Crime is Surging in U.S. Cities

11,936 Views | 393 Replies | Last: 9 hrs ago by calpoly
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

calbear93 said:

Golden One said:

BearNIt said:

BearForce2 said:



Quote:

101 pairs of shoes and a casket are laid out during a vigil to represent the 101 shooting victims in the 74 gun violence incidents that took place over the past week throughout New York City,
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gun-violence-surging-cities-hitting-communities-color-hardest-n1233269
Gun violence is horrible in any community and something should be done inside and outside the communities that are affected by it. Responsible community leaders recognize this and the NRA should recognize this and stop blocking sensible gun laws. Most gun owners recognize this. How many guns does a person need to own?
Unfortunately, criminals don't obey gun laws. I doubt that an outright ban on guns would have stopped any of these 101 shootings.


Liberalism is a mental illness.
And the black community is trending toward favoring gun ownership rights for the original reasons they were adopted...to arm themselves from what they view as oppressive government. Strange how different policies that one thinks neatly fits in one bucket or another sometimes clash.

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/456243-actually-gun-restrictions-will-target-the-black-community

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/26/mass-shootings-some-blacks-reject-gun-control-in-face-of-racism-column/2115325001/

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/26/black-americans-gun-owners-380162
Or maybe Blacks are playing safe and are tired of watching far-right white militias and hate groups arming themselves to the hilt and want to be armed should things like the Tulsa Riots happen again so they can defend themselves and their families so it may not be the government they are afraid of.
You may think they fear the weak-ass white hate groups, but, based on reading those articles, I would suspect the black gun rights groups fear the police and government more. You know, the main reason the Second Amendment was passed.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Where my in laws are In Mississippi everyone has a gun- black or white- all legal. It would be the exception who didn't.

In Chicago, same, but few are likely legal- the motive there is protection and necessary accessories to the drug trade.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

LMK5 said:

Matthew Patel said:

LMK5 said:


Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.
It's so funny how you see things written in the RWNJ rags that all of these so-called independent thinkers read and you know that soon, the same exact tripe you read somewhere else will eventually make it to a RWNJ near you.

Is LMK5 particularly knowledgeable about black men in Milwaukee who get killed? Of course he isn't. He's as unknowledgeable about that as any other number of subjects he speaks on. But he's been told what to believe by his "information" sources and now he has something to be outraged about.

Show me the protests against the carnage in Chicago. Show me the marches showing support for Bernell Trammell. Show me the protests against rising crime in NYC.
Protests most frequently target entities where there is a hope to effect an impact through awareness. In the case of protests against police violence, it should be obvious who the targets are and the protests have been effective. Across the country, numerous cities have adopted or are in the process of adopting new procedures. Louisville banned no-knock warrants in the aftermath of the Breonna Taylor killing.

Bernell Trammell, to my knowledge, was not murdered by a police officer or other agent of the state. If there is evidence that he was, please let us all know and organize protests against that action. If he were murdered by the state, that would be a big deal and definitely worth protest. Protests are not generally effective against random acts of violence because they are neither a deterrent nor retributive. Similarly, "protesting" against the "carnage in Chicago" doesn't make sense. The individuals and groups murdering people in Chicago are not susceptible to protest. How would that even work?

If you think that people are doing nothing to address community violence across the country, I guess I would ask if you've looked into it for even a minute. There are regularly vigils for victims and community groups aiming to combat violence. They may not be the most effective, but to assume that nothing is happening because it isn't a "protest" or because right-wing media isn't covering it, would be a mistake. Protest can be a very effective tool, but it's relative to the target of the protests that it can be measured. For example, for years the right wing outrage machine focused on terrorism yet I don't recall a single protest against terrorism. That's because such a protest would be pointless, if not counter-productive.

I wouldn't think this needs explaining, but since you keep bringing it up, I must assume that Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs have failed to mention it.
Hmmm....Jesse Jackson would disagree with you. Or have you forgotten what he said about Obama when Obama tried to emphasize the importance of family and parenthood in reducing inner city violence in the cities.
How could I have forgotten something I was never aware of? I don't pay attention to Jesse Jackson and don't care what he says.
So you don't think Jesse Jackson has a legitimate voice for the black community? You would rather listen to Beto on racial issues?

Who do you listen to who also blames lack of parenting leading to more crimes in the urban area? Where are these movements to hold parents just as accountable as the federal government and white people for the inner city violence?
You seem to be in a salty mood. Please show me where I've said any of the things you are attributing to me. Further, what does any of this have to do with my statements regarding the appropriateness of protests?

On second thought, just spare us the faux outrage. I think we all know where this is headed and I'm not interested in having a discussion with you about this.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

LMK5 said:

Matthew Patel said:

LMK5 said:


Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.
It's so funny how you see things written in the RWNJ rags that all of these so-called independent thinkers read and you know that soon, the same exact tripe you read somewhere else will eventually make it to a RWNJ near you.

Is LMK5 particularly knowledgeable about black men in Milwaukee who get killed? Of course he isn't. He's as unknowledgeable about that as any other number of subjects he speaks on. But he's been told what to believe by his "information" sources and now he has something to be outraged about.

Show me the protests against the carnage in Chicago. Show me the marches showing support for Bernell Trammell. Show me the protests against rising crime in NYC.
Protests most frequently target entities where there is a hope to effect an impact through awareness. In the case of protests against police violence, it should be obvious who the targets are and the protests have been effective. Across the country, numerous cities have adopted or are in the process of adopting new procedures. Louisville banned no-knock warrants in the aftermath of the Breonna Taylor killing.

Bernell Trammell, to my knowledge, was not murdered by a police officer or other agent of the state. If there is evidence that he was, please let us all know and organize protests against that action. If he were murdered by the state, that would be a big deal and definitely worth protest. Protests are not generally effective against random acts of violence because they are neither a deterrent nor retributive. Similarly, "protesting" against the "carnage in Chicago" doesn't make sense. The individuals and groups murdering people in Chicago are not susceptible to protest. How would that even work?

If you think that people are doing nothing to address community violence across the country, I guess I would ask if you've looked into it for even a minute. There are regularly vigils for victims and community groups aiming to combat violence. They may not be the most effective, but to assume that nothing is happening because it isn't a "protest" or because right-wing media isn't covering it, would be a mistake. Protest can be a very effective tool, but it's relative to the target of the protests that it can be measured. For example, for years the right wing outrage machine focused on terrorism yet I don't recall a single protest against terrorism. That's because such a protest would be pointless, if not counter-productive.

I wouldn't think this needs explaining, but since you keep bringing it up, I must assume that Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs have failed to mention it.
Hmmm....Jesse Jackson would disagree with you. Or have you forgotten what he said about Obama when Obama tried to emphasize the importance of family and parenthood in reducing inner city violence in the cities.
How could I have forgotten something I was never aware of? I don't pay attention to Jesse Jackson and don't care what he says.
So you don't think Jesse Jackson has a legitimate voice for the black community? You would rather listen to Beto on racial issues?

Who do you listen to who also blames lack of parenting leading to more crimes in the urban area? Where are these movements to hold parents just as accountable as the federal government and white people for the inner city violence?
You seem to be in a salty mood. Please show me where I've said any of the things you are attributing to me and what does any of this have to do with my statements regarding the appropriateness of protests?
Unit2Sucks said:

If you think that people are doing nothing to address community violence across the country, I guess I would ask if you've looked into it for even a minute. .... I wouldn't think this needs explaining, but since you keep bringing it up, I must assume that Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs have failed to mention it.

Unit2Sucks said:

How could I have forgotten something I was never aware of? I don't pay attention to Jesse Jackson and don't care what he says.


By the way, I am always a little salty, but you know with most (including you), it is never personal.

And looking at your personal attack edits, you want us to believe my outrage is faux but your outrage is real? Why is that?
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

BearNIt said:

calbear93 said:

Golden One said:

BearNIt said:

BearForce2 said:



Quote:

101 pairs of shoes and a casket are laid out during a vigil to represent the 101 shooting victims in the 74 gun violence incidents that took place over the past week throughout New York City,
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gun-violence-surging-cities-hitting-communities-color-hardest-n1233269
Gun violence is horrible in any community and something should be done inside and outside the communities that are affected by it. Responsible community leaders recognize this and the NRA should recognize this and stop blocking sensible gun laws. Most gun owners recognize this. How many guns does a person need to own?
Unfortunately, criminals don't obey gun laws. I doubt that an outright ban on guns would have stopped any of these 101 shootings.


Liberalism is a mental illness.
And the black community is trending toward favoring gun ownership rights for the original reasons they were adopted...to arm themselves from what they view as oppressive government. Strange how different policies that one thinks neatly fits in one bucket or another sometimes clash.

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/456243-actually-gun-restrictions-will-target-the-black-community

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/26/mass-shootings-some-blacks-reject-gun-control-in-face-of-racism-column/2115325001/

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/26/black-americans-gun-owners-380162
Or maybe Blacks are playing safe and are tired of watching far-right white militias and hate groups arming themselves to the hilt and want to be armed should things like the Tulsa Riots happen again so they can defend themselves and their families so it may not be the government they are afraid of.
You may think they fear the weak-ass white hate groups, but, based on reading those articles, I would suspect the black gun rights groups fear the police and government more. You know, the main reason the Second Amendment was passed.
It's easy to give an answer to a reporter but doesn't give away the actual reason that you might go out a buy a gun during the pandemic. The number of individuals who feel free to pull a gun on a man and his daughter or a woman and her daughter is getting more airplay and that scares people of color to the point that they feel like they need to take advantage of current gun laws so they can protect themselves in today's climate.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

calbear93 said:

BearNIt said:

calbear93 said:

Golden One said:

BearNIt said:

BearForce2 said:



Quote:

101 pairs of shoes and a casket are laid out during a vigil to represent the 101 shooting victims in the 74 gun violence incidents that took place over the past week throughout New York City,
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gun-violence-surging-cities-hitting-communities-color-hardest-n1233269
Gun violence is horrible in any community and something should be done inside and outside the communities that are affected by it. Responsible community leaders recognize this and the NRA should recognize this and stop blocking sensible gun laws. Most gun owners recognize this. How many guns does a person need to own?
Unfortunately, criminals don't obey gun laws. I doubt that an outright ban on guns would have stopped any of these 101 shootings.


