Does SJW-reated stuff get helled because the term is pejorative?

[Tarnsman]

Three people answered your question. I'm sorry it wasn't the answer you wanted.

Mechazawa said:

The common man is racist white people.

Oh wait sorry I forgot Mechazawa thinks the entire west is evil

[Nine Inch Heels]

Mechazawa said:

Right, so nobody answered the question. Topic done for me.

Your only issue is that the answer is not what you wanted, or you simply are unable to understand what it actually means

Mechazawa said:

Sure Bowb, your wall of text is equivalent to "they have incentive because its the nice thing to do". Incentive, monetary or social/political power incentive. How do I get more powerful by helping you? That is what incentive means. In the social hierarchy, how does my status get better by helping you? How do I make money off you by treating you better than I currently do. Etc.. real incentive, not just "its pleasant to do". This is how the world works, nobody does anything because of flowers and rainbows.

And here you have it, you simply don't get it. You don't WANT to get it at all, which is why you're telling me, that I'm all about rainbows'n'stuff. Don't you realize that you're looking slightly stupid acting the way you do? You didn't even bother to provide a link to those numbers that you were throwing around.

But just for the sake of explaining every shitty fucking detail to you: If "black people" were made "common people" instead of outcasts by way of race, there'd be more people working, which means more taxes paid, which translates to more goods purchased, which translates to more money, which translates to more power. Also there would be less crime, and crime costs everybody money, including your average white person. Got it now? No? Well, I don't care anymore...

Mechazawa said:

I don't know what dichotomy you are trying to project here by this "common man" argument you have. The common man is racist white people. They have a benefit to be racist. It is "the common man" that BLM is protesting against. "The common man" is the problem with which BLM is addressing, and they (the common man) have no incentive to change. Who else is there? Is there some other massive body of "the common man" who will come to the aid of black people? What group of people who have significant power and incentive to change or to help is there?

*Your* common man is racist white people, that's the problem. And there is no benefit for them to be racist, eventhough some think there is, and eventhough YOU think there is, but as it turns out they're wrong, and so are you.

You're constantly asking for incentives, over and over and fucking over again, you've been given your answers, and I don't give a chocolate steamer if these answers are what you want to hear or not.

The fact remains that YOU WANT TO BE A VICTIM. You want nothing to get changed for the better, and that's why you built these fucked up walls in your head, telling yourself constantly that the average white person is racist. You need your little world to be full of assholes, so you can your finger at as many people as possible, just so you feel better about yourself. That's what's going on, plain and simple. You can't even imagine living without having the common white person as a racist, because suddenly your world would tumble out of alignment.

I am not a white person, and I am surrounded by white people all day, everywhere I go, and the only issues I ever had were with the police, twice within two years, and it wasn't even dangerous, it was more of a pretty messy inconvenience with a lot of paperwork involved. Most people behave just the way they should as far as I'm concerned. But noooo it can't be, because common white people are racist according to you. If anything, you're a racist when it comes to white people, by tossing them all in the same bin and labeling them "racists by way of nature".

Mechazawa said:

fraggle, political debates and commentary around election time is as staged as an opera. They do not represent real change. Because something is "talked" about doesn't mean its changed. Actually, talking about it is preferable because it means people are not acting on it (ie, actually doing something useful) The powers that be would love for you to talk about it because it means you are not doing anything about it. At what point in American history has "talking" (and talking alone) lead to anything productive? That is a rhetorical question.

If the talking is followed by actions, which are agreed on by a broad audience, it is productive. By the way: People are ruled, educated, and even manipulated by being talked to, so if you think talking does nothing, you have no idea how human minds are functioning. By the way civil-rights-movements came to be because people sat together and talked about things. Awareness is a thing that can be obtained by listening to people talk about things.

[Mechazawa]

Black people can't be "common people" because black people are not common. They are a tiny 12% of the population and mostly confined to cities.

