Social Justice Black Lives Matter Discussion Thread

[nuttynutskin]

I think she was saying the same thing as I was. Wording just got confusing.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Yeah, I agree that race SHOULDN'T be a factor. Either make it the same amount for everyone or figure it out by numbers. I will never understand how racism will be fought by treating people differently based on race. Doesn't make much sense if you think about it.

I'm going to pour gasoline on the fire to put it out!!!

But should there be reparations? YES. Especially by SCUM like McConnell whose ancestors DID OWN SLAVES.

Mine didn't, I don't owe them anything. MAKE MCCONNELL PAY THE REPARATIONS.

 

[JessFR]

I think she was saying the same thing as I was. Wording just got confusing.

Pretty much.

Basically I don't believe in discriminating against people on the basis of their race.

And the way I see it. If you create a welfare or support system that can only be accessed by people of a certain race because of their membership of that race, that is discrimination and it's wrong.

Basically I think support should be based on need. Not on race.

The correct way to do it is to create welfare or social support systems that are targeted to people in need. And if people of x race are disproportionately in need they will disproportionately have access to it.

But just saying "only x race can use it" isn't an acceptable way to define need. It's just racism.

 

[b52]

We all got a militarized police force problem, n blacks are on the front line of the battle with them... I got sympathy for them n yet I also wish theyd get their shit together culturally.. Urban Black Culture is something they can change themself ... quit glorifying thuglife, n blaming your situation on every body cept yaself... Sucks seeing them not reach their potential!

 

[JessFR]

Racism is wrong.

Culturalism however.. Is not.

Far as I'm concerned it's not racist to he critical of a culture. Even if that culture has a very large racial component.

 

[Deleted member 521610]

You're complaining right now. You're complaining about what other people think right now.

Only rather than using social pressure, your only complaint is that we don't all handle this like a bunch of inbred trailer trash.

Just read your other post. I want to know why u think George Zimmerman was justified in killing Trayvon Martin. Its pretty clear he posed no threat did no crime got harassed and followed and murdered by a racist. I ain't gonna complain about what people post on twitter but I'll sure complain about pc culture raising a generation of pussies

 

[Jabberwocky]

How anyone can think ‘the hood’ is a model for large scale social organisation beggars belief. Although basically that seemed to be where the dying day’s of the Trump presidency was looking for inspiration. Anyone who recommends living in a system governed by violence and intimidation should be forced to live naked with a troupe of baboons.

 

[Deleted member 521610]

How anyone can think ‘the hood’ is a model for large scale social organisation beggars belief. Although basically that seemed to be where the dying day’s of the Trump presidency was looking for inspiration. Anyone who recommends living in a system governed by violence and intimidation should be forced to live naked with a troupe of baboons.

You can take people out of the hood but once you are conditioned socially it's hard to change the response in daily life when you escape the hood. Violence was all I saw for 18 years. Violence is sometimes the only solution I believe when dealing with certain situations that require it and is justified.

 

[Jabberwocky]

You can take people out of the hood but once you are conditioned socially it's hard to change the response in daily life when you escape the hood. Violence was all I saw for 18 years. Violence is sometimes the only solution I believe when dealing with certain situations that require it and is justified.

Taken at face value and quite literally I don’t disagree with anything in that quote. My view is that their should not be ‘hoods’ in civilised and developed countries. I’m also leaning towards the view that a child in a situation where the only problem solving technique they learn in their first 18 years is intimidation and violence should be removed from their family of origin sooner rather than later. However, that has proven to have downsides if they are removed to institutions rather than families.

Social dysfunction is primarily reproduced through families. It’s kind of a shame we can’t licence people to breed.

 

[Deleted member 521610]

Taken at face value and quite literally I don’t disagree with anything in that quote. My view is that their should not be ‘hoods’ in civilised and developed countries. I’m also leaning towards the view that a child in a situation where the only problem solving technique they learn in their first 18 years is intimidation and violence should be removed from their family of origin sooner rather than later. However, that has proven to have downsides if they are removed to institutions rather than families.

Social dysfunction is primarily reproduced through families. It’s kind of a shame we can’t licence people to breed.