Liberalism is a mental illness.
And the black community is trending toward favoring gun ownership rights for the original reasons they were adopted...to arm themselves from what they view as oppressive government. Strange how different policies that one thinks neatly fits in one bucket or another sometimes clash.

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/456243-actually-gun-restrictions-will-target-the-black-community

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/26/mass-shootings-some-blacks-reject-gun-control-in-face-of-racism-column/2115325001/

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/26/black-americans-gun-owners-380162
Or maybe Blacks are playing safe and are tired of watching far-right white militias and hate groups arming themselves to the hilt and want to be armed should things like the Tulsa Riots happen again so they can defend themselves and their families so it may not be the government they are afraid of.
You may think they fear the weak-ass white hate groups, but, based on reading those articles, I would suspect the black gun rights groups fear the police and government more. You know, the main reason the Second Amendment was passed.
It's easy to give an answer to a reporter but doesn't give away the actual reason that you might go out a buy a gun during the pandemic. The number of individual who feel free to pull a gun on a man and his daughter or a woman and her daughter are getting more airplay and that scares people of color to the point that they feel like they need to take advantage of current gun laws so they can protect themselves in today's climate.
Not being one of the black gun rights activist, I would just take them at their word on why they want robust rights to own guns.
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

LMK5 said:

Matthew Patel said:

LMK5 said:


Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.
It's so funny how you see things written in the RWNJ rags that all of these so-called independent thinkers read and you know that soon, the same exact tripe you read somewhere else will eventually make it to a RWNJ near you.

Is LMK5 particularly knowledgeable about black men in Milwaukee who get killed? Of course he isn't. He's as unknowledgeable about that as any other number of subjects he speaks on. But he's been told what to believe by his "information" sources and now he has something to be outraged about.

Show me the protests against the carnage in Chicago. Show me the marches showing support for Bernell Trammell. Show me the protests against rising crime in NYC.
Protests most frequently target entities where there is a hope to effect an impact through awareness. In the case of protests against police violence, it should be obvious who the targets are and the protests have been effective. Across the country, numerous cities have adopted or are in the process of adopting new procedures. Louisville banned no-knock warrants in the aftermath of the Breonna Taylor killing.

Bernell Trammell, to my knowledge, was not murdered by a police officer or other agent of the state. If there is evidence that he was, please let us all know and organize protests against that action. If he were murdered by the state, that would be a big deal and definitely worth protest. Protests are not generally effective against random acts of violence because they are neither a deterrent nor retributive. Similarly, "protesting" against the "carnage in Chicago" doesn't make sense. The individuals and groups murdering people in Chicago are not susceptible to protest. How would that even work?

If you think that people are doing nothing to address community violence across the country, I guess I would ask if you've looked into it for even a minute. There are regularly vigils for victims and community groups aiming to combat violence. They may not be the most effective, but to assume that nothing is happening because it isn't a "protest" or because right-wing media isn't covering it, would be a mistake. Protest can be a very effective tool, but it's relative to the target of the protests that it can be measured. For example, for years the right wing outrage machine focused on terrorism yet I don't recall a single protest against terrorism. That's because such a protest would be pointless, if not counter-productive.

I wouldn't think this needs explaining, but since you keep bringing it up, I must assume that Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs have failed to mention it.
Hmmm....Jesse Jackson would disagree with you. Or have you forgotten what he said about Obama when Obama tried to emphasize the importance of family and parenthood in reducing inner city violence in the cities.
How could I have forgotten something I was never aware of? I don't pay attention to Jesse Jackson and don't care what he says.
So you don't think Jesse Jackson has a legitimate voice for the black community? You would rather listen to Beto on racial issues?

Who do you listen to who also blames lack of parenting leading to more crimes in the urban area? Where are these movements to hold parents just as accountable as the federal government and white people for the inner city violence?
Absolutely. It's the 800 pound gorilla in the room. What are the chances Don Lemon would be employed if he said this today?
You can rename all the buildings you want, but at the end of the day George Berkeley was still a slave owner.
Matthew Patel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:


Absolutely. It's the 800 pound gorilla in the room. What are the chances Don Lemon would be employed if he said this today?

Because I love it whenever credulous boomer rubes like LMK5 mention Don Lemon, I like to remind them of what they are.

Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?

LMK5 said:


The protests got out of hand way before the feds showed up. Take a look at the federal building. Does it look like it was protected? The feds are out there from 12AM-5AM according to the reports. If the Portland mayor and local PD were doing their jobs there wouldn't be a reason for outside help to come in.

I'm sure there are some peaceful protests going on during the day, but let's address what's going on there at night. That's when the trouble starts. Why Portland? Is it considered a soft spot by the thugs? It certainly isn't infamous for anti-black policing. Will these same people ever protest against the daily carnage in Chicago, the great majority of the victims being black? Of course not. Why not? Are you ready to answer why these thugs spend so much time and energy attacking a courthouse in Portland and Oakland, along with the officers defending it instead of protesting against the killing of blacks in Chicago, New York, and other places?

Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.
Right on!! I completely agree. These so-called protesters are really anarchists and domestic terrorists who have no cause other than destruction of our society and all of its institutions. They should be dealty with very harshly.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

LMK5 said:

Matthew Patel said:

LMK5 said:


Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.
It's so funny how you see things written in the RWNJ rags that all of these so-called independent thinkers read and you know that soon, the same exact tripe you read somewhere else will eventually make it to a RWNJ near you.

Is LMK5 particularly knowledgeable about black men in Milwaukee who get killed? Of course he isn't. He's as unknowledgeable about that as any other number of subjects he speaks on. But he's been told what to believe by his "information" sources and now he has something to be outraged about.

Show me the protests against the carnage in Chicago. Show me the marches showing support for Bernell Trammell. Show me the protests against rising crime in NYC.
Protests most frequently target entities where there is a hope to effect an impact through awareness. In the case of protests against police violence, it should be obvious who the targets are and the protests have been effective. Across the country, numerous cities have adopted or are in the process of adopting new procedures. Louisville banned no-knock warrants in the aftermath of the Breonna Taylor killing.

Bernell Trammell, to my knowledge, was not murdered by a police officer or other agent of the state. If there is evidence that he was, please let us all know and organize protests against that action. If he were murdered by the state, that would be a big deal and definitely worth protest. Protests are not generally effective against random acts of violence because they are neither a deterrent nor retributive. Similarly, "protesting" against the "carnage in Chicago" doesn't make sense. The individuals and groups murdering people in Chicago are not susceptible to protest. How would that even work?

If you think that people are doing nothing to address community violence across the country, I guess I would ask if you've looked into it for even a minute. There are regularly vigils for victims and community groups aiming to combat violence. They may not be the most effective, but to assume that nothing is happening because it isn't a "protest" or because right-wing media isn't covering it, would be a mistake. Protest can be a very effective tool, but it's relative to the target of the protests that it can be measured. For example, for years the right wing outrage machine focused on terrorism yet I don't recall a single protest against terrorism. That's because such a protest would be pointless, if not counter-productive.

I wouldn't think this needs explaining, but since you keep bringing it up, I must assume that Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs have failed to mention it.
Hmmm....Jesse Jackson would disagree with you. Or have you forgotten what he said about Obama when Obama tried to emphasize the importance of family and parenthood in reducing inner city violence in the cities.
How could I have forgotten something I was never aware of? I don't pay attention to Jesse Jackson and don't care what he says.
So you don't think Jesse Jackson has a legitimate voice for the black community? You would rather listen to Beto on racial issues?

Who do you listen to who also blames lack of parenting leading to more crimes in the urban area? Where are these movements to hold parents just as accountable as the federal government and white people for the inner city violence?
Absolutely. It's the 800 pound gorilla in the room. What are the chances Don Lemon would be employed if he said this today?

So, for anyone keeping score at home, this exchange began with you requesting protests against things that protests can't really address. I responded by explaining that point and then suggesting that you may not be aware of this because Tucker Carlson hasn't informed you about this. Naturally, you respond by posting an irrelevant video of Tucker Carlson where doesn't address the question of how protests could respond to the death of one individual in Milwaukee by an unknown, but presumably private, killer, or the ongoing community violence in Chicago or NYC. I have to be honest, I didn't make it very far into the Carlson video because it's just typical schtick (mispronounces Don Lemon's name, says that CNN relies on dumb viewers (with no hint of irony), and then proceeds to attack Don Lemon for ... saying things that Tucker agrees with and has nothing to do with protests).

