Black Lives Matter thread

Hilary was probably up against republicans when she made that statement and it was probably some time during or shortly after the la riots.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I do think the protestors were blowing Clinton's comments out of proportion. It's obvious that the comment from the 1990s was aimed at a certain subset of the population engaged in organized crime, the issue though is that "super predator" sounds sensationalist, and I think there's always a danger that even well-intended comments like Hillary's back in the day can contribute to widespread fear and distrust of all young black men, not just the minority involved in gangs. So while the BLM protestors in this case were being overzealous, I also think the Clintons could recognize how it might not have been wise to use a phrase like that.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/the-real-story-of-race-and-police-killings/

Black males are disproportionately more likely to be killed by police than any other group.

Gang violence is a serious problem and no one denies that, but so is institutional racism and police brutality.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Gang violence is a serious problem and no one denies that, but so is institutional racism and police brutality.

Policeman taze white people in order to make an arrest. They don't taze black drug lords. Why? Yeah, the guy is armed and dangerous and hates the police.

Black people are racist towards policemen, have you noticed that institutional racism? Police officers have pretty scary jobs.

I'd imagine it's difficult to be racist against policemen, mostly because "policemen" isn't a race.

If you're referring to black people being racist towards white people, I'd like to hear why you think that is institutional racism.

Originally posted by The Lost
I'd imagine it's difficult to be racist against policemen, mostly because "policemen" isn't a race.

Originally posted by The Lost
If you're referring to black people being racist towards white people, I'd like to hear why you think that is institutional racism.

Originally posted by The Lost

Slavery, crackers, etc. is all about explaining how bad white people were. If I were black, I'd be pretty mad at white people too. This doesn't apply to all black people, just the stupid poor drug lords in ghettos. It's not the police's fault you're poor and get shot. It's because you're a wannabe gangsta drug addict.

Sensible smart rich black people are not applicable to the above.

In schools? I'd like to hear evidence of this and, furthermore, how this is somehow institutional racism.

I'd say it's more like institutional racism is a fire and, while it isn't the cops who started it, they definitely add fuel to it.

Also, I have heard the "slavery was bad, this was bad" argument a variety of times but I think something as long-lasting, widely spread, and as ingrained in society as slavery was, simply outlawing does not fully eliminate the effects it can have on society.

I mean, less than one hundred years ago, America had black people drinking from separate fountains, not being allowed in establishments, abused, etc.

Things like that do not just go away. They don't disappear. If you wish to see what institutional racism genuinely looks like, this is a very recent example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-w-waters/american-justice-in-black-and-white_b_9696224.html

Originally posted by The Lost
In schools? I'd like to hear evidence of this and, furthermore, how this is somehow institutional racism.

I'd say it's more like institutional racism is a fire and, while it isn't the cops who started it, they definitely add fuel to it.

Also, I have heard the "slavery was bad, this [b]was bad" argument a variety of times but I think something as long-lasting, widely spread, and as ingrained in society as slavery was, simply outlawing does not fully eliminate the effects it can have on society.

I mean, less than one hundred years ago, America had black people drinking from separate fountains, not being allowed in establishments, abused, etc.

Things like that do not just go away. They don't disappear. If you wish to see what institutional racism genuinely looks like, this is a very recent example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-w-waters/american-justice-in-black-and-white_b_9696224.html [/B]

The guy committed manslaughter and was convicted, comparing him to a rich criminal who did a different crime in different circumstances is not institutional racism.

As for outlawing educating people about slavery, that is stupid. However, stupid racists will be stupid racists and this applies to black and white people. They need better education.

No, man. You mentioned cracker and other terms. Is it technically racism? Of course. However, I think individualized racism is far less serious than institutionalized racism.

Also, are you serious? The whole point is they are different crimes. Vastly different. From the article:

"Couch's actions killed four and seriously injured two. Bullock's actions hurt a car. Couch became an international fugitive from justice. Bullock voluntarily turned himself in to authorities.

For his crimes, Couch's parents offered to pay for his stay at a $450,000 a year luxury rehabilitation community. For his crimes, Bullock's bail was set at an amount well beyond his parent's means."