Household was only safe haven I meant schooling been in the streets. Every day of school going to the most deprived ones j the country where your friends fathers are meth cooks gangsters or just imprisoned. I had a good family. Example I was only 12 at the park with my younger brother and cousin when a 18 year old wannabe blood just comes up and threatens us then attacks me for literally no reason I didnt have any money. Just because shit like that happens in the hood. I protected my brother from all the violence in the hood so I spent most my time in fights kicked out of school or dealing to injuries from the street fights while also eventually hanging out and prospecting at 14 with my mates who brothers were patched mc gangs. This lead to getting expelled doing hella drugs and then the police set me straight from that path. Had some skinhead gangsters beat us almost to death over weed and that's when I left all that gang glorified lifestyle behind as a teen. I agree hoods should not exist but they do and it's a result of a racist system and colonialism. White people fucked over maoris here and those white people will never understand why minorities formed gangs and society ends up having ghettos. They stole everything from our acesntors committed genocide and tried to wipe our culture out while the system racially profiles and creates these hoods to keep the staus quo

 

[JessFR]

Just read your other post. I want to know why u think George Zimmerman was justified in killing Trayvon Martin. Its pretty clear he posed no threat did no crime got harassed and followed and murdered by a racist. I ain't gonna complain about what people post on twitter but I'll sure complain about pc culture raising a generation of pussies

Nah, it's bullshit. I've gone over all the publicly available evidence of that shit, and it's clear that Zimmerman was in the right.

Regardless of what Zimmerman should or should not have done in the moments leading up to the altercation, and for the record I'm highly skeptical that Zimmerman was in the wrong in the lead up to the altercation either, there is one solid fact that makes trayvon Martin at fault.

The evidence, the photos taken at the time and the notes made by medical staff showed that Zimmerman had injuries to his face. Trayvon Martin has injuries to his fists. Zimmerman clothes were wet with grass on his back.

Zimmerman injuries were defensive.

It is all consistent with the testimony that trayvon punched Zimmerman to the ground and was attacking him. And the time line which shows Zimmerman had discontinued following Martin at that point (not that following him would justify punching him in the face and beating him either)

Punching someone hard enough in the face can kill them. If I had a gun and someone punched me in the face and I was helpless on the ground, you better fucking believe I'm gonna shoot them. I'm gonna shoot and keep shooting till I'm the one standing and they're not.

And there's virtually nowhere in the world where that's not self defense.

It's not a question of stand your ground laws or duty to retreat. At the point the physical fight broke out Zimmerman had no ability to retreat.

Trayvon would still be alive if he hadn't followed your idiotic system of justice and thought that he had the right to attack Zimmerman.

All the evidence shows Zimmerman was almost certainly justified in shooting Martin, well in excess of a burden of reasonable doubt under law, and I doubt almost any jury in any common law country would disagree upon seeing the actual evidence and having the legal standards explained to them. And indeed they didn't. He was exonerated. Almost certainly correctly.

Don't follow dumbshit trailer trash "justice" that says you can go and punch someone in the face if you feel they've offended you, then you won't get shot and have it ruled that you were at fault. It's that fucking simple.

 

[Deleted member 521610]

Nah, it's bullshit. I've gone over all the publicly available evidence of that shit, and it's clear that Zimmerman was in the right.

Regardless of what Zimmerman should or should not have done in the moments leading up to the altercation, and for the record I'm highly skeptical that Zimmerman was in the wrong in the lead up to the altercation either, there is one solid fact that makes trayvon Martin at fault.

The evidence showed that Zimmerman had injuries to his race. Trayvon Martin has injuries to his firsts. Zimmerman clothes were wet with grass on his back.

It is all consistent with the testimony that trayvon punched Zimmerman to the ground and was attacking him.

Punching someone hard enough in the face can kill them. If I had a gun and someone punched me to the face and I was helpless on the ground, you better fucking believe I'm gonna shoot them.

And there's virtually nowhere in the world where that's not self defense.

It's not a question of stand your ground laws or duty to retreat. At the point the physical fight broke out Zimmerman had no ability to retreat.