Thanks for proving my point.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kelly09 said:

Golden One said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Golden One said:

BearForce2 said:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/crime-police-violence-protests-summer-coronavirus

Atlanta, Philly, Houston, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle


New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland--all of those cities has a Democrat mayor. It's no coincidence that they currently have crime waves that are out of control. The Democrats are soft on crime and criminals and hate the police. When will the citizens of those cities wise up and stop voting for Democrats? They may be getting lots of free stuff, but they're being killed right and left. The minorities, poor, and homeless in those cities are getting hit particularly hard, which is ironic. The Democrats really don't care about those constituencies; they just want their votes. DeBlasio in NYC is the poster child for totally incompetent Democrat mayors. He should be recalled ASAP.
Liberalilsm is a mental illness.


Please explain why red states are so much more crime ridden than blue states: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/01/13/most-dangerous-states-in-america-violent-crime-murder-rate/40968963/

Highest crime states:
1. Alaska
2. New Mexico
3. Tennessee
4. Arkansas
5. Nevada
6. Louisiana
7. Alabama
8. Missouri
9. South Carolina
10. Arizona
11. Maryland
12. Oklahoma

Or maybe crime isn't a function of politics but something else? Nah, couldn't be that.
Well, let me point out that the current governors of New Mexico, Nevada, and Louisiana are Democrats. So out of the top 5 states on your list, 3 of them have Democrat governors. The 6 U.S. cities with the highest murder rate, are also run by Democrat mayors. Those cities, in order, are:
East St. Louis, MO
Chester, PA
St. Louis. MO
Gary, IN
Baltimore, MD
Pine Bluff, AK

Of further interest is the fact that the 20 U.S. cities with the highest violent crime rate are ALL run by Democrat mayors, according to the website Neighborhood Scout. In order, those cities are:
Detroit, MI
Memphis, Tenn
Birmingham, AL
Baltimore MD
Flint, MI
St. Louis, MO
Danville, ILL
Saginaw, MI
Wilmington, DEL
Camden, MJ
Pine Bluff, AK
Kansas City, MO
San Bernardino, CA
Alelxandria, LA
Little Rock, AK
Cleveland, OH
Milwaukee, WI
Stockton, CA
Monroe, LlA
Chester, PA

Now, do you really think it's a coincidence that the 20 cities with the highest violent crime rate, the 6 cities with the highest murder rate, and 3 of the top 5 highest crime states on your list are all run by Democrats? I don't see how any reasonable person could conclude anything but that Democrats are soft on crime and criminals. Recent evidence in NYC, Chicago, Seattle, Atlanta, Washington D.C. and Portland also point to that fact.


Liberalism is a mental illness.



Lest we forget all the cities with homeless drug addicts who piss and **** on city streets.
99% of the outrage from you and BearForce2 about piss and **** on city streets has been about San Francisco. Surprise! San Francisco isn't on the lists you've quoted above.
“the dumbest poster on BI.”
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

Matthew Patel said:

LMK5 said:


Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.
It's so funny how you see things written in the RWNJ rags that all of these so-called independent thinkers read and you know that soon, the same exact tripe you read somewhere else will eventually make it to a RWNJ near you.

Is LMK5 particularly knowledgeable about black men in Milwaukee who get killed? Of course he isn't. He's as unknowledgeable about that as any other number of subjects he speaks on. But he's been told what to believe by his "information" sources and now he has something to be outraged about.

Show me the protests against the carnage in Chicago. Show me the marches showing support for Bernell Trammell. Show me the protests against rising crime in NYC.
Maybe conservative groups should try organizing those. If their positions are popular enough they should have no trouble attracting crowds.
Well, people like LMK5 are not pretending to be the white savior for the minorities. And whether something is popular (relatively) does not mean it is worthwhile. The protesters who are still protesting to this day two months after the incident are not adding incremental value, especially in the middle of a pandemic.
Okay, but so what? LMK5 was not making an argument against the efficacy of the protests there, in fact his point entirely rests upon the idea that protests ARE effective and WHY don't these liberals protest these things that conservatives care about? Only why would they? Can't people who care about those issues also organize their own demonstrations? What's stopping them?

(This leaving aside Unit2's entirely logical point that protests against police violence are protests against the government and actions taken in its name, while street violence by private citizens is not something that can be protested in the same fashion.)

Or is this exchange really just about trying to catch liberals being hypocritical and not actually about solving social issues?
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

LMK5 said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

LMK5 said:

Matthew Patel said:

LMK5 said:


Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.
It's so funny how you see things written in the RWNJ rags that all of these so-called independent thinkers read and you know that soon, the same exact tripe you read somewhere else will eventually make it to a RWNJ near you.

Is LMK5 particularly knowledgeable about black men in Milwaukee who get killed? Of course he isn't. He's as unknowledgeable about that as any other number of subjects he speaks on. But he's been told what to believe by his "information" sources and now he has something to be outraged about.

Show me the protests against the carnage in Chicago. Show me the marches showing support for Bernell Trammell. Show me the protests against rising crime in NYC.
Protests most frequently target entities where there is a hope to effect an impact through awareness. In the case of protests against police violence, it should be obvious who the targets are and the protests have been effective. Across the country, numerous cities have adopted or are in the process of adopting new procedures. Louisville banned no-knock warrants in the aftermath of the Breonna Taylor killing.

Bernell Trammell, to my knowledge, was not murdered by a police officer or other agent of the state. If there is evidence that he was, please let us all know and organize protests against that action. If he were murdered by the state, that would be a big deal and definitely worth protest. Protests are not generally effective against random acts of violence because they are neither a deterrent nor retributive. Similarly, "protesting" against the "carnage in Chicago" doesn't make sense. The individuals and groups murdering people in Chicago are not susceptible to protest. How would that even work?

If you think that people are doing nothing to address community violence across the country, I guess I would ask if you've looked into it for even a minute. There are regularly vigils for victims and community groups aiming to combat violence. They may not be the most effective, but to assume that nothing is happening because it isn't a "protest" or because right-wing media isn't covering it, would be a mistake. Protest can be a very effective tool, but it's relative to the target of the protests that it can be measured. For example, for years the right wing outrage machine focused on terrorism yet I don't recall a single protest against terrorism. That's because such a protest would be pointless, if not counter-productive.

I wouldn't think this needs explaining, but since you keep bringing it up, I must assume that Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs have failed to mention it.
Hmmm....Jesse Jackson would disagree with you. Or have you forgotten what he said about Obama when Obama tried to emphasize the importance of family and parenthood in reducing inner city violence in the cities.
How could I have forgotten something I was never aware of? I don't pay attention to Jesse Jackson and don't care what he says.
So you don't think Jesse Jackson has a legitimate voice for the black community? You would rather listen to Beto on racial issues?

Who do you listen to who also blames lack of parenting leading to more crimes in the urban area? Where are these movements to hold parents just as accountable as the federal government and white people for the inner city violence?
Absolutely. It's the 800 pound gorilla in the room. What are the chances Don Lemon would be employed if he said this today?

So, for anyone keeping score at home, this exchange began with you requesting protests against things that protests can't really address. I responded by explaining that point and then suggesting that you may not be aware of this because Tucker Carlson hasn't informed you about this. Naturally, you respond by posting an irrelevant video of Tucker Carlson where doesn't address the question of how protests could respond to the death of one individual in Milwaukee by an unknown, but presumably private, killer, or the ongoing community violence in Chicago or NYC. I have to be honest, I didn't make it very far into the Carlson video because it's just typical schtick (mispronounces Don Lemon's name, says that CNN relies on dumb viewers (with no hint of irony), and then proceeds to attack Don Lemon for ... saying things that Tucker agrees with and has nothing to do with protests).

Thanks for proving my point.
It's hard to get you focused but I'm trying. Are you afraid to answer the question?: Would Don Lemon (or anyone else) have a job if he said the same things today?
You can rename all the buildings you want, but at the end of the day George Berkeley was still a slave owner.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

Matthew Patel said:

LMK5 said:


Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.
It's so funny how you see things written in the RWNJ rags that all of these so-called independent thinkers read and you know that soon, the same exact tripe you read somewhere else will eventually make it to a RWNJ near you.

Is LMK5 particularly knowledgeable about black men in Milwaukee who get killed? Of course he isn't. He's as unknowledgeable about that as any other number of subjects he speaks on. But he's been told what to believe by his "information" sources and now he has something to be outraged about.

Show me the protests against the carnage in Chicago. Show me the marches showing support for Bernell Trammell. Show me the protests against rising crime in NYC.
Maybe conservative groups should try organizing those. If their positions are popular enough they should have no trouble attracting crowds.
Well, people like LMK5 are not pretending to be the white savior for the minorities. And whether something is popular (relatively) does not mean it is worthwhile. The protesters who are still protesting to this day two months after the incident are not adding incremental value, especially in the middle of a pandemic.
Okay, but so what? LMK5 was not making an argument against the efficacy of the protests there, in fact his point entirely rests upon the idea that protests ARE effective and WHY don't these liberals protest these things that conservatives care about? Only why would they? Can't people who care about those issues also organize their own demonstrations? What's stopping them?

(This leaving aside Unit2's entirely logical point that protests against police violence are protests against the government and actions taken in its name, while street violence by private citizens is not something that can be protested in the same fashion.)

Or is this exchange really just about trying to catch liberals being hypocritical and not actually about solving social issues?
For me, it was just the sheer stupidity of white woke crowd still vandalizing buildings two months after George Floyd, thinking that there are still people who have not made up their mind and will be influenced by another burning of buildings. I don't even view them as protesters like I did with those who understandably rose up in anger demanding change soon after George Floyd. These hooligans don't really care about George Floyd or inner city violence. They just want to burn **** up under the pretense of social justice.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

Matthew Patel said:

LMK5 said:


Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.
It's so funny how you see things written in the RWNJ rags that all of these so-called independent thinkers read and you know that soon, the same exact tripe you read somewhere else will eventually make it to a RWNJ near you.