White people do get a benefit for being exclusionary (also called racist), they preserve their identity. Their grand children will look like they do. Their culture will be left to grow according to how they want it by sifting out people they don't want to define it. Whether you agree with it or not that is why whites do what they do and it is a benefit in their minds and that is all that really matters.

The civil rights movements happened because corporations and the government benefited by allowing them to happen.. it had nothing to do with the struggle of the actual people involved. Women got their rights to work because the government was not taxing 50% of its population, by pushing women to work the government got more tax money. This also pushed children into public schools to be raised by the state like good americans. Black people got desegregated largely as an effort to break down black communities. Rather than having black owned businesses being funded by the black community, desegregation enabled black people to spend all their money in white businesses, bringing down the bulk of black business at the time. Thus, enabling white people to make more money off of blacks by allowing them to deal with white business.

So no, neither of those movements actually came about "because people talked about it" or protested. They came about because the elite wanted more money and they realized they could make more money by changing society how they wanted. There has been no great change in American society that was not either A. by war or B. by the will of its elite and their ability to profit. You are living in wonderland if you think protesting will do anything.

You can google the governments tax reports if you want. I'm not writing an academic article so I don't really need to cite everything. If you care about the issue you will do the research yourself.

[Linguica]

Mechazawa said:

Black people can't be "common people" because black people are not common.

You are insane. You are literally saying black people can't be "common" in America because there are a lot more white people. By that logic, white people aren't "common" on this planet because there are a lot more asian people.

Mechazawa said:

White people do get a benefit for being exclusionary (also called racist), they preserve their identity. Their grand children will look like they do.

So would you say that white people must secure the existence of their people and a future for white children?

[Mechazawa]

Linguica said:

So would you say that white people must secure the existence of their people and a future for white children?

As a white person, I will say that I don't really care, lol. Most of the people I interact with now a days are not white. But, whites who want to preserve their race and culture, of course they have to be exclusionary. How can you mix white paint with other paints and still expect it to be uniquely white? Whether you are talking about skin color or the general concept of "white people" and who ever defines it.

Also, I agree, white people are not "common", whites are a minority globally. Anyways, one of the issues with blacks being treated as uncommon is the fact that they are not common, since they are not common, many people (I would argue most people) dont actually encounter black people and they only hear about them in the news.

[Tarnsman]

Mechazawa said:

Black people got desegregated largely as an effort to break down black communities. Rather than having black owned businesses being funded by the black community, desegregation enabled black people to spend all their money in white businesses, bringing down the bulk of black business at the time. Thus, enabling white people to make more money off of blacks by allowing them to deal with white business.

White businesses owned most of the products black people were forced to use.

[Jon]

Mechazawa said:

As a white person, I will say that I don't really care, lol. Most of the people I interact with now a days are not white. But, whites who want to preserve their race and culture, of course they have to be exclusionary. How can you mix white paint with other paints and still expect it to be uniquely white? Whether you are talking about skin color or the general concept of "white people" and who ever defines it.

Also, I agree, white people are not "common", whites are a minority globally. Anyways, one of the issues with blacks being treated as uncommon is the fact that they are not common, since they are not common, many people (I would argue most people) dont actually encounter black people and they only hear about them in the news.

If you hadn't earlier (I can't be bothered to fine-comb to check) this is when you went into full blown racial purity bullshit mode.

[kb1]

Tarnsman said:

No. The name debate is such a effective distraction that people have to endlessly combat and why I think that it's a battle worth conceding but by the same token a name doesn't make something racist. Their platform is what you need to judge it by. I mean if their name was "fuck white people" that wouldn't be inherently racist, they could say it's intentionally provocative to make people pay attention. I think it'd be a failure but there is a legit argument to raising awareness through provocation.

It's a distraction you can help minimize. Like if the name was say "All lives matter" or "Our lives matter" it'd be much harder for someone to come up with one of those "excuse me sir but X" responses that seem so effective nowadays. Like as great as it would be to never have to deal with that, it is the reality of what we live in.