One broke a car window. The other killed four people. The black kid got sentenced to eight years more than the white kid. This is an example of a warped justice system, favoring the wealthy and the white. That is unfortunately how the United States works.

Originally posted by The Lost
No, man. You mentioned cracker and other terms. Is it technically racism? Of course. However, I think individualized racism is far less serious than institutionalized racism.

Also, are you serious? The whole point is they are different crimes. Vastly different. From the article:

One broke a car window. The other killed four people. The black kid got sentenced to eight years more than the white kid. This is an example of a warped justice system, favoring the wealthy and the white. That is unfortunately how the United States works.

Oj Simpson murdered his wife and got away with it.

I don't even want to mention mj but I will.

I must have got the crimes the wrong way around but it doesn't make any sense other than, hurr durr, black man charged extra for being black.

Explain to me the difference between individualised racism and institutionalised racism. I'm struggling here.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
favouring the wealthy, yes. Why bring race into it?

Oj Simpson murdered his wife and got away with it.

I don't even want to mention mj but I will.

I must have got the crimes the wrong way around but it doesn't make any sense other than, hurr durr, black man charged extra for being black.

Explain to me the difference between individualised racism and institutionalised racism. I'm struggling here.

Why wouldn't I? Ignoring race would be blindly turning away from a serious problem.

OJ is, unfortunately, an exception while the cases I mentioned are simply put, the "rule."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/racial-disparity-sentencing

Individualized racism would be someone who didn't share your race (or maybe they did, in some odd examples) walking up to you and calling you a cracker, for example, or even you walking up to someone who didn't share your race and doing the same (name-calling being the example). This can even be said for smaller groups.

Institutionalized racism is minority races getting rejected jobs or college acceptances because their name is foreign or because their skin is a different color, longer prison sentences, more abuse by authority/government, etc. Those kind of things.

I think the affluenza kid was more about money then race. There isn't really institutional racism by blacks. They can be racist just like any race can be and it does bug me when you have the people out there who say it's impossible for them to be racist. But I don't think it's institutional because they don't make up a large enough percentage of the population.

I will say one thing though..it seems to be more acceptable..racism that is. Calling a white person a cracker isn't seen as big a deal as using the N word. The argument will be this is because whites weren't oppressed.

Originally posted by The Lost
Why wouldn't I? Ignoring race would be blindly turning away from a serious problem.

OJ is, unfortunately, an exception while the cases I mentioned are simply put, the "rule."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/racial-disparity-sentencing

Individualized racism would be someone who didn't share your race (or maybe they did, in some odd examples) walking up to you and calling you a cracker, for example, or even you walking up to someone who didn't share your race and doing the same (name-calling being the example). This can even be said for smaller groups.

Institutionalized racism is minority races getting rejected jobs or college acceptances because their name is foreign or because their skin is a different color, longer prison sentences, more abuse by authority/government, etc. Those kind of things.

First of all, saying oj is an exception to a rule that blacks get harsher punishments is kind of.....lacking in thought and racist. It's pretty common knowledge that rich get away with crimes and poor don't. It has been the case throughout history and oj confirms this rule that it's not a race issue, it's a class issue. A lot of black people are poor, therefore get harsher sentences. It's not because they're black, it's because they're poor. Institutional classism, sure.

Individualised racism is name calling? Well how does this apply to black people who want to kill white policeman because they be crackas?

Your definition of institutional racism ignores ghetto culture and gangsta rap. In areas with black majorities and drug lords, this anti-White culture is institutionally created. It's also blown out of proportion by the news media where gangstas are seen as anti heroes fighting for some just cause. It is institutionalised racism, and it's nothing new. Black people have been suffering from it for a long time, as are the white people.

You can't just let black people get away with shit.

Originally posted by Surtur
I think the affluenza kid was more about money then race. There isn't really institutional racism by blacks. They can be racist just like any race can be and it does bug me when you have the people out there who say it's impossible for them to be racist. But I don't think it's institutional because they don't make up a large enough percentage of the population.

I will say one thing though..it seems to be more acceptable..racism that is. Calling a white person a cracker isn't seen as big a deal as using the N word. The argument will be this is because whites weren't oppressed.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
this just reeks of white guilt. I'll explain.