Is LMK5 particularly knowledgeable about black men in Milwaukee who get killed? Of course he isn't. He's as unknowledgeable about that as any other number of subjects he speaks on. But he's been told what to believe by his "information" sources and now he has something to be outraged about.

Show me the protests against the carnage in Chicago. Show me the marches showing support for Bernell Trammell. Show me the protests against rising crime in NYC.
Maybe conservative groups should try organizing those. If their positions are popular enough they should have no trouble attracting crowds.
Well, people like LMK5 are not pretending to be the white savior for the minorities. And whether something is popular (relatively) does not mean it is worthwhile. The protesters who are still protesting to this day two months after the incident are not adding incremental value, especially in the middle of a pandemic.
Okay, but so what? LMK5 was not making an argument against the efficacy of the protests there, in fact his point entirely rests upon the idea that protests ARE effective and WHY don't these liberals protest these things that conservatives care about? Only why would they? Can't people who care about those issues also organize their own demonstrations? What's stopping them?

(This leaving aside Unit2's entirely logical point that protests against police violence are protests against the government and actions taken in its name, while street violence by private citizens is not something that can be protested in the same fashion.)

Or is this exchange really just about trying to catch liberals being hypocritical and not actually about solving social issues?
For me, it was just the sheer stupidity of white woke crowd still vandalizing buildings two months after George Floyd, thinking that there are still people who have not made up their mind and will be influenced by another burning of buildings. I don't even view them as protesters like I did with those who understandably rose up in anger demanding change soon after George Floyd. These hooligans don't really care about George Floyd or inner city violence. They just want to burn **** up under the pretense of social justice.
Again: there are people who legitimately want to protest for the cause and there are those who want to wreck stuff. IMO the latter group is much smaller but gets much more outsized coverage.

However, my expectation is that the latter group will also fall away naturally if there is no more instigation from authorities. Early results from Portland after the feds left are encouraging.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

LMK5 said:

Matthew Patel said:

LMK5 said:


Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.
It's so funny how you see things written in the RWNJ rags that all of these so-called independent thinkers read and you know that soon, the same exact tripe you read somewhere else will eventually make it to a RWNJ near you.

Is LMK5 particularly knowledgeable about black men in Milwaukee who get killed? Of course he isn't. He's as unknowledgeable about that as any other number of subjects he speaks on. But he's been told what to believe by his "information" sources and now he has something to be outraged about.

Show me the protests against the carnage in Chicago. Show me the marches showing support for Bernell Trammell. Show me the protests against rising crime in NYC.
Protests most frequently target entities where there is a hope to effect an impact through awareness. In the case of protests against police violence, it should be obvious who the targets are and the protests have been effective. Across the country, numerous cities have adopted or are in the process of adopting new procedures. Louisville banned no-knock warrants in the aftermath of the Breonna Taylor killing.

Bernell Trammell, to my knowledge, was not murdered by a police officer or other agent of the state. If there is evidence that he was, please let us all know and organize protests against that action. If he were murdered by the state, that would be a big deal and definitely worth protest. Protests are not generally effective against random acts of violence because they are neither a deterrent nor retributive. Similarly, "protesting" against the "carnage in Chicago" doesn't make sense. The individuals and groups murdering people in Chicago are not susceptible to protest. How would that even work?

If you think that people are doing nothing to address community violence across the country, I guess I would ask if you've looked into it for even a minute. There are regularly vigils for victims and community groups aiming to combat violence. They may not be the most effective, but to assume that nothing is happening because it isn't a "protest" or because right-wing media isn't covering it, would be a mistake. Protest can be a very effective tool, but it's relative to the target of the protests that it can be measured. For example, for years the right wing outrage machine focused on terrorism yet I don't recall a single protest against terrorism. That's because such a protest would be pointless, if not counter-productive.

I wouldn't think this needs explaining, but since you keep bringing it up, I must assume that Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs have failed to mention it.
Hmmm....Jesse Jackson would disagree with you. Or have you forgotten what he said about Obama when Obama tried to emphasize the importance of family and parenthood in reducing inner city violence in the cities.
How could I have forgotten something I was never aware of? I don't pay attention to Jesse Jackson and don't care what he says.
So you don't think Jesse Jackson has a legitimate voice for the black community? You would rather listen to Beto on racial issues?

Who do you listen to who also blames lack of parenting leading to more crimes in the urban area? Where are these movements to hold parents just as accountable as the federal government and white people for the inner city violence?
Absolutely. It's the 800 pound gorilla in the room. What are the chances Don Lemon would be employed if he said this today?



It doesn't seem as if Don Lemon has the freedom to discuss what he wants at CNN. It's orange man bad and TDS 24/7.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interesting conversation
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

Matthew Patel said:

LMK5 said:


Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.
It's so funny how you see things written in the RWNJ rags that all of these so-called independent thinkers read and you know that soon, the same exact tripe you read somewhere else will eventually make it to a RWNJ near you.

Is LMK5 particularly knowledgeable about black men in Milwaukee who get killed? Of course he isn't. He's as unknowledgeable about that as any other number of subjects he speaks on. But he's been told what to believe by his "information" sources and now he has something to be outraged about.

Show me the protests against the carnage in Chicago. Show me the marches showing support for Bernell Trammell. Show me the protests against rising crime in NYC.
Maybe conservative groups should try organizing those. If their positions are popular enough they should have no trouble attracting crowds.
Well, people like LMK5 are not pretending to be the white savior for the minorities. And whether something is popular (relatively) does not mean it is worthwhile. The protesters who are still protesting to this day two months after the incident are not adding incremental value, especially in the middle of a pandemic.
Okay, but so what? LMK5 was not making an argument against the efficacy of the protests there, in fact his point entirely rests upon the idea that protests ARE effective and WHY don't these liberals protest these things that conservatives care about? Only why would they? Can't people who care about those issues also organize their own demonstrations? What's stopping them?

(This leaving aside Unit2's entirely logical point that protests against police violence are protests against the government and actions taken in its name, while street violence by private citizens is not something that can be protested in the same fashion.)

Or is this exchange really just about trying to catch liberals being hypocritical and not actually about solving social issues?
Are you serious? Are you saying that, for instance, a protest by the citizens of Chicago against their government's inaction or unwillingness to take extraordinary steps to stop the killing is not a liberal stance and is not a viable protest? You mean you can only protest actions taken by the police but you can't protest their inaction? This is only a conservative's concern? Man is that lame or what?
You can rename all the buildings you want, but at the end of the day George Berkeley was still a slave owner.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

Matthew Patel said:

LMK5 said:


Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.
It's so funny how you see things written in the RWNJ rags that all of these so-called independent thinkers read and you know that soon, the same exact tripe you read somewhere else will eventually make it to a RWNJ near you.

Is LMK5 particularly knowledgeable about black men in Milwaukee who get killed? Of course he isn't. He's as unknowledgeable about that as any other number of subjects he speaks on. But he's been told what to believe by his "information" sources and now he has something to be outraged about.

Show me the protests against the carnage in Chicago. Show me the marches showing support for Bernell Trammell. Show me the protests against rising crime in NYC.
Maybe conservative groups should try organizing those. If their positions are popular enough they should have no trouble attracting crowds.
Well, people like LMK5 are not pretending to be the white savior for the minorities. And whether something is popular (relatively) does not mean it is worthwhile. The protesters who are still protesting to this day two months after the incident are not adding incremental value, especially in the middle of a pandemic.
Okay, but so what? LMK5 was not making an argument against the efficacy of the protests there, in fact his point entirely rests upon the idea that protests ARE effective and WHY don't these liberals protest these things that conservatives care about? Only why would they? Can't people who care about those issues also organize their own demonstrations? What's stopping them?

(This leaving aside Unit2's entirely logical point that protests against police violence are protests against the government and actions taken in its name, while street violence by private citizens is not something that can be protested in the same fashion.)

Or is this exchange really just about trying to catch liberals being hypocritical and not actually about solving social issues?
For me, it was just the sheer stupidity of white woke crowd still vandalizing buildings two months after George Floyd, thinking that there are still people who have not made up their mind and will be influenced by another burning of buildings. I don't even view them as protesters like I did with those who understandably rose up in anger demanding change soon after George Floyd. These hooligans don't really care about George Floyd or inner city violence. They just want to burn **** up under the pretense of social justice.
Again: there are people who legitimately want to protest for the cause and there are those who want to wreck stuff. IMO the latter group is much smaller but gets much more outsized coverage.

However, my expectation is that the latter group will also fall away naturally if there is no more instigation from authorities. Early results from Portland after the feds left are encouraging.
I don't see a lot of legitimate protesting late in July.

I would have thought that the rioters would die down but there were still vandalizing two months after the surge in protests. The protests died down before the federal police came, but not the rioting an vandalism. And they are mostly white. And they are throwing things at cops (even before federal police came and made it worse). and burning buildings. We should throw our hands up in the air and say, maybe if we give them 3 more months to burn our stuff down, they will just go away?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

BearNIt said:

LMK5 said:

BearNIt said:

BearForce2 said:

BearNIt said:

BearForce2 said:

BearNIt said:

Golden One said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:


" The leadership of the Democrat party have been eerily silent." Except when it is not silent:

Biden: violent protesters should be 'arrested and tried'


https://nypost.com/2020/07/28/biden-violent-protesters-should-be-arrested-and-tried/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/07/28/biden-violent-protesters-should-be-arrested-and-tried/amp/

LOL. Rarely has reality so quickly clashed with the right-wing narrative.
How about Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, Harris, and the Congresspersons and Senators from Washington, Oregon, etc. Biden finally came around today, about 2 months late. But I guess prior to today he wasn't aware of all the violence perpetrated by "protesters" in Portland and Seattle, etc. Apparently his basement has no TV. The truth is the truth, whether it is being stated by conservatives or others.