It is not a distraction, and it cannot be minimized and ignored. The problem is not that it describes one race. The problem is that it describes only one race, at the exclusion of all others. How about start a movement called "White people kick ass", or "White is right". No, it doesn't specifically say anything about other races, but you'd have to be pretty dimwitted to not see it for what it was.

How about "Stop shooting people", what's wrong with that? How does that detract from the intended message?

Now, I haven't been following the cases, but I have to ask: In what percentage of cases did someone get shot who was keeping to themselves, being courteous, having respect for the law, stopping immediately when being questioned, and doing their best to be non-intimidating? I am not placing blame here. What I'm saying is that things are not as cut and dry as people would have everyone believe. (I wonder how that last paragraph will be misrepresented as...)

[Benjogami]

kb1 said:

How about "Stop shooting people", what's wrong with that? How does that detract from the intended message?

Personally I think they should have taken a page from couples' counselling and called it "sometimes it feels like you think that black lives don't matter when you shoot us, police officers."

But yeah I'm with Tarnsman for the most part. It's all red herrings that you're continuing to rant about.

Especially with shit like this:

In what percentage of cases did someone get shot who was keeping to themselves, being courteous, having respect for the law, stopping immediately when being questioned, and doing their best to be non-intimidating?

The white people that get shot by police officers are doing the same things, I'm sure, so the only reason to bring it up is to dismiss the issue with victim blaming, or some other racist insinuation.

[Tarnsman]

kb1 said:

In what percentage of cases did someone get shot who was keeping to themselves, being courteous, having respect for the law, stopping immediately when being questioned, and doing their best to be non-intimidating? I am not placing blame here. What I'm saying is that things are not as cut and dry as people would have everyone believe.

A lot of them involve being belligerent with the police but tons of Americans are belligerent with cops every day and don't wind up dead. That's not an excuse.

[insanoflex312]

Benjogami said:

"In what percentage of cases did someone get shot who was keeping to themselves, being courteous, having respect for the law, stopping immediately when being questioned, and doing their best to be non-intimidating?"

The white people that get shot by police officers are doing the same things, I'm sure, so the only reason to bring it up is to dismiss the issue with victim blaming, or some other racist insinuation.

How is asking that question dismissing anything or even a racist insinuation? I don't get how you came up with that. Victim blaming is not inherently bad.

[Tarnsman]

insanoflex312 said:

Victim blaming is not inherently bad.

When it comes to policy making it is. A citizen might respond to a string of thefts by investing in better locks. A politician's policy response to a string of thefts sure as fuck better not be "get better locks".

[Benjogami]

insanoflex312 said:

Victim blaming is not inherently bad.

Pretty sure it is, since the word "victim" builds in the fact that they were the target of a wrongdoing. If the discussion is about the wrongdoing, focusing on anything that the victim did is a distraction from the issue at hand. If you want to talk about ways to be as safe as possible when interacting with police officers, it's an entirely different conversation and a red herring. We're talking about unjust killings.

If the person who got shot was being so threatening that deadly force was warranted, they're not really a victim, are they? But the people that we're talking about are victims. If you were shot and killed for being belligerent, discourteous, or "intimidating," then you are a victim.

[Megalyth]

Mechazawa said:

that is why whites do what they do

Living a relatively ordinary life, going to work to support my family, and staying out of other people's business? I'm such a racist scumbag, how dare I exist.

Please elaborate your point. Who knows, I may just add a few chains to my self-flagellation device in recompense.

[insanoflex312]

Benjogami said:

Pretty sure it is, since the word "victim" builds in the fact that they were the target of a wrongdoing. If the discussion is about the wrongdoing, focusing on anything that the victim did is a distraction from the issue at hand. If you want to talk about ways to be as safe as possible when interacting with police officers, it's an entirely different conversation and a red herring. We're talking about unjust killings.

If the person who got shot was being so threatening that deadly force was warranted, they're not really a victim, are they?

