Even if it was more than 50 years ago, the injustices the black community faces are all too present. And police are still apparently deathly frightened by unarmed black men--one has to wonder how scared they would be if more of them decided to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

This has already gotten so long but I thought I would share the expanded quote on riots from MLK:



Conservatives are under the odd impression that MLK would only be disturbed by the violence of riots, and not be so disturbed by the police violence which continues to kill black men in this country. Non-violence is strangely only demanded of civilians and not those in the government. And for all his advocacy for non-violence, the southern conservative still saw him killed. That doesn't really encourage people to be unconditionally non-violent. If conservatives and police are so terrified of riots, they should take heed of the last line in that quote especially. You advocate non-violence? Demand non-violence from the government first.

It isn’t just one police officer though, is it? It’s hundreds of police officers all across America - not just those who kill people, particularly black people, but their colleagues who support them, their superiors who encourage them, the union members who elect white supremacists to represent them, the prosecutors who don’t press charges, the juries who don’t convict.

This keeps happening because the police and the American public keep letting it happen. The police are institutionally racist. They murdered a black man in broad daylight, then wrongfully arrested a bunch of black protesters, some of them on camera, using the excuse that they were “just following orders”.

Yes, a small number of looters committed criminal offences, and were wrong to do so. But that’s small potatoes compared to institutional racism and murder.

Bit of a sidetrack but that’s tankie BS. You are describing libertarianism, which is liberalism for people who have been asleep for 200 years - and even most libertarians have at least some idea of fairness and non-discrimination.

Liberalism has been responsible for most of the social progress we have made in that time - not to mention the economic progress - including anti-discrimination laws. Liberals believe in genuine equality and fairness.

Liberals are often criticised from the left because we support capitalism, but there’s a big difference between “it should be legal to own a business” and “only rich people have rights”.

Usually you’re a fair debater so I was surprised to see such a staggering misrepresentation from you.

I mentioned the South because of historical race relations, support for Trump, the Confederate flag debate, and the fact that many states in that region are trying to enforce the Evangelical Christian equivalent of Sharia law.

For years, I have been trying to relocate to Seattle to escape those things, but unless one makes $100,000+, they can't afford it.

Last edited by Tim_Tex on 29 May 2020, 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Not on here that I am aware of, but I would imagine there are definitely people out there who do.

Bitching about them here isn't going to change anyone's opinion, especially if none of us even disagree with the bitching. Maybe next we can rant about how horrible sharia law is despite the fact that no one on the forum has ever expressed support for it because maybe some folks really want to rant about it no matter how irrelevant it is.

I saw hundreds of them burning buildings I wouldn’t call that small

Let's talk about property damage to distract from the real issue.

Not to say that your definition may be correct in your specific culture, but I think that there is a bit of a difference of definitions, which maybe have a bit of a conflict here. In my country, Australia, the Liberal party is rightwing, with the opposing party being the labor party being the Labor party on the left.

I don't at all ever recall the phrase like "libertarianism" describing our right wing party, the differences exist in that the labor party has historically been the party of the worker, that it was pretty common to see people move from the major unions into the labor party, and fights for the little guy and progressive social changes. While the Liberal party has been more upper class for the owners, pretty much so they can do what they want regardless of unions, and lately done things like help the interests of rich coal mining companies such as create government funded mining universities and call climate protestors terrorists.

So even if I meet someone else's definition of a liberal, in my culture the label makes me feel sick as people who would call people who are protesting to have less fossil fuels used and save planet, as automatic eco-terrorists, so rich people can get richer.

You are taking what I said too literally. I didn't mean to say "nobody" paid attention. I meant to say that they had "less" support back than then they do today. "Less" doesn't mean "little". They certainly didn't have the government on their side back then -- and nowdays they do.

Saying you understand more than God is blasphemous. You can't understand more than God if God is the one Who created you. Also God is the One who created everything you claim to understand. If God created those things, God surely understands them better than you do.



Its true that God didn't reveal *everything* in the Bible. For example, Jesus claimed that nobody knows when the end of the age will come, not even a son, only the father. So that is an example where the Bible expressly didn't reveal something that God claims to know.

However, that does not contradict the fact that everything that Bible DID reveal is true. If statements A and B are both true, its possible to make statement A and skip statement B -- and then what you said is still true, since you didn't negate B, you simply skipped it.



I am glad to hear it, and I like your poetry. I just felt like there were some points that needed to be made. But otherwise your poetry is good.



What is their evidence?



Holy spirit was reminding the disciples of what Jesus was saying when they were writing the Bible.



I agree with you that you shouldn't take other people's words for it but study it for yourself. But, by the same token, why did you refer to Bible scholars as a "proof" that Jesus was illiterate? Why is it "better" to trust Bible scholars than it is to trust Catholic officials? By the way, I am a Protestant so I don't trust Catholic officials either. I am just using it as an opportunity to show you why you shouldn't be trusting Bible scholars (since you did a bit earlier).



How do you know he said "meek will inherit the Earth"? You know it from the Bible. But then -- again from the Bible -- you also know about Him making other statements where he was describing Himself as a king (look at the parable of the talents for example). So you can't pick and choose as to which parts of the Bible you trust and which you don't. You have to look at "all" His teachings and make the best sense out of it.



Yes He did that too. Nobody denies it. But like I said you have to look at "everything" He did, not just bits and pieces that you like.



I agree that Jesus was homeless: He said "foxes have holes, the birds of the air have nests but the Son of Man have nowhere to lay His head".

However, that doesn't imply illiterate. He had education -- as one can see from the part when He was 12 and rabbis were astounished at His knowledge.

The reason most homeless "today" are illiterate is that most of them aren't homeless by choice. But in case of Jesus, yes He was homeless by choice. So His situation is very different.



I don't think Donald Trump is saved. I view him as "lesser of two evils". I would rather have someone crazy like Trump than to have someone who supports abortion. And I am sure Jesus opposed abortion too -- remember the verse where He blessed the little children.



Equating a mere man to Jesus is blasphemous. Just for the record, George Floyd was in prison 5 times. Killing him was still just as wrong, but he is no saint.



Jesus rose from the death and one day He is coming back to save us from all this nightmare.

You’d feel different if it was your business or home burning down. And they might been people killed inside the buildings.

Looting and burning building is disctractig from the situation, the rioters don’t care a s**t about the victim it’s just excuse for them to do what they couldn’t normally