Liberalism is a mental illness.
This is why you need to be careful in characterizing all protestors as violent. Apparently not all protestors are alike and some even belong to white supremacist prison gangs which are seeking to take advantage of the situation during these protest.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/minneapolis-police-identify-umbrella-man-who-helped-incite-george-floyd-riots-warrant-says/ar-BB17iOvO

Right, not all protesters are alike, some prefer to hang out and watch others be violent while they bask in their self-proclaimed innocence. Merry band of idiots all of them at this point.
The 1st amendment says that peaceful protestors have a right to protest. Think of them as American colonists in 2020 only less violent. I'm sure the Crown said the same thing about those violent thuglike protestors when they took up arms against the British. I wonder what people called the civil rights protestors who wanted equal treatment under the law and an end top Jim Crow, did they call them violent, thuglike, or worse?
Peaceful Portland Patriots? That is some twisted thinking. They should all just stay home and reflect on how they are part of a systemic racist country according to their own ideology.
More of these white supremacists who planned to infiltrated peaceful protest in an effort to incite violence only this time this one was charged in a separate case with one count of sexual exploitation of children after investigators allegedly found 10 images of child pornography on his cell phone. On top of that, there are a separate 23 counts which involve a stepdaughter. What a piece of shyte.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/alleged-boogaloo-extremist-hit-with-new-child-exploitation-charge-following-arrest-at-las-vegas-protests/ar-BB17nGVr


When I see the videos of the nightly riots in Portland, I don't see any pillars of society.
Maybe you're not looking hard enough? You didn't see the Moms, Dads with leaf blowers, the veterans, peaceful protestors, the Mayor, or others who were there for a peaceful protest? Look harder, they are right there in front of you. They've done what others are afraid of, they have stood up to the unnamed and unidentifiable federal agents who were put there by Captain Catastrophe and his Merry Band of Idiots. Again not all protestors were there to cause damage some were there to express their 1st Amendment rights.


They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.


Somebody check the time on this tweet
An old white dude
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

Matthew Patel said:

LMK5 said:


Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.
It's so funny how you see things written in the RWNJ rags that all of these so-called independent thinkers read and you know that soon, the same exact tripe you read somewhere else will eventually make it to a RWNJ near you.

Is LMK5 particularly knowledgeable about black men in Milwaukee who get killed? Of course he isn't. He's as unknowledgeable about that as any other number of subjects he speaks on. But he's been told what to believe by his "information" sources and now he has something to be outraged about.

Show me the protests against the carnage in Chicago. Show me the marches showing support for Bernell Trammell. Show me the protests against rising crime in NYC.
Maybe conservative groups should try organizing those. If their positions are popular enough they should have no trouble attracting crowds.
Well, people like LMK5 are not pretending to be the white savior for the minorities. And whether something is popular (relatively) does not mean it is worthwhile. The protesters who are still protesting to this day two months after the incident are not adding incremental value, especially in the middle of a pandemic.
Okay, but so what? LMK5 was not making an argument against the efficacy of the protests there, in fact his point entirely rests upon the idea that protests ARE effective and WHY don't these liberals protest these things that conservatives care about? Only why would they? Can't people who care about those issues also organize their own demonstrations? What's stopping them?

(This leaving aside Unit2's entirely logical point that protests against police violence are protests against the government and actions taken in its name, while street violence by private citizens is not something that can be protested in the same fashion.)

Or is this exchange really just about trying to catch liberals being hypocritical and not actually about solving social issues?
Are you serious? Are you saying that, for instance, a protest by the citizens of Chicago against their government's inaction or unwillingness to take extraordinary steps to stop the killing is not a liberal stance and is not a viable protest? You mean you can only protest actions taken by the police but you can't protest their inaction? This is only a conservative's concern? Man is that lame or what?
Again, if your stance here is so strong you should easily be able to argue it to people in those cities and convince them to come out in force to protest police inaction.

Or maybe the people who live there don't believe harsher policing will solve the problem.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

Matthew Patel said:

LMK5 said:


Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.
It's so funny how you see things written in the RWNJ rags that all of these so-called independent thinkers read and you know that soon, the same exact tripe you read somewhere else will eventually make it to a RWNJ near you.

Is LMK5 particularly knowledgeable about black men in Milwaukee who get killed? Of course he isn't. He's as unknowledgeable about that as any other number of subjects he speaks on. But he's been told what to believe by his "information" sources and now he has something to be outraged about.

Show me the protests against the carnage in Chicago. Show me the marches showing support for Bernell Trammell. Show me the protests against rising crime in NYC.
Maybe conservative groups should try organizing those. If their positions are popular enough they should have no trouble attracting crowds.
Well, people like LMK5 are not pretending to be the white savior for the minorities. And whether something is popular (relatively) does not mean it is worthwhile. The protesters who are still protesting to this day two months after the incident are not adding incremental value, especially in the middle of a pandemic.
Okay, but so what? LMK5 was not making an argument against the efficacy of the protests there, in fact his point entirely rests upon the idea that protests ARE effective and WHY don't these liberals protest these things that conservatives care about? Only why would they? Can't people who care about those issues also organize their own demonstrations? What's stopping them?

(This leaving aside Unit2's entirely logical point that protests against police violence are protests against the government and actions taken in its name, while street violence by private citizens is not something that can be protested in the same fashion.)

Or is this exchange really just about trying to catch liberals being hypocritical and not actually about solving social issues?
For me, it was just the sheer stupidity of white woke crowd still vandalizing buildings two months after George Floyd, thinking that there are still people who have not made up their mind and will be influenced by another burning of buildings. I don't even view them as protesters like I did with those who understandably rose up in anger demanding change soon after George Floyd. These hooligans don't really care about George Floyd or inner city violence. They just want to burn **** up under the pretense of social justice.
Again: there are people who legitimately want to protest for the cause and there are those who want to wreck stuff. IMO the latter group is much smaller but gets much more outsized coverage.

However, my expectation is that the latter group will also fall away naturally if there is no more instigation from authorities. Early results from Portland after the feds left are encouraging.
I don't see a lot of legitimate protesting late in July.
So what would be "legitimate protesting" to you? Do you think every individual that attends these protests is burning things? If they aren't doing that then they are engaging in legitimate protest. You might not agree with their cause, but it's perfectly legal to do so.

I get the sense from you guys that you think our cities are literally burning down right now. They're not. These are largely isolated events that don't affect most of the population.
LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

Matthew Patel said:

LMK5 said:


Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.
It's so funny how you see things written in the RWNJ rags that all of these so-called independent thinkers read and you know that soon, the same exact tripe you read somewhere else will eventually make it to a RWNJ near you.

Is LMK5 particularly knowledgeable about black men in Milwaukee who get killed? Of course he isn't. He's as unknowledgeable about that as any other number of subjects he speaks on. But he's been told what to believe by his "information" sources and now he has something to be outraged about.

Show me the protests against the carnage in Chicago. Show me the marches showing support for Bernell Trammell. Show me the protests against rising crime in NYC.
Maybe conservative groups should try organizing those. If their positions are popular enough they should have no trouble attracting crowds.
Well, people like LMK5 are not pretending to be the white savior for the minorities. And whether something is popular (relatively) does not mean it is worthwhile. The protesters who are still protesting to this day two months after the incident are not adding incremental value, especially in the middle of a pandemic.
Okay, but so what? LMK5 was not making an argument against the efficacy of the protests there, in fact his point entirely rests upon the idea that protests ARE effective and WHY don't these liberals protest these things that conservatives care about? Only why would they? Can't people who care about those issues also organize their own demonstrations? What's stopping them?

(This leaving aside Unit2's entirely logical point that protests against police violence are protests against the government and actions taken in its name, while street violence by private citizens is not something that can be protested in the same fashion.)

Or is this exchange really just about trying to catch liberals being hypocritical and not actually about solving social issues?
For me, it was just the sheer stupidity of white woke crowd still vandalizing buildings two months after George Floyd, thinking that there are still people who have not made up their mind and will be influenced by another burning of buildings. I don't even view them as protesters like I did with those who understandably rose up in anger demanding change soon after George Floyd. These hooligans don't really care about George Floyd or inner city violence. They just want to burn **** up under the pretense of social justice.
Again: there are people who legitimately want to protest for the cause and there are those who want to wreck stuff. IMO the latter group is much smaller but gets much more outsized coverage.

However, my expectation is that the latter group will also fall away naturally if there is no more instigation from authorities. Early results from Portland after the feds left are encouraging.
I don't see a lot of legitimate protesting late in July.
So what would be "legitimate protesting" to you? Do you think every individual that attends these protests is burning things? If they aren't doing that then they are engaging in legitimate protest. You might not agree with their cause, but it's perfectly legal to do so.

I get the sense from you guys that you think our cities are literally burning down right now. They're not. These are largely isolated events that don't affect most of the population.
From your perch they sure are, but not if you're affected. These kinds of things can have long-lasting effects on urban downtowns: https://katu.com/news/on-your-side/downtown-portland-business-owners-feel-negative-impacts-of-continued-nightly-protests

https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/seattle-protests-capitol-hill-businesses-damaged/281-e8ee0dec-54dd-4e4d-a609-0388d656c33d

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/12-officers-injured-businesses-precincts-damaged-during-protest-seattle/BGPRGI37RJFNFECJBOHQEL6ZIE/
You can rename all the buildings you want, but at the end of the day George Berkeley was still a slave owner.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

Matthew Patel said:

LMK5 said:


Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.
It's so funny how you see things written in the RWNJ rags that all of these so-called independent thinkers read and you know that soon, the same exact tripe you read somewhere else will eventually make it to a RWNJ near you.