OK, we're arguing semantics. Like we really need more of that. Not everyone(namely me) sees "If the person who got shot was being so threatening that deadly force was warranted, they're not really a victim" as being true because the technical term is still victim. Obviously I'm not talking about those people. It'd be really nice if, for once, someone would give the benefit of the doubt and ask me what I mean instead of assuming, geebus.

Tarnsman said:

When it comes to policy making it is. A citizen might respond to a string of thefts by investing in better locks. A politician's policy response to a string of thefts sure as fuck better not be "get better locks".

True, and I agree. I only mean to point out when perceived police brutality is not necessarily real police brutality. I'd like to not exaggerate problems unjustly. We need to eliminate the potential for police brutal to the most reasonable degree without putting the police into too much danger, both their lives and careers. which is actually a great topic we could be discussing. What, in your mind is the limit of justifiable police homicide? What would justify the police using deadly force?

Mechazawa said:

As a white person, I will say that I don't really care, lol. Most of the people I interact with now a days are not white. But, whites who want to preserve their race and culture, of course they have to be exclusionary. How can you mix white paint with other paints and still expect it to be uniquely white?

What the hell is "white culture?" Could you elaborate on that?

EDIT: double post :(

[Benjogami]

insanoflex312 said:

OK, we're arguing semantics. Like we really need more of that. Not everyone(namely me) sees "If the person who got shot was being so threatening that deadly force was warranted, they're not really a victim" as being true because the technical term is still victim. Obviously I'm not talking about those people. It'd be really nice if, for once, someone would give the benefit of the doubt and ask me what I mean instead of assuming, geebus.

Well I introduced the concept of "victim blaming" so I feel it's my responsibility to explain what I meant. Semantics aren't inherently bad. ;) All parties need to share a clear understanding of the involved terms before productive debate can begin.

[Cupboard]

Jon said:

If you hadn't earlier (I can't be bothered to fine-comb to check) this is when you went into full blown racial purity bullshit mode.

QFT

[PureSlime]

Wtf is with this narrative that white people are an untainted blank default slate, and that other races somehow breed the white out of them instead of the other way around?

Someone who's half white and half black is almost exclusively referred to as black. It's that "one drop of black blood" rule that underlined segregation.

It all comes from this racial purity myth. It's some nasty white supremacist bullshit.

[Mechazawa]

PureSlime said:

Wtf is with this narrative that white people are an untainted blank default slate, and that other races somehow breed the white out of them instead of the other way around?

Someone who's half white and half black is almost exclusively referred to as black. It's that "one drop of black blood" rule that underlined segregation.

It all comes from this racial purity myth. It's some nasty white supremacist bullshit.

Who knows, ask them. It is normal for people to want to preserve themselves. I don't believe that race is that important as a thing to preserve, culture I can understand.

The idea that the white race will vanish by mixing is simply because whites are a minority and because both extremes of whiteness and blackness in terms of skin color eventually converge to brown. If you are white or black, and your descendants constantly reproduce with the opposite color; then, your grandchildren will not resemble you at all. The only people this doesn't effect is brown people because brown is basically the default. That is, all colors eventually turned to brown when everything is mixed. If there was complete racial homogeneity in the world then everyone would look like darker arabs, or latinos maybe. People would have some shade of brown skin, black/brown hair, and black/brown eyes.

There is even a theory floating around that whiteness is a defect, along with blonde/red hair and blue/green eyes. Since the vast majority of humans do not have them nor can they get them unless they are with (in general) someone who already has them. I don't know how true that is or really care, but heyo! All of that would vanish as the genes for them are out bred by high levels of mixing.

Half black/white people are referred to as black because in America black basically means "not-white". Its dumb but there you go.

insanoflex312 said:

What the hell is "white culture?" Could you elaborate on that?

In America? Nothing. In Europe? I guess white culture refers to western European tradition.

--

Some irony, and I don't have a link because its first hand reports by people I know.. but apparently in Morroco they are protesting *for* the police to shoot armed criminals. So the administrator of the police stuffs there has set a new policy where by the police can shoot criminals who have weapons, guns or blades. They have to shoot warning shots first.