Trayvon would still be alive if he hadn't followed your idiotic system of justice and thought that he had the right to attack Zimmerman.

All the evidence shows Zimmerman was almost certainly justified in shooting Martin, and I doubt almost any jury would disagree upon seeing the actual evidence and having the legal standards explained to them.

Don't follow dumbshit trailer trash "justice" that says you can go and punch someone in the face if you feel they've offended you, then you won't get shot and have it ruled that you were at fault. It's that fucking simple.

Pretty big change to your anti gun stance. I guess that only applies to white people but killing unarmed innocent black people is fine in your eyes? It's obvious Zimmerman was paranoid and hated black people and followed them around his injuries were far from heavy and doubt Martin would of killed him with punches. Zimmerman harassing people and been racist gets punched in self defense by treyvaon. All the court system and cops in america are racist as fuck if Trayvon was white zimmerman would be in jail right now

 

[JessFR]

Pretty big change to your anti gun stance. I guess that only applies to white people but killing unarmed innocent black people is fine in your eyes? It's obvious Zimmerman was paranoid and hated black people and followed them around his injuries were far from heavy and doubt Martin would of killed him with punches. Zimmerman harassing people and been racist gets punched in self defense by treyvaon. All the court system and cops in america are racist as fuck if Trayvon was white zimmerman would be in jail right now

I had an anti gun stance? That's news to me. I've always agreed with armed self defense.

"most likely wouldn't have killed him" isn't fucking good enough.

If you start a fight, and the other person in the fight has reason to think they could die, which anyone in Zimmerman position would, the law rightly says you have a right to use lethal force to protect yourself.

Gun or no gun.

Don't start a potentially lethal fight if you're not prepared to lose it. It's real simple.

It is not self defense to follow a man back to his car and punch him to the ground and kick him. I don't care if he was previously following you. I don't care if he was still following you which the evidence indicates Zimmerman was not. You're still in the wrong.

Don't start the use of violence against people if you don't want it used against you.

If you wanna act like a punk, instigating violence against people you think crossed you, you just might wind up dying like one. That's an especially good lesson for you going by your previous comments.

Don't misunderstand, if I were God I'd happily undo it all, bring trayvon Martin back to life and hope he uses his new found life more wisely. But it doesn't change that Zimmerman was in the right. If someone had to die, much as I wish noone had, I'm glad it was the attacker and not the victim.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Punching someone hard enough in the face can kill them. If I had a gun and someone punched me to the face and I was helpless on the ground, you better fucking believe I'm gonna shoot them.

And there's virtually nowhere in the world where that's not self defense.

In Australia there is a pretty good chance you’d be charged with manslaughter, you’d plead not guilty on grounds of self-defence, and the judge would direct the jury to decide if you used ‘reasonable force’.

Reasonable means proportionate to the threat and fatally shooting an unarmed person who punched you in the face but was unlikely to further attempt to kill you would see you found guilty.

 

[JessFR]

In Australia there is a pretty good chance you’d be charged with manslaughter, you’d plead not guilty on grounds of self-defence, and the judge would direct the jury to decide if you used ‘reasonable force’.

Reasonable means proportionate to the threat and fatally shooting an unarmed person who punched you in the face but was unlikely to further attempt to kill you would see you found guilty.

In Australia Zimmerman wouldn't have had a gun most likely.

But OK, let's come up with a scenario where having the gun is legal but all other legal rules of Australia apply.

You might well be charged, but you are very unlikely to be convicted.

Cause under Australian law he was still in the right. You are allowed to use lethal force when lethal force is used on you. And Martin used lethal force.

LOTS of people in Australia and elsewhere have died from being punched like Zimmerman was. It is potentially lethal. Zimmerman should not be expected to risk his life that any minute now trayvon martin would stop or wouldn't kill him either deliberately or more likely by accident. And the law doesn't require you to.

Here in Queensland, there was a woman being abused by her husband, for years. He threatened that if she left he'd murder her kids.

So, she decided to find a gun, she then drugged his dinner, and shot her husband in the head.