Is LMK5 particularly knowledgeable about black men in Milwaukee who get killed? Of course he isn't. He's as unknowledgeable about that as any other number of subjects he speaks on. But he's been told what to believe by his "information" sources and now he has something to be outraged about.

Show me the protests against the carnage in Chicago. Show me the marches showing support for Bernell Trammell. Show me the protests against rising crime in NYC.
Maybe conservative groups should try organizing those. If their positions are popular enough they should have no trouble attracting crowds.
Well, people like LMK5 are not pretending to be the white savior for the minorities. And whether something is popular (relatively) does not mean it is worthwhile. The protesters who are still protesting to this day two months after the incident are not adding incremental value, especially in the middle of a pandemic.
Okay, but so what? LMK5 was not making an argument against the efficacy of the protests there, in fact his point entirely rests upon the idea that protests ARE effective and WHY don't these liberals protest these things that conservatives care about? Only why would they? Can't people who care about those issues also organize their own demonstrations? What's stopping them?

(This leaving aside Unit2's entirely logical point that protests against police violence are protests against the government and actions taken in its name, while street violence by private citizens is not something that can be protested in the same fashion.)

Or is this exchange really just about trying to catch liberals being hypocritical and not actually about solving social issues?
For me, it was just the sheer stupidity of white woke crowd still vandalizing buildings two months after George Floyd, thinking that there are still people who have not made up their mind and will be influenced by another burning of buildings. I don't even view them as protesters like I did with those who understandably rose up in anger demanding change soon after George Floyd. These hooligans don't really care about George Floyd or inner city violence. They just want to burn **** up under the pretense of social justice.
Again: there are people who legitimately want to protest for the cause and there are those who want to wreck stuff. IMO the latter group is much smaller but gets much more outsized coverage.

However, my expectation is that the latter group will also fall away naturally if there is no more instigation from authorities. Early results from Portland after the feds left are encouraging.
I don't see a lot of legitimate protesting late in July.
So what would be "legitimate protesting" to you? Do you think every individual that attends these protests is burning things? If they aren't doing that then they are engaging in legitimate protest. You might not agree with their cause, but it's perfectly legal to do so.

I get the sense from you guys that you think our cities are literally burning down right now. They're not. These are largely isolated events that don't affect most of the population.
You and I either have different tolerance for harm brought to others by these vandals or we are living in a different world. What is going on in Seattle and Portland are not protesters who are trying to raise awareness. Who, after two months, are not aware? What is the purpose? What would cause you to be concerned for the people living in Seattle and Portland or the business owners? Actual burning of every building? How about those buildings and stores they are actually burning down and defacing? What percentage is acceptable to you? And how do you explain to the residents and store owners that this is just the price of getting the message out to people who have been in a coma for the last two months and have not heard about the cause? This is where you and I part ways on what we accept as just legitimate protest versus mayhem by criminals.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I thought the thread title made it appropriate to post this here:

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
JeffBear07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It doesn't seem difficult to realize that it isn't because mayors and the police don't care about the property damage during large-scale protests but rather that they have generally determined that it's largely impractical to go in and accurately identify all the individual bad actors without further inflaming the large crowds of people who already - justifiably in many cases - distrust the police to begin with. And frankly, given what we've seen from all the "bad apples" across the country, if that protocol were to be changed, we could fully expect many police to abuse their power by aggressively going after anyone who even looks at them askance under the guise of "rioting." If you adhere to that expectation, then the "right" thing to do becomes a lot less clear and looks more like a Sophie's choice: allow looting and some burning buildings, or enable dozens of people at a minimum to face wrongful arrest or police brutality. And if that expectation holds as it does with me, it should then also hold that it's actually the police and the reputation they've earned for themselves through their actions over the years that unfortunately provides a valid justification for determining that looting and some burning buildings are "preferable" to having police come down with a heavy hand on large numbers of people peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights.

Having said that, I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the practicality of specific policing tactics and protocols but I'll throw this out there anyway. I myself would actually have no problem with police immediately swarming in and taking down anyone they see committing even a minor act of vandalism or looting during anyone of these protests, provided that they have their body cams turned on so that the available evidence of those acts is clear and immediate. This of course would be fully contingent upon there being a very specific outline of what entails clear and immediate acts with corresponding penalties for police who still abuse that authority. And as I write this out, it feels naive even to me to think that police would be any more transparent with that body cam footage than they already are with any other situation. But one could hope that even the police unions would see this as mutually beneficial to them as well?

Additionally, I would be fine with a law that provides for a sort of "large-scale gathering enhancement," not unlike current hate crime enhancements, that imposes greater penalties on people who are committing acts of looting and vandalism under cover of the large crowds inherent in such protests. As it stands, without actually checking any specific municipal codes that may already have such enhancements in place, it seems that even for those people who are actually justifiably arrested for acts of vandalism and looting, their corresponding punishment ends up being not much worse if at all than a random person caught spraying graffiti on a building in broad daylight - that is to say, a slap on the wrist in the form of a fine or community service. There's really just no disincentive right now for actual bad actors to not break stuff and steal because of the high likelihood of getting away with it or, even if caught, seeing nothing more than the aforementioned slap on the wrist.
JeffBear07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

Matthew Patel said:

LMK5 said:


Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.
It's so funny how you see things written in the RWNJ rags that all of these so-called independent thinkers read and you know that soon, the same exact tripe you read somewhere else will eventually make it to a RWNJ near you.

Is LMK5 particularly knowledgeable about black men in Milwaukee who get killed? Of course he isn't. He's as unknowledgeable about that as any other number of subjects he speaks on. But he's been told what to believe by his "information" sources and now he has something to be outraged about.

Show me the protests against the carnage in Chicago. Show me the marches showing support for Bernell Trammell. Show me the protests against rising crime in NYC.
Maybe conservative groups should try organizing those. If their positions are popular enough they should have no trouble attracting crowds.
Well, people like LMK5 are not pretending to be the white savior for the minorities. And whether something is popular (relatively) does not mean it is worthwhile. The protesters who are still protesting to this day two months after the incident are not adding incremental value, especially in the middle of a pandemic.
Okay, but so what? LMK5 was not making an argument against the efficacy of the protests there, in fact his point entirely rests upon the idea that protests ARE effective and WHY don't these liberals protest these things that conservatives care about? Only why would they? Can't people who care about those issues also organize their own demonstrations? What's stopping them?

(This leaving aside Unit2's entirely logical point that protests against police violence are protests against the government and actions taken in its name, while street violence by private citizens is not something that can be protested in the same fashion.)

Or is this exchange really just about trying to catch liberals being hypocritical and not actually about solving social issues?
For me, it was just the sheer stupidity of white woke crowd still vandalizing buildings two months after George Floyd, thinking that there are still people who have not made up their mind and will be influenced by another burning of buildings. I don't even view them as protesters like I did with those who understandably rose up in anger demanding change soon after George Floyd. These hooligans don't really care about George Floyd or inner city violence. They just want to burn **** up under the pretense of social justice.
Again: there are people who legitimately want to protest for the cause and there are those who want to wreck stuff. IMO the latter group is much smaller but gets much more outsized coverage.

However, my expectation is that the latter group will also fall away naturally if there is no more instigation from authorities. Early results from Portland after the feds left are encouraging.
I don't see a lot of legitimate protesting late in July.
So what would be "legitimate protesting" to you? Do you think every individual that attends these protests is burning things? If they aren't doing that then they are engaging in legitimate protest. You might not agree with their cause, but it's perfectly legal to do so.

I get the sense from you guys that you think our cities are literally burning down right now. They're not. These are largely isolated events that don't affect most of the population.
You and I either have different tolerance for harm brought to others by these vandals or we are living in a different world. What is going on in Seattle and Portland are not protesters who are trying to raise awareness. Who, after two months, are not aware? What is the purpose? What would cause you to be concerned for the people living in Seattle and Portland or the business owners? Actual burning of every building? How about those buildings and stores they are actually burning down and defacing? What percentage is acceptable to you? And how do you explain to the residents and store owners that this is just the price of getting the message out to people who have been in a coma for the last two months and have not heard about the cause? This is where you and I part ways on what we accept as just legitimate protest versus mayhem by criminals.
I see an interesting analogue here (to me anyway) between the highlighted viewpoint you're espousing and how GOP politics on the state and national levels have gone over the past 2+ decades (and yes, I'm only framing this back to the 90's because that's the earliest I could reasonably be expected to have any understanding of politics at all). Granted, this is going to be an over-generalization because I'm sure there are multiple individual examples of poor Democratic governance leading to valid calls for a change of leadership, but I still think the following thesis holds on a broad level.