Edit: Found a related link, but not much info: http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2016/08/192946/moroccan-police-receive-instructions-to-shoot-criminals-threatening-peoples-safety/

[Nine Inch Heels]

Mechazawa said:

If there was complete racial homogeneity in the world then everyone would look like darker arabs, or latinos maybe. People would have some shade of brown skin, black/brown hair, and black/brown eyes.

There is even a theory floating around that whiteness is a defect, along with blonde/red hair and blue/green eyes. Since the vast majority of humans do not have them nor can they get them unless they are with (in general) someone who already has them. I don't know how true that is or really care, but heyo! All of that would vanish as the genes for them are out bred by high levels of mixing.

Someone should probably explain how genes are passed on, because this is the biggest nonsense I have ever heard. If that were true, "checkerboard families" would not be possible. There are reports of black (mother) and white (father) parents having both black and white children (at times even born as twins), which is possible if the black person has also inherited "white genes". Even if there was a complete "racial mixup", there'd still be white people, less of them, but they'd still exist.

The reason that there would be more people with a darker skin colour is that darker skin, along with brown eyes, and brown/black hair are "dominant" genes which override blonde hair, or blue eyes when passed on to the same child. But as soon as a pair has a rather mixed pool of genes, it gets close to "anything goes", as far as the results are considered. There are simply things that will be less likely to occur, but they'll happen regardless.

[AkiraZXE]

Mechazawa said:

There is even a theory floating around that whiteness is a defect, along with blonde/red hair and blue/green eyes. Since the vast majority of humans do not have them nor can they get them unless they are with (in general) someone who already has them. I don't know how true that is or really care, but heyo! All of that would vanish as the genes for them are out bred by high levels of mixing.

Yes, a theory invented by racists. See, this is why institutional racism is treated as a separate thing from racism for the average person. Not a whole lot of white supremacy going on in this interaction, and if I were to say "there's a theory that black people are closer to monkeys but I don't know or care if it's true", there would be suspicions about me being a racist. Not because I have "power", I don't have any power, but because I'd be treating black people as lesser beings. You'd have to be talking out your ass to claim that saying somebody is "defective" is not treating them as lesser.

For your information, though it probably won't matter, white skin likely developed as a response to lower vitamin D levels in early Europeans. Early as in migrating hunter-gatherer tribes. Dark skin protects better against the sun, but because of that, it's worse at producing vitamin D. Early humans in Europe likely suffered from vitamin D deficiency, meaning lighter skin was selected for. Eye color is a separate beast entirely, and while it's more common in Europeans, you can find non-brown eyes all over the world.

About the only thing you got right was that, if you mix people enough, you'll probably end up with an in-between shade. That's really got nothing to do with white skin being a "defect" though.

[Mechazawa]

Its not a theory invented by racists, you are the one that defined defective as lesser. In fact, you just exposed the fact that because you equate defective to lesser, people who do actually have defects are lesser in your mind. Such as those with downs syndrome or some other ailment. Check your privilege please.

Just because a theory says something is defective or deviant, doesn't mean its lesser. It means its not the normal way of things. And that is a fact, white skin, colored eyes, and colored hair is not the normal way of things. As for them being "defects" genetically, that's another matter and it still wouldn't equate to "lesser".

[esselfortium]

Mechazawa said:

Its not a theory invented by racists, you are the one that defined defective as lesser.

What definition would you prefer?

[AkiraZXE]

Mechazawa said:

Its not a theory invented by racists, you are the one that defined defective as lesser.