First of all, saying oj is an exception to a rule that blacks get harsher punishments is kind of.....lacking in thought and racist. It's pretty common knowledge that rich get away with crimes and poor don't. It has been the case throughout history and oj confirms this rule that it's not a race issue, it's a class issue. A lot of black people are poor, therefore get harsher sentences. It's not because they're black, it's because they're poor. Institutional classism, sure.

OJ confirms the rule? An anecdote? No, I don't think so. Do you ever wonder why OJ is a rarity? It isn't simply wealth: http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/18/news/economy/wealth-blacks-whites-hispanics/

The rich in the United States bear a color and that color is white. Black people are handed harsher sentences because they are poor and black. It isn't one or the other. White people aren't intrinsically more successful and black people just squandered all opportunity, which seems to be a bit of an underlying implication here.

If it was simply about wealth, the racial diversity amongst the affluent would be exceptional. Except, it isn't. Ask yourself why that is.

I'm not even going to touch you claiming I am a racist for saying the OJ case was an exception because your assertion is absurd, especially when you painted impoverished black individuals with a "ghetto culture and gangsta rap" brush.

Individualised racism is name calling? Well how does this apply to black people who want to kill white policeman because they be crackas?

Yeah, there is extreme anger and wanting to kill the police is not a solution but these people, despite not being victims, are handed an incredibly limited set of options from the get-go. They're frustrated and most of them are not killing police officers. The numbers speak to the opposite, actually.

Your definition of institutional racism ignores ghetto culture and gangsta rap. In areas with black majorities and drug lords, this anti-White culture is institutionally created. It's also blown out of proportion by the news media where gangstas are seen as anti heroes fighting for some just cause. It is institutionalised racism, and it's nothing new. Black people have been suffering from it for a long time, as are the white people.

The news media hardly hails gangsters as anti-heroes fighting for a just cause. I am critical of the media but mostly for the opposite reasons you are. The problem is that you're claiming a symptom of institutionalized racism is institutionalized racism itself and that is simply untrue.

There are harsh neighborhoods and some individuals (not all are "gangstas"😉 that promote violence against Caucasians but this is not a widespread issue. Not only that a lot of black people feel that crime is one of the only options of prosperity they can pursue because they are largely, and statistically, excluded from pursuing other avenues to employ themselves/feed themselves/survive. This is especially true in areas where poverty is excessive.

It's no excuse. It's a legitimate reason.

You can't just let black people get away with shit.
they do make up a large percent of a population in certain areas like slums or ghettos. In fact, Hollywood call it the urban market. Southern LA, for example. But most major cities do in fact have black majority areas and its institutional racism. I'm not saying white people are the victim or black people are the victim, but it works both ways due to institutional racism. It's division, not oppression.

As illustrated in one of the previous studies/articles I linked you to, black people do not get away with shit. At all.

It's not one or the other. Nothing is so black and white. It is division and oppression. I also think you trying to imply that white and blacks suffer the same type of oppression isn't just conjecture but incredibly naive.

Originally posted by Surtur
I will say one thing though..it seems to be more acceptable..racism that is. Calling a white person a cracker isn't seen as big a deal as using the N word. The argument will be this is because whites weren't oppressed.

One would think that type of historical bearing would make a noticeable difference and shouldn't be trivialized. One was used as a title for individuals being forced to perform labor, being whipped/raped/beaten/murdered, getting burned on stakes, and more atrocities.

The other was used as mostly a title for Vanilla Ice.

Originally posted by The Lost

OJ confirms the rule? An anecdote? No, I don't think so. Do you ever wonder why OJ is a rarity? It isn't simply wealth: http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/18/news/economy/wealth-blacks-whites-hispanics/

The rich in the United States bear a color and that color is white. Black people are handed harsher sentences because they are poor and black. It isn't one or the other. White people aren't intrinsically more successful and black people just squandered all opportunity, which seems to be a bit of an underlying implication here.

If it was simply about wealth, the racial diversity amongst the affluent would be exceptional. Except, it isn't. Ask yourself why that is.

I'm not even going to touch you claiming I am a racist for saying the OJ case was an exception because your assertion is absurd, especially when you painted impoverished black individuals with a "ghetto culture and gangsta rap" brush.