Long story short:
1) GOP in power: policies and behaviors that have deleterious effects on domestic economics and society or foreign standing (e.g., Gingrich's novel no-holds-barred approach to compromise with both Democrats and his own party, Bush's Iraq War and Katrina response not to mention stewardship over the Great Recession)
2) Voters are upset, seek new leadership
3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)
4) Voters slowly forget why they were upset with the GOP in the first place while current GOP distance themselves from previous regime and lie about reasons for anger in the first place: deep, long-lasting change simply cannot be done in the span of two years but people are impatient and fickle, so voters are now angry at Democrats for not accomplishing enough
5) GOP comes back into power: cycle starts anew

The reason I find this to be analogous to what you're saying here is that you're essentially promoting Step 4 in your highlighted statement above, if not necessarily the underlying process. Sustained awareness, in my opinion, is crucial for maintaining the political will to actually institute changes that strike at the heart of deeply institutionalized societal shortcomings. Sustained awareness helps make it clear that the issue at hand is not simply a flavor of the month, that there is in fact a legitimate grievance that needs to be addressed. And, sustained awareness helps keep it in people's minds lest they quickly forget what everything was all about. Unfortunately, sustained awareness is extraordinarily hard, because it requires exactly what these protesters (let's be honest, many of those people in the streets of Portland and Seattle are indeed there with legitimate grievances) have been doing for two months, which is to take the time out just about every single day to make their voices heard. Frankly, it shocks me that they've been able to sustain it this long but more power to them. But when I say that you're essentially promoting Step 4, it's because it seems to me that if these protesters were to have simply gone home after, say, Week 3 or 4, are we really to believe that there would be any incentive left for anyone in government to implement change? Do we really think people writ large who are not directly involved in the protests are going to remember what everything was about?

Personally, I think the answers are a clear no and no. In that vein, discouraging these sustained protests simply gives an excuse for those in power (GOP and Democrat, if we're being fully honest), to ignore all the hard-fought progress so far, minimal as it may yet be. So my very unnecessarily long-winded thesis is, I find all this analogous to my above outline on GOP politics because there appears to be a strong correlation between those who would identify with GOP/conservative viewpoints and those who would question why protests are still going on. And the effect I foresee if people were to just shut it down and go home at this point would be akin to how, most recently, American voters ushered in the Tea Party with a full-scale rebuke of Democrats after Democrats couldn't keep voters reminded of just how bad the previous GOP leadership had been.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JeffBear07 said:

It doesn't seem difficult to realize that it isn't because mayors and the police don't care about the property damage during large-scale protests but rather that they have generally determined that it's largely impractical to go in and accurately identify all the individual bad actors without further inflaming the large crowds of people who already - justifiably in many cases - distrust the police to begin with. And frankly, given what we've seen from all the "bad apples" across the country, if that protocol were to be changed, we could fully expect many police to abuse their power by aggressively going after anyone who even looks at them askance under the guise of "rioting." If you adhere to that expectation, then the "right" thing to do becomes a lot less clear and looks more like a Sophie's choice: allow looting and some burning buildings, or enable dozens of people at a minimum to face wrongful arrest or police brutality. And if that expectation holds as it does with me, it should then also hold that it's actually the police and the reputation they've earned for themselves through their actions over the years that unfortunately provides a valid justification for determining that looting and some burning buildings are "preferable" to having police come down with a heavy hand on large numbers of people peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights.

Bingo. I made similar arguments about the original protests, when people here asked why the governors and mayors who had advocated strict stay at home orders didn't enforce them when it came to the Floyd protests. The answer seemed pretty clear to me: because using a heavy police response to quell a protest about police violence would almost certainly be counterproductive, just as Trump sending the federal cops into Portland was counterproductive. Probably the least bad option is to keep the protests relatively contained and let them burn themselves out.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We get it, for the millionth time, they're peaceful, mostly, exercising their right to free speech protected by the First Amendment. They could use a shower, a haircut, a job to go to the next day, but still, mostly peaceful, mostly white and very concerned about black lives, apparently.






LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

JeffBear07 said:

It doesn't seem difficult to realize that it isn't because mayors and the police don't care about the property damage during large-scale protests but rather that they have generally determined that it's largely impractical to go in and accurately identify all the individual bad actors without further inflaming the large crowds of people who already - justifiably in many cases - distrust the police to begin with. And frankly, given what we've seen from all the "bad apples" across the country, if that protocol were to be changed, we could fully expect many police to abuse their power by aggressively going after anyone who even looks at them askance under the guise of "rioting." If you adhere to that expectation, then the "right" thing to do becomes a lot less clear and looks more like a Sophie's choice: allow looting and some burning buildings, or enable dozens of people at a minimum to face wrongful arrest or police brutality. And if that expectation holds as it does with me, it should then also hold that it's actually the police and the reputation they've earned for themselves through their actions over the years that unfortunately provides a valid justification for determining that looting and some burning buildings are "preferable" to having police come down with a heavy hand on large numbers of people peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights.

Bingo. I made similar arguments about the original protests, when people here asked why the governors and mayors who had advocated strict stay at home orders didn't enforce them when it came to the Floyd protests. The answer seemed pretty clear to me: because using a heavy police response to quell a protest about police violence would almost certainly be counterproductive, just as Trump sending the federal cops into Portland was counterproductive. Probably the least bad option is to keep the protests relatively contained and let them burn themselves out.
You missed the point. It wasn't that the governors and mayors weren't enforcing strict stay at home orders regarding the protesters, it was that they refused to pubicly state that the protesters were being irresponsible with respect to Covid spread. It was a clear double-standard. Taking it even further, lots of video on this board was posted showing that some of those officials went out into the crowd and joined protesters shoulder-to-shoulder without a mask. Here's just one example:
You can rename all the buildings you want, but at the end of the day George Berkeley was still a slave owner.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

sycasey said:

JeffBear07 said:

It doesn't seem difficult to realize that it isn't because mayors and the police don't care about the property damage during large-scale protests but rather that they have generally determined that it's largely impractical to go in and accurately identify all the individual bad actors without further inflaming the large crowds of people who already - justifiably in many cases - distrust the police to begin with. And frankly, given what we've seen from all the "bad apples" across the country, if that protocol were to be changed, we could fully expect many police to abuse their power by aggressively going after anyone who even looks at them askance under the guise of "rioting." If you adhere to that expectation, then the "right" thing to do becomes a lot less clear and looks more like a Sophie's choice: allow looting and some burning buildings, or enable dozens of people at a minimum to face wrongful arrest or police brutality. And if that expectation holds as it does with me, it should then also hold that it's actually the police and the reputation they've earned for themselves through their actions over the years that unfortunately provides a valid justification for determining that looting and some burning buildings are "preferable" to having police come down with a heavy hand on large numbers of people peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights.

Bingo. I made similar arguments about the original protests, when people here asked why the governors and mayors who had advocated strict stay at home orders didn't enforce them when it came to the Floyd protests. The answer seemed pretty clear to me: because using a heavy police response to quell a protest about police violence would almost certainly be counterproductive, just as Trump sending the federal cops into Portland was counterproductive. Probably the least bad option is to keep the protests relatively contained and let them burn themselves out.
You missed the point. It wasn't that the governors and mayors weren't enforcing strict stay at home orders regarding the protesters, it was that they refused to pubicly state that the protesters were being irresponsible with respect to Covid spread. It was a clear double-standard. Taking it even further, lots of video on this board was posted showing that some of those officials went out into the crowd and joined protesters shoulder-to-shoulder without a mask. Here's just one example:


I think that they felt that to publicly criticize the protests would also be counterproductive.

I agree that they shouldn't have joined the protests without a mask.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JeffBear07 said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

Matthew Patel said:

LMK5 said:


Where's the protest march to bring attention to the killing of Bernell Trammell, a black man who committed the crime of favoring Trump over Biden? I haven't seen any marches in his name. It's interesting how the protesters pick their enemy of the moment. Look at it for what it is. The thugs are opportunists who have found a way to act out against society during a time they believe they can get away with it. They don't give a rip about anyone. They're angry at their own failings and have found a convenient outlet. Nobody who's breaking stuff at 3AM has a real life.
It's so funny how you see things written in the RWNJ rags that all of these so-called independent thinkers read and you know that soon, the same exact tripe you read somewhere else will eventually make it to a RWNJ near you.

Is LMK5 particularly knowledgeable about black men in Milwaukee who get killed? Of course he isn't. He's as unknowledgeable about that as any other number of subjects he speaks on. But he's been told what to believe by his "information" sources and now he has something to be outraged about.

Show me the protests against the carnage in Chicago. Show me the marches showing support for Bernell Trammell. Show me the protests against rising crime in NYC.
Maybe conservative groups should try organizing those. If their positions are popular enough they should have no trouble attracting crowds.
Well, people like LMK5 are not pretending to be the white savior for the minorities. And whether something is popular (relatively) does not mean it is worthwhile. The protesters who are still protesting to this day two months after the incident are not adding incremental value, especially in the middle of a pandemic.
Okay, but so what? LMK5 was not making an argument against the efficacy of the protests there, in fact his point entirely rests upon the idea that protests ARE effective and WHY don't these liberals protest these things that conservatives care about? Only why would they? Can't people who care about those issues also organize their own demonstrations? What's stopping them?

(This leaving aside Unit2's entirely logical point that protests against police violence are protests against the government and actions taken in its name, while street violence by private citizens is not something that can be protested in the same fashion.)

Or is this exchange really just about trying to catch liberals being hypocritical and not actually about solving social issues?
For me, it was just the sheer stupidity of white woke crowd still vandalizing buildings two months after George Floyd, thinking that there are still people who have not made up their mind and will be influenced by another burning of buildings. I don't even view them as protesters like I did with those who understandably rose up in anger demanding change soon after George Floyd. These hooligans don't really care about George Floyd or inner city violence. They just want to burn **** up under the pretense of social justice.
Again: there are people who legitimately want to protest for the cause and there are those who want to wreck stuff. IMO the latter group is much smaller but gets much more outsized coverage.