The qld jury found her innocent on the grounds that self defense need not be from an immediate threat. They found a reasonable person in her circumstances would have feared for her and her children's life and it was reasonable for her to resort to extreme measures to protect it. That her husband had effectively given her no other realistic option to ensure the safety of her and her children but to kill him.

I won't deny I was super proud of Australia, and Queensland, for finding her innocent.

So yea, no, I am very sure that Zimmerman would have been found not guilty in Australia too.

Punching someone in the face isn't a joke, it isn't like the movies where it's a magic human off and on button. You punch someone in the face hard, that can kill them or do life long injury.

Either is sufficient cause to use lethal force to protect yourself as well it should be.

And all the evidence shows that's all Zimmerman did.

Trayvon Martin punched him, he wasn't punched by Zimmerman. Don't act like a punk going around exercising "street justice" like TripSitterNZ advocated if you value your life. If you treat life as having no value, you might well find yours will turn out quite short when one of your victims fights back.

For the record, I don't give a shit about Zimmerman the man or how much of an asshole he is. Neither am I uncaring for the death of a young boy. It's very unfortunate. It's sad that kids do real stupid shit sometimes, and sometimes they don't get a chance to learn from experience. That's very sad.

But I believe firmly in the right to defend yourself. A 17 year old can absolutely kill someone. And if it comes down to them or their victim, I'm always gonna side with their victim.

It has nothing to do with race. For one Zimmerman is Hispanic iirc, but if Zimmerman had been black and Martin white I'd be saying exactly the same thing. As anyone who's seen me argue with just as much passion on the side of some of the black suspects unlawfully shot by police knows.

 

[JessFR]

You can take people out of the hood but once you are conditioned socially it's hard to change the response in daily life when you escape the hood. Violence was all I saw for 18 years. Violence is sometimes the only solution I believe when dealing with certain situations that require it and is justified.

All that may be true, doesn't justify anything though. Once you're an adult, you gotta learn to deal with other people in civilized society. It's that or see if you feel more at home in jail. Plenty of violence there.

And hey you're right, it can be difficult unlearning shit you learned to fall on growing up. But it's just like when a rapist or a murder cries about their shitty ass childhood hoping for a more lenient sentence.

A lot of us have had shitty childhoods and managed not to wind up murdering or raping anybody. Life isn't fair, you're not owed an equally easy time dealing society as perhaps someone else has.

Doesn't justify attacking people though. Not at all.

If you have anger problems you gotta find ways to deal with them. Not use your childhood as an excuse to keep doing it.

If you can't, you'll either wind up in and out of jail your whole life or dead.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Apologies to the forum mods if this is NOT the right thread for a racism discussion. It's all that came to mind.

Apologies to Xorkoth in picking up the discussion in a different thread where it didn't belong. This is my attempt to bring it back to an appropriate thread. For those that weren't in that discussion, I'll quote my leading comment first which was in response to the left not being considered racist...

In his stimulus plan, Biden states: "Our focus will be on Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American owned small businesses, women-owned businesses, "

Definition of racism = prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

White and male being discriminated against, and nobody bats an eye. Policy should be to address AMERICANS in need, regardless of race, color, creed, sexual identification or orientation. Biden is launching his presidency with a promise of racism and division.

But this thread is on cancel culture, not Biden nor racism. So I'll redirect.

See, to me this isn't racism. It's the same way of seeing things where people are trying to confuse BLM with racism. It's not racism to be aware that inequities exist in the system, and to focus on trying to right those inequities. If aid is being given disproportionately to white people, how is it racism to try to fix that? While distributing resources more equitably does happen to leave less resources for white people, it isn't discrimination against white people to do so... it's the ending of discrimination against minorities, which had led to an unfair advantage to white people. Which goes to show you how fucked the system is, because yeah, poor white people aren't getting what they deserve either. But they're still doing better than poor minorities. I understand the knee-jerk reaction, from fear over seeing your quality of life slowly eroding, but this isn't racism. It's about being equitable. And a separate conversation about how our priorities in America are massive screwed up with regards to wealth distribution, as a whole, entirely separate from the racial conversation.