Yeah, there is extreme anger and wanting to kill the police is not a solution but these people, despite not being victims, are handed an incredibly limited set of options from the get-go. They're frustrated and most of them are not killing police officers. The numbers speak to the opposite, actually.

The news media hardly hails gangsters as anti-heroes fighting for a just cause. I am critical of the media but mostly for the opposite reasons you are. The problem is that you're claiming a symptom of institutionalized racism is institutionalized racism itself and that is simply untrue.

There are harsh neighborhoods and some individuals (not all are "gangstas"😉 that promote violence against Caucasians but this is not a widespread issue. Not only that a lot of black people feel that crime is one of the only options of prosperity they can pursue because they are largely, and statistically, excluded from pursuing other avenues to employ themselves/feed themselves/survive. This is especially true in areas where poverty is excessive.

It's no excuse. It's a legitimate reason.

As illustrated in one of the previous studies/articles I linked you to, black people do not get away with shit. At all.

It's not one or the other. Nothing is so black and white. It is division and oppression. I also think you trying to imply that white and blacks suffer the same type of oppression isn't just conjecture but incredibly naive.

One would think that type of historical bearing would make a noticeable difference and shouldn't be trivialized. One was used as a title for individuals being forced to perform labor, being whipped/raped/beaten/murdered, getting burned on stakes, and more atrocities.

The other was used as mostly a title for Vanilla Ice. [/B]

White: 40% working class, 50% middle class, 10% ruling class
30% arrested and convicted, most of them from working class backgrounds

Black: 70% working class, 29% middle class, 1% ruling class
55% arrested and convicted, most of them from working class backgrounds.

Hurr durr, look, more black people are convicted, it cos they is black. Or maybe, it cos they is poor and are arrested at the same rate due to relative poverty causing crime to increase. More poor people = more crime. It's not a race issue.

I was referring to southern la and Ferguson. Not painting all poor black people, although, the media would have you believe that is the case.

The legitimate reason has caused policemen to be more thorough with stopping gang violence and carrying guns and armoured tanks to protect the police from this violence which, as you put it, has a legitimate reason. It's a horrible solution.

So black people living like drug lords and killing other black people and the media ignoring that, that's not getting away with it? That's legitimate reason? That's institutional racism on oppressed black people? These same people who arm themselves against the police and other drug gangs and live like they're al Capone. It's pretty bad, no?

I'm not implying blacks and whites suffer the same oppression. They suffer oppression in different ways, but it's the division portrayed in the media that is causing the problem.

I think I'll bow out now.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Why? Because lots of black people are poor. Blacks may get arrested more and are given harsher sentences but that's because a lot of black people are poor. I'll make up some numbers so you understand how race can be taken out of the equation.

White: 40% working class, 50% middle class, 10% ruling class
30% arrested and convicted, most of them from working class backgrounds

Black: 70% working class, 29% middle class, 1% ruling class
55% arrested and convicted, most of them from working class backgrounds.

Hurr durr, look, more black people are convicted, it cos they is black. Or maybe, it cos they is poor and are arrested at the same rate due to relative poverty causing crime to increase. More poor people = more crime. It's not a race issue.

I was referring to southern la and Ferguson. Not painting all poor black people, although, the media would have you believe that is the case.

The legitimate reason has caused policemen to be more thorough with stopping gang violence and carrying guns and armoured tanks to protect the police from this violence which, as you put it, has a legitimate reason. It's a horrible solution.

So black people living like drug lords and killing other black people and the media ignoring that, that's not getting away with it? That's legitimate reason? That's institutional racism on oppressed black people? These same people who arm themselves against the police and other drug gangs and live like they're al Capone. It's pretty bad, no?

I'm not implying blacks and whites suffer the same oppression. They suffer oppression in different ways, but it's the division portrayed in the media that is causing the problem.

How does this story fit into this discussion?

Cop stops Assault on Female. Community attacks the Cop.

Originally posted by The Lost
I think I'll bow out now.

This is why you're out.

I should also add that to me, media is not just the news, it's music, film television entertainments and magazines etc.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]How does this story fit into this discussion?

Cop stops Assault on Female. Community attacks the Cop. [/B]