Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man part II

[jamil]

Oh noes Jamil, you did it. You expanded blame beyond the 13.

I don't get the reference "13".

 

[nonobaddog]

If you had said there are black people who blame Chauvin, no complaints. It's a true statement. But saying "the black people blame Chauvin", is similar to the slogan "black lives matter" in that that language requires further clarification, that it's not ONLY black lives that matter.

The simple phrase "black lives matter" does not say anything about non-black lives and doesn't require clarification.
However in its popular usage it can be perverted to imply that non-black lives don't matter and would require clarification to confirm or deny that.

 

[JCSR]

I don't get the reference "13".

I don't think he finished his post.

Black Lives Matter Page Admits Black People Are Responsible For Over Half Of All Murders While Only 13% Of The Population​

https://www.nationalistreview.net/2...-all-murders-while-only-13-of-the-population/

 

[JCSR]

The simple phrase "black lives matter" does not say anything about non-black lives and doesn't require clarification.
However in its popular usage it can be perverted to imply that non-black lives don't matter and would require clarification to confirm or deny that.

At the next BLM protest someone should walk among them with a "All Lives Matter" sign and report back. I think we know how that would turn out.

 

[IndyDave1776]

At the next BLM protest someone should walk among them with a "All Lives Matter" sign and report back. I think we know how that would turn out.

I doubt this person would be in any condition to report back.

 

[BugI02]

My only problem with what you said is the lack of specificity when you say “the blacks”, while noting the use of “the whites” lacks specificity. The language implies all of them, as if the color of their skin is the identifier of the subject and not the behavior.

This is the flip side of the problem I have with JK, et al - the one way direction of nuance. If it is a favored group, like BLM or progressives, there is never enough nuance and we are subjected to 'NOT ALL [favored group] are [descriptive term(s)]' , while blaming Americans in general or more specifically Trump supporters for racism and all manner of other ills is. No amount of nuance in that case is too little

People are constantly calling for refuting arguments with facts, perhaps this would be a good test case. If there are other subgroups of America noted for rioting and setting fires predominantly in an around their own neighborhoods, perhaps listing them with links would be the way to go

Until then, based on what I see and read, I will allow 'the blacks' or some variation such as 'urban blacks' until such time as BOTH sides utilize nuance to the same degree - because 'the whites' haven't done anything as some sort of monolithic group

 

[BugI02]

I mean, if you added some adjectives, specifying race wouldn’t have added any greater specificity. You could say “the racist woke ass bitches...” and that would be more accurate because it specifies not just the racist ass black people but the racist ass white people who also rioted and looted in league with those racist ass black people who did.

If you think back to '92 as well as the 60s, and include those data in the pattern, you would see that there were far fewer 'racist ass white people' rioting and burning than there are now, but the location of the damages would still fit the complaint.

I mean, it might be because public transit stops running and it is too far to walk to riot outside ones own environs. I'm willing to consider lack of planning

 

[KLB]

I get it. "Someone else looks prejudiced, so I need to look prejudiced too!"

That is an awesome way to look at it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I get it. "Someone else looks prejudiced, so I need to look prejudiced too!"

That is an awesome way to look at it.

I see it more as a matter that if the other side is going to be prejudiced AF, I'm not going to walk on egg shells lest I say something that the most fertile imagination can sift and find "offense" or "prejudice".

 

[BugI02]

If I say "there are coyotes that kill chickens" while in reality there are also wolves, foxes, hawks and owls that also kill chickens - does that make the first statement false?

Possibly. In WBTT® world, it would be acknowledged that NOT ALL coyotes kill chicken, but without sufficient nuance to entertain the idea that perhaps some of them just don't get the chance due to geography

 

[BugI02]

I don't get the reference "13".

He's a member of a coven?

 

[BugI02]

I get it. "Someone else looks prejudiced, so I need to look prejudiced too!"

That is an awesome way to look at it.

Or you could look at nuance like courtesy. People are entitled to the presumption that they deserve full courtesy until they demonstrate they are willing to give less, at which point they are entitled to no more than they give, and perhaps less. Why should nuance be any different

 

[KLB]

I see it more as a matter that if the other side is going to be prejudiced AF, I'm not going to walk on egg shells lest I say something that the most fertile imagination can sift and find "offense" or "prejudice".

Who said anything about walking on eggshells? Not making blanket statements about a group shouldn't be hard to do, whether it is black people burn down their neighborhoods, white people are racist, or Muslims are terrorists.