You're not very good at the redefinition strategy. "Defective" has negative connotations, which is not something I came up with. Most importantly, it's objectifying, because "defective" is a term we use almost exclusively for broken tools (in a broad sense of the word "tools"). If I were to describe somebody as different, I would use "different" or "unusual" or at worst, "abnormal". I wouldn't call somebody "defective", or a part of them as defective. Disabled, maybe, if they actually had a physical or mental problem limiting what they could do. Whatever the currently accepted term for it is that does not carry the same negative connotation. However, that's because it does not make it sound as if they are failing at what they are. To call somebody defective sounds as if they're bad at being people, which isn't something I'd use for anyone except, I dunno, people who torture children. People who are truly failing to be people, and that's not something I'm in much of a position to define.

Now even though I'm explaining this to you, you already know this. You know the word has negative connotations that would never be used to define people otherwise, and certainly not in this context. I'd call it a dog-whistle, but it's too candid for that. You're making excuses, you tried for plausible deniability, but you know what the "theory" is really trying to say.

[Tarnsman]

Mechazawa said:

Its not a theory invented by racists, you are the one that defined defective as lesser.

The English language does too, but you know that's an unimportant petty thing that only lizard people use.

PureSlime said:

Someone who's half white and half black is almost exclusively referred to as black. It's that "one drop of black blood" rule that underlined segregation.

Well the very term POC implies that there are only two states, white and not-white and that all not-white people are the same. Also the one drop of blood rule is often employed by other non-white communities as well. I mean it's not like the black community doesn't consider Obama to be the first 'half-black' president. Furthermore what would that do for Hispanics whose entire ethnicity exists because of a mixture of White Europeans (Spaniards) and Native Americans? They're technically white people. Then you have the North Africans and Arabs a bunch of whom you'd be unable to pick out from say an Italian person in a picture. So on and so forth. That line is so absolutely muddled that it's completely arbitrary where you draw it.

As for why "whiteness" is sort of the "default". I mean part of it is that the majority is always going to be seen as the default. But more importantly there is the fact that there is no such thing as real white culture in America. We refer to black culture as a whole and as a whole it is a pretty unified thing in America (outside of America it certainly isn't), where as you have tons of different ethnic cultures inside of "being white" that are for the most part pretty separate things. So "whiteness" becomes a blank slate because it is pretty much a blank slate since there is very little hard culture to define it. Other than all white people being evil that is.

[Mechazawa]

Are we seriously arguing over the meanings of words? If you are really going to whine about the definitions of words, then I will go to the authority, oxford English dictionary:

http://i.imgur.com/KA4Zn1t.png?1

Defect, there is nothing about this that says a person is less human, there is no meta implication of it either. It is in your head.

The theory that whiteness and colored features are defects is not a racist one, its simply the theory that the genes that form those features are defected genes. Genes that mutated in some way or another. ie. deviated from the "normal", or in the case of people, the average. It is only racist if you construct your understanding of it that way.

[Tarnsman]

Let's play this game.

Shortcoming - a fault or failure to meet a certain standard, typically in a person's character, a plan, or a system.

Imperfection - a fault, blemish, or undesirable feature.

Lack - the state of being without or not having enough of something.

[kb1]

Benjogami said:

Personally I think they should have taken a page from couples' counselling and called it "sometimes it feels like you think that black lives don't matter when you shoot us, police officers."

But yeah I'm with Tarnsman for the most part. It's all red herrings that you're continuing to rant about.

When did I rant? I did make a statement. I guess that's 'ranting' to you sometimes...?

Benjogami said:

...Especially with shit like this: [/b](in regards to me saying "In what percentage of cases did someone get shot who was keeping to themselves, being courteous, having respect for the law, stopping immediately when being questioned, and doing their best to be non-intimidating?" to which Banjogami responded: "The white people that get shot by police officers are doing the same things, I'm sure, so the only reason to bring it up is to dismiss the issue with victim blaming, or some other racist insinuation.

Ah, now you see the dliemma. You're right: We can't talk about what the white people getting or not getting shot are doing. Why not? Because the group is call Black Lives Matter. The group's name eliminates disucssion of everyone else, yet, apparently likes to slip in statictics from cases involving everyone else when appropriate. So did you. It's "Black lives matter", but you threw in "White" just long enough to claim I was making a racist insinuation. Yes, I noticed your not-so-subtle accusation that my statement was racist, even though I mentioned no race whatsoever. The 'racism' occurs automatically when a group's title is "BLM", it taints any discussion that follows, and causes me to be labeled, regardless of what I say (unless I agree). On, and while were dropping labels, the cops being initimidated, frightened, treated shitty, etc, are victims too. Don't forget them.

