gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:40 am
That one really made me mad because the rioters had no reason to vandalize a memorial honoring those African Americans.
I don't know why Shaw's memorial was vandalized, but apparently it has been vandalized many times in the past as well. Going back to your original post, you said,
"I'm not gonna lie, some statues I do support tearing down. But others deserve to stay standing for the great history and achievements they resemble."
So you're not against the idea of tearing down statues -- it's just that the ones coming down need to meet with your approval, it would seem. If not, then it seems it's a case of "the world going mad."
I guess some people have a different criteria than yours regarding which statues should come down...
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:40 am
Actually, STATISTICS have demonstrated that black people are being disproportionately killed by police.
First of all, the link you sent me from statista actually shows that WHITES are being disproportionately killed by police. Are you even examining what you're sending me?
Aww, I'm sorry. Let me hold your hand and walk you through that.
You see, you can't just click on the link and look at the graph and consider your mind expanded. No, dear - you have to look at what the numbers on the graph represent.
The graph is showing you the overall numbers. Which is why myself (and everyone else) use the word "disproportionate." Yes, the overall numbers for dead whiteys is a lot higher, but there are a lot more white people living here than black people, so you can't just go by the raw numbers. You have to judge by the percentages.
Take a look at what is written below the graph. Titled "
People shot to death by US Police, by Race 2017-2020." Read that, and you'll see the words: "
Additionally, the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 31 fatal shootings per million of the population as of June 2020."
Sorry. My fault for forcing you to use your critical thinking skills...
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:40 am
Even if blacks are being disproportionately killed by police, is that really a causation to systemic police racism? Considering that blacks commit more crime, the police were most likely justified to open fire when needed.
Causation, no. Indication, yes.
Where do you get this idea that "blacks commit more crimes"? Is it because there are a disproportionate number of black people in prison? Well that same fact could help
my argument as well as yours.
In New York City, when they had the "stop and frisk" program, it was painfully obvious that the chances of you being stopped and questioned by the police was significantly higher if you were a person of color. And that, my friend, is racism.
Regarding when
Black Lives Matter started -- it started in 2013. Michael Brown wasn't killed until 2014. There are numerous online sources supporting the fact that Black Lives Matter started after Zimmerman was acquitted for the murder of Trayvon Martin, including their own website, which clearly states: "#BlackLivesMatter was founded in 2013 in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer." You can see that for yourself on their website:
https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/
It's a stupid point of when BLM was started, and I only address it because you think I'm lying about it for some reason. If it started after the death of Michael Brown, it wouldn't make any difference as far as I can see.
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:40 am
BLM was founded on an alleged issue with police brutality, not the death of Trayvon Martin. There is no doubt that the death of Trayvon Martin gave momentum to the movement, but it wasn't what sparked the movement.
How could the BLM movement "gain momentum" with Trayvon Martin's death in 2012 if, as you claim, it didn't even start until 2014 with the death of Michael Brown??? Was a time machine involved?
The phrase/hashtag "Black Lives Matter" came on the scene in 2013. It is easily researched.
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:40 am
The point is that blacks are harmed more by their own crimes than police brutality. I think it's safe to say that the idea of police brutality against blacks is debunked right now.
There is a freaking VIDEO of an officer (Derek Chauvin) kneeling on the neck of George Floyd for 8 goddam minutes! Long after Floyd passed out, and after being told by a fellow officer that Floyd had no pulse, Chauvin didn't jump up and exclaim,
"Oh crap! Is he okay? Let's perform CPR!" No.
He continued to kneel on Floyd's god-damned neck for 2 additional minutes!!!
This happened in
broad daylight. It was being filmed. Chauvin
knew it was being filmed. He looked right into the camera.
He didn't care.
And you have the nerve to suggest "the idea of police brutality against blacks is debunked right now"??? Wow!!! You are living in a fantasy world...
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:40 am
So, how can systemic racism exist when non-white ethnic groups make more money than whites?
So much for systemic racism.....
And who is on the bottom of that income list? Black people!
Just because there are certain ethnic groups that have an average household income greater than those of whites does not mean "there is no systemic racism." There are rich black people and black celebrities who still fall victim to racism and police harassment.
If there was no systemic racism, why has Congress been virtually lily-white until recent years? Why have all of our Presidents been white men until 2009?
Today there are only 4 black CEOs who run a Fortune 500 company. If the numbers were proportionate, there should be 50. Not even close.
Only 3% of senior leaders in American businesses are black.
But that's okay. You just go on thinking everything is hunky dory...
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:40 am
A video that shows these Karens attacking blacks doesn't make racism a huge problem in this great country. Those Karens rarely exist, and they will soon be gone as we progress into this decade. ... These Karens are not around us, they're just not anymore. I am pretty social and outgoing, I can assure you racism isn't completely around us like you claim.
I like that. I post 4 examples of black people receiving harsher sentencing than white people who have committed equal (or worse) crimes, and you whine about my sampling size being too small.
But all it takes for you to believe that racism isn't an issue anymore are your little jaunts 'round the neighborhood?
My friends talk about the people they've encountered who cause scenes in restaurants and stores because they don't want to wear a mask. I've only encountered one. Is it fair for me to pronounce that "it really doesn't happen anymore" since I've personally only seen it happen once?
During your next outing, maybe walk up to some black people and ask them how often they experience racism in their daily lives. I think you'll be surprised by the answer. Then, just for a laugh, explain to them how you feel that racism isn't a big problem in this country anymore. Better yet, why not film it and put the videos on YouTube so you can post them here. I'd love to see them!
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:40 am
There is no doubt in my mind that there are racist individuals who occupy government jobs, such as judges. I will be more than happy to join you in fighting those people. However, that doesn't mean our entire justice system is racist...
It doesn't take "the entire justice system" being racist to cause these problems in society.
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:48 am
I'll tell you who won the revolutionary war. We did! Maybe the statue was brought down as a result of our victory? I suppose the statue was standing there ever since the American colonies were under British rule.
"As a result of our victory"? Wow. The date "July 9, 1776" is
literally the very first thing written on this meme. And you think that date was when the Revolutionary War ended?!? That just makes it harder for me to take you seriously.
Anyway, this meme was directed more towards Kevin and Amit, who seem to feel that tearing down statues is the equivalent to "people trying to rewrite history."
Instead, it is the people coming together with the realization that "this statue doesn't represent us or our values anymore -- let's get rid of it." You know, like what the Iraqis did when they tore down Saddam Hussein's statue in 2003.
I don't think you made the same comparison, but actually, you
did mention that you agreed with everything Kevin said, so I guess this meme
is there for you as well...
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:32 am
It doesn't have to be out in the open to exist.
When did I ever say it doesn't exist? I only said that we're not
completely surrounded by racist people.
But no one suggested we were 100% racist.
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 5:33 am
Dan the Damned wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:07 pm
So yeah, there was a time when all the racists were Democrats.
What the hell are you saying?! Are you insinuating that all Republicans are racist in today's political climate?
You are reversing it, dear. I