 

[jamil]

This is the flip side of the problem I have with JK, et al - the one way direction of nuance. If it is a favored group, like BLM or progressives, there is never enough nuance and we are subjected to 'NOT ALL [favored group] are [descriptive term(s)]' , while blaming Americans in general or more specifically Trump supporters for racism and all manner of other ills is. No amount of nuance in that case is too little

People are constantly calling for refuting arguments with facts, perhaps this would be a good test case. If there are other subgroups of America noted for rioting and setting fires predominantly in an around their own neighborhoods, perhaps listing them with links would be the way to go

Until then, based on what I see and read, I will allow 'the blacks' or some variation such as 'urban blacks' until such time as BOTH sides utilize nuance to the same degree - because 'the whites' haven't done anything as some sort of monolithic group

Not all Black people are rioting idiots. Some are. Being a rioting idiot who happens to be Black should not imply a link between black people and rioting idiots, nor should it imply that rioting idiots are exclusively black. It's better if the language we use reflects that unambiguously.

Not all Trump supporters are racists. Some are. Being a racist who happens to be a Trump supporter, should not imply a link between Trump supporters and racists, nor should it imply that racists are exclusively Trump supporters. It's better if the language we use reflects that unambiguously.

Here's something else we could say about rioting idiots. They strongly tend to be people more likely to support Democrats, except when a fringe group of angry Trumpers are convinced that the election was stolen from god himself by a cabal of communists or whatever.

 

[nonobaddog]

Possibly. In WBTT® world, it would be acknowledged that NOT ALL coyotes kill chicken, but without sufficient nuance to entertain the idea that perhaps some of them just don't get the chance due to geography

What is your point? Nobody said all coyotes kill chickens.
You seem to be adding things that aren't said so you can argue against the things you added.

 

[jamil]

If you think back to '92 as well as the 60s, and include those data in the pattern, you would see that there were far fewer 'racist ass white people' rioting and burning than there are now, but the location of the damages would still fit the complaint.

I mean, it might be because public transit stops running and it is too far to walk to riot outside ones own environs. I'm willing to consider lack of planning

In 1970 I remember looking through the fence on the playground at the rioters at the Jr High school on the other side. There were indeed black people rioting. And there were white people rioting against them. It took two sides to fight.

The riots we're talking about today are a lot different. And like I said above, with the exception of the Capitol riots, if there is rioting going on, it is the people who tend to be Democrats. But, I see about as many or more white people throwing fire bombs and burning **** down. I haven't seen any white kids running out of stores carrying shoes though. Maybe the cameras are showing bias.

 

[nonobaddog]

Not all Black people are rioting idiots. Some are. Being a rioting idiot who happens to be Black should not imply a link between black people and rioting idiots, nor should it imply that rioting idiots are exclusively black. It's better if the language we use reflects that unambiguously.

Not all Trump supporters are racists. Some are. Being a racist who happens to be a Trump supporter, should not imply a link between Trump supporters and racists, nor should it imply that racists are exclusively Trump supporters. It's better if the language we use reflects that unambiguously.

Here's something else we could say about rioting idiots. They strongly tend to be people more likely to support Democrats, except when a fringe group of angry Trumpers are convinced that the election was stolen from god himself by a cabal of communists or whatever.

You are talking about generalization. You said it is not correct. Then you imply it is correct if only one says "strongly tend".
It that the point? Semantics?

 

[gregr]

Who said anything about walking on eggshells? Not making blanket statements about a group shouldn't be hard to do, whether it is black people burn down their neighborhoods, white people are racist, or Muslims are terrorists.

Fine line there, right? When there is one particular group doing any given thing, it`s gotta be ok to say what`s happening.

 

[jamil]

What is your point? Nobody said all coyotes kill chickens.
You seem to be adding things that aren't said so you can argue against the things you added.

I think our disagreement is more over language. Consider the two statements below.

The Black people need to change.

Some Black people need to change.

They both could be used to mean the same things. However, the first statement is more ambiguous because it could mean that only Black people need to change, or that all Black people need to change. The second is specific. There is no implication possible that only Blacks need to change or that all Blacks need to change.

Similarly the following statements are different.

All black people don't need to change.

Not all Black people need to change.

The negation is correct in both. Semantically you could say they both say the same thing. But the first is ambiguous because it could mean that no black people need to change, while the second is more specific.

 

[jamil]

You are talking about generalization. You said it is not correct. Then you imply it is correct if only one says "strongly tend".
It that the point? Semantics?

The point is language. Maybe I explained what I'm saying better in my previous post.