So I'll bite:
So, to be scientific, (as stated above), you must eliminate everyone that is not keeping to themselves, not being courteous, not respecting for the law, not stopping immediately when being questioned, and not doing their best to be non-intimidating. Why eliminate them? Because that kind of behavior can get your ass shot. It skews the numbers. Once you eliminate people that are trying to get shot, show me the remaining numbers. Because I think you'll find that it is those behaviors that cause otherwise law-abiding people to get shot. That's what's so asinine about a movement called "Black Lives Matter". It would be more accurate to call the group "People who act like stupid assholes around cops Lives Matter", cause that's who's getting shot.

But, I could be wrong. Show the stats. And, include ALL people, otherwise your science is flawed, plain and simple. Again, anyone can bullshit some stats if they exclude information. Include everyone, and adjust for people that, frankly, were asking to be shot by acting idiotic around an officer of the law, whose sworn duty is to protect all the other assholes. Think about it.

[Benjogami]

kb1 said:

[...]

First of all, if you think it's fine and expected that people who are "not keeping to themselves, not being courteous, not respecting for the law, not stopping immediately when being questioned, and not doing their best to be non-intimidating" are going to get shot and killed by police, I don't think there's any common ground for discussion.

Adding to that, there's no reason to eliminate those cases from whatever statistics that you expect me to dig up. All unjust killings committed by police officers should be considered; why decide to arbitrarily leave some out? Sure it might be interesting to see how those 2 categories break down (good luck, by the way, categorizing them in a way that will make anyone else happy), but there's no reason to toss out one flavor of murder, except that you, apparently, find that flavor palatable.

Also! What do you expect these numbers to look like that will satisfy you in your position? What even is your position? All I can glean is that "Black Lives Matter" is a stupid and racist name. It was only half a joke about the couples' counselling. I truly believe that "black lives matter" is the short and catchy version of "it feels like you think that black lives don't matter." Would you be as upset about it if that's what they were saying? Because I think that's what they're saying. So many people seem to interpret it as "only black lives matter" which is a silly, self-centered, insecure way to interpret it.

Finally, I'm not going to dig up any stats because that would be dreadfully uninteresting, time-consuming, and would certainly be fruitless. I guess since you asked for me to do this laborious research first and I failed to deliver, you win? ;)

[sudo459]

kb1 said:

So, to be scientific, (as stated above), you must eliminate everyone that is not keeping to themselves, not being courteous, not respecting for the law, not stopping immediately when being questioned, and not doing their best to be non-intimidating. Why eliminate them? Because that kind of behavior can get your ass shot.

To be "scientific", you must first define unjust homicide by the police, then the definition must be agreed upon. Nothing you listed here is, imo, justified. If you are being intimidating, it's the officer's duty to deescalate the situation, as it is in all situations. Only when presented with a deadly threat should the homicide be considered justified.

Benjogami said:

I truly believe that "black lives matter" is the short and catchy version of "it feels like you think that black lives don't matter." Would you be as upset about it if that's what they were saying? Because I think that's what they're saying. So many people seem to interpret it as "only black lives matter" which is a silly, self-centered, insecure way to interpret it.

It's not self-centered or insecure, there are voices in the movement who act like it doesn't affect non-blacks and also think whites should stay away. Do I really need to post quotes? They are right here in this very thread! Futhermore, the solutions presented by the BLM aren't even combating racism, but police brutality in general. So, focusing on race is divisive. People (here) aren't wanting them to change it to "Black lives matter, too" but "All lives matter" or something like that. Something that doesn't distract people from the issue and feels inclusive, because people of all races face police brutality.