However, my expectation is that the latter group will also fall away naturally if there is no more instigation from authorities. Early results from Portland after the feds left are encouraging.
I don't see a lot of legitimate protesting late in July.
So what would be "legitimate protesting" to you? Do you think every individual that attends these protests is burning things? If they aren't doing that then they are engaging in legitimate protest. You might not agree with their cause, but it's perfectly legal to do so.

I get the sense from you guys that you think our cities are literally burning down right now. They're not. These are largely isolated events that don't affect most of the population.
You and I either have different tolerance for harm brought to others by these vandals or we are living in a different world. What is going on in Seattle and Portland are not protesters who are trying to raise awareness. Who, after two months, are not aware? What is the purpose? What would cause you to be concerned for the people living in Seattle and Portland or the business owners? Actual burning of every building? How about those buildings and stores they are actually burning down and defacing? What percentage is acceptable to you? And how do you explain to the residents and store owners that this is just the price of getting the message out to people who have been in a coma for the last two months and have not heard about the cause? This is where you and I part ways on what we accept as just legitimate protest versus mayhem by criminals.
I see an interesting analogue here (to me anyway) between the highlighted viewpoint you're espousing and how GOP politics on the state and national levels have gone over the past 2+ decades (and yes, I'm only framing this back to the 90's because that's the earliest I could reasonably be expected to have any understanding of politics at all). Granted, this is going to be an over-generalization because I'm sure there are multiple individual examples of poor Democratic governance leading to valid calls for a change of leadership, but I still think the following thesis holds on a broad level.

Long story short:
1) GOP in power: policies and behaviors that have deleterious effects on domestic economics and society or foreign standing (e.g., Gingrich's novel no-holds-barred approach to compromise with both Democrats and his own party, Bush's Iraq War and Katrina response not to mention stewardship over the Great Recession)
2) Voters are upset, seek new leadership
3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)
4) Voters slowly forget why they were upset with the GOP in the first place while current GOP distance themselves from previous regime and lie about reasons for anger in the first place: deep, long-lasting change simply cannot be done in the span of two years but people are impatient and fickle, so voters are now angry at Democrats for not accomplishing enough
5) GOP comes back into power: cycle starts anew

The reason I find this to be analogous to what you're saying here is that you're essentially promoting Step 4 in your highlighted statement above, if not necessarily the underlying process. Sustained awareness, in my opinion, is crucial for maintaining the political will to actually institute changes that strike at the heart of deeply institutionalized societal shortcomings. Sustained awareness helps make it clear that the issue at hand is not simply a flavor of the month, that there is in fact a legitimate grievance that needs to be addressed. And, sustained awareness helps keep it in people's minds lest they quickly forget what everything was all about. Unfortunately, sustained awareness is extraordinarily hard, because it requires exactly what these protesters (let's be honest, many of those people in the streets of Portland and Seattle are indeed there with legitimate grievances) have been doing for two months, which is to take the time out just about every single day to make their voices heard. Frankly, it shocks me that they've been able to sustain it this long but more power to them. But when I say that you're essentially promoting Step 4, it's because it seems to me that if these protesters were to have simply gone home after, say, Week 3 or 4, are we really to believe that there would be any incentive left for anyone in government to implement change? Do we really think people writ large who are not directly involved in the protests are going to remember what everything was about?

Personally, I think the answers are a clear no and no. In that vein, discouraging these sustained protests simply gives an excuse for those in power (GOP and Democrat, if we're being fully honest), to ignore all the hard-fought progress so far, minimal as it may yet be. So my very unnecessarily long-winded thesis is, I find all this analogous to my above outline on GOP politics because there appears to be a strong correlation between those who would identify with GOP/conservative viewpoints and those who would question why protests are still going on. And the effect I foresee if people were to just shut it down and go home at this point would be akin to how, most recently, American voters ushered in the Tea Party with a full-scale rebuke of Democrats after Democrats couldn't keep voters reminded of just how bad the previous GOP leadership had been.
I guess i don't see your pattern.

This is the pattern that I see. The average person keeps expecting one party to have the answer when neither party is really listening to the average person.

The common man, after 8 yeas of one party running the White House, sees that things are not noticeably better than it was 8 years ago. In addition, the party in charge fights most of the wars on social matters, that while important, do not really impact the day to day life of the common man. If anything, the common man, being generally center or slightly center right sees the party in charge (whether Republican or Democrat) fight these social wars beyond where the common man's comfort level lies while making no meaningful change to the economic situation.

Then the party in charge is voted out, and the next party is voted in. It is not that the Republicans are bad and the Democrats are good. It is that both are bad. The common man thinks there is hope with the new party. They even buy into the swing on the social issues to the other side since they were fed up with overplay by the prior party. Then they notice that nothing that really matters to them has changed. The new party fights the same social wars but to the other extreme. Then the common man gets tired of this party and swings to the other party.

There will always be extremes on both sides who will vote one way no matter what. The fact that, short of someone like Trump being elected as an extreme overreaction to the patter described above where his ineptitude now aligns more people than usual, this continuous hope that any of the candidates from the other party will make any difference is folly. Most of the positive changes have come from outside forces, such as the tech innovation or global economic rise, and not from any meaningful difference between either party.

And your comment that the riots are going on two months after George Floyd because America needs constant reminder is confusing. With that argument, when, if ever, should the rioting stop? If America needs continuous reminder, should the looting ever stop?

LMK5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

sycasey said:

JeffBear07 said:

It doesn't seem difficult to realize that it isn't because mayors and the police don't care about the property damage during large-scale protests but rather that they have generally determined that it's largely impractical to go in and accurately identify all the individual bad actors without further inflaming the large crowds of people who already - justifiably in many cases - distrust the police to begin with. And frankly, given what we've seen from all the "bad apples" across the country, if that protocol were to be changed, we could fully expect many police to abuse their power by aggressively going after anyone who even looks at them askance under the guise of "rioting." If you adhere to that expectation, then the "right" thing to do becomes a lot less clear and looks more like a Sophie's choice: allow looting and some burning buildings, or enable dozens of people at a minimum to face wrongful arrest or police brutality. And if that expectation holds as it does with me, it should then also hold that it's actually the police and the reputation they've earned for themselves through their actions over the years that unfortunately provides a valid justification for determining that looting and some burning buildings are "preferable" to having police come down with a heavy hand on large numbers of people peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights.

Bingo. I made similar arguments about the original protests, when people here asked why the governors and mayors who had advocated strict stay at home orders didn't enforce them when it came to the Floyd protests. The answer seemed pretty clear to me: because using a heavy police response to quell a protest about police violence would almost certainly be counterproductive, just as Trump sending the federal cops into Portland was counterproductive. Probably the least bad option is to keep the protests relatively contained and let them burn themselves out.
You missed the point. It wasn't that the governors and mayors weren't enforcing strict stay at home orders regarding the protesters, it was that they refused to pubicly state that the protesters were being irresponsible with respect to Covid spread. It was a clear double-standard. Taking it even further, lots of video on this board was posted showing that some of those officials went out into the crowd and joined protesters shoulder-to-shoulder without a mask. Here's just one example:


I think that they felt that to publicly criticize the protests would also be counterproductive.

I agree that they shouldn't have joined the protests without a mask.
Yes, I agree. The unfortunate aspect is that they felt it would be politically counterproductive.
You can rename all the buildings you want, but at the end of the day George Berkeley was still a slave owner.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LMK5 said:

sycasey said:

LMK5 said:

sycasey said:

JeffBear07 said:

It doesn't seem difficult to realize that it isn't because mayors and the police don't care about the property damage during large-scale protests but rather that they have generally determined that it's largely impractical to go in and accurately identify all the individual bad actors without further inflaming the large crowds of people who already - justifiably in many cases - distrust the police to begin with. And frankly, given what we've seen from all the "bad apples" across the country, if that protocol were to be changed, we could fully expect many police to abuse their power by aggressively going after anyone who even looks at them askance under the guise of "rioting." If you adhere to that expectation, then the "right" thing to do becomes a lot less clear and looks more like a Sophie's choice: allow looting and some burning buildings, or enable dozens of people at a minimum to face wrongful arrest or police brutality. And if that expectation holds as it does with me, it should then also hold that it's actually the police and the reputation they've earned for themselves through their actions over the years that unfortunately provides a valid justification for determining that looting and some burning buildings are "preferable" to having police come down with a heavy hand on large numbers of people peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights.

Bingo. I made similar arguments about the original protests, when people here asked why the governors and mayors who had advocated strict stay at home orders didn't enforce them when it came to the Floyd protests. The answer seemed pretty clear to me: because using a heavy police response to quell a protest about police violence would almost certainly be counterproductive, just as Trump sending the federal cops into Portland was counterproductive. Probably the least bad option is to keep the protests relatively contained and let them burn themselves out.
You missed the point. It wasn't that the governors and mayors weren't enforcing strict stay at home orders regarding the protesters, it was that they refused to pubicly state that the protesters were being irresponsible with respect to Covid spread. It was a clear double-standard. Taking it even further, lots of video on this board was posted showing that some of those officials went out into the crowd and joined protesters shoulder-to-shoulder without a mask. Here's just one example:


I think that they felt that to publicly criticize the protests would also be counterproductive.

I agree that they shouldn't have joined the protests without a mask.
Yes, I agree. The unfortunate aspect is that they felt it would be politically counterproductive.

Little from Column A, little from Column B.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pandemic and protests spur Americans to buy guns at record pace


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/31/americans-guns-coronavirus-protests?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.