Stating that the focus of the aid being towards minority groups is not the same as saying "we ain't givin' no money to whites". If you notice that minority groups are being hit especially hard, by looking at the data, isn't it the right thing to do to focus on being equitable?

"It's not racism to be aware that inequities exist in the system, and to focus on trying to right those inequities. If aid is being given disproportionately to white people, how is it racism to try to fix that?" I'd call it racism if whites ARE disproportionately getting aid. And it SHOULD be addressed. Reverse racism, however, is NOT the answer.

So, what's equitable? Blacks are 13% of the population, should they get 13% of the relief funding? Are they carrying the burden of 13% of the taxes used to pay for that relief? Minorities were hit disproportionately by COVID restrictions? Upon what do we base that assertion? Is it because white businesses were better prepared with savings to endure hard times? I don't know that, I'm pulling it out of my ass just like the idea minorities were hit harder comes from someone else's ass.

Upon WHAT reasoning should we determine who gets what? WHICH guidelines and rules should we utilize for this decision? I'd be ok if we were able to identify a scale for 'hit harder'....but then again, a business that lost $1m but was able to survive seems to have done better than a business that lost $500k and went under. But which was hurt worse? The term 'worse' is relative, and therefore not a good basis for this kind of decision.

I'm sorry, I'm in a wound up mood, and very much NOT trying to pick a fight with anyone, especially with Xork whom I fully respect. I get deeply offended when someone uses race to identify someone for preference rather than need. If Biden wants to say he aims his help at those most in need, I'm with him. If those in need are predominantly minorities, I'm pretty ok with that too, though I'd question WHY they are most in need. Is it because of bad decision making on their part (no savings)? Regardless of race, I'd say fuck'em. If EVERYONE (regardless of race) is on the worse end of this situation...then EVERYONE should get the same treatment. Is it because of systemic racism that has put their family behind due to generations of bias against them....I'm going to have a hard time with that*. First, come out and say it, you're making reparations. Second, don't open your mouth and say I'm giving money to someone based on skin color, because anyone saying "Im helping that company over there because the owner is white" would get the ever loving shit kicked out of them. And that, my friends, is my litmus test. Can Biden say "I'm helping white owned businesses, and male owned businesses"? NO. Why? BECAUSE RACISM. However, he can say he's helping blacks, hispanics, etc. Yeah, that's not racism.

ANY decision based on color IS discrimination. ANY. Make such relief decisions based on NEED, don't make it about race and alienate the majority in the process.

*I'll pull my neck back in here. I had another rant about 'system racism' but I'll keep it to myself for now and sum it up with this. I was born in the late 60's in the south. I never directly saw racism, but history shows us the civil rights efforts of the 60's and the true systemic racism it fought to overturn. That was 5 decades ago, and while people older than that may be stuck in their ways, we have 2.5 generations of Americans who never lived under those conditions and instead have had a very, very different world in which they grew up. I have mad respect for blacks during that time frame, for their courage to face what they did and make America change. I'll leave it at that.





PS - Just a hint, but if someone says "Equal Access" they can't start the statement with "Our priority is (groups X, Y and Z)".

 

[JessFR]

I thought you hated gun violence, but i see you support it when it suits your own narrative. I guess you can't take that inner americans out of people after a entire education by the american government brainwashing its people. Its the american spirit to grab a weapon and kill somebody who is bigger or winning a fight because deep down the are scared of everything especially looking weak.

Now onto topic of trump i hope he goes through with his maga party and steals some of the senate and trolls both parties its about time some minor parties take some power in america.

Haha, yea trayvon was such a good fighter, had that awesome training in punchaguyrandomly-kwando and kickadudewhilehesonthegrounditsu. Till Zimmerman cheated by pulling a gun. What a dick.

 

[Deleted member 521610]

whatever floats your boat. Travyon was always innocent and god knows it. Maybe ill just block you in the future because its pointless arguing with you about travyon and everything else.

 

[JessFR]

whatever floats your boat. Travyon was always innocent and god knows it. Maybe ill just block you in the future because its pointless arguing with you about travyon and everything else.

Yours apparently taught you to sneak up on a guy and punch him in the face when he's not looking.

But hey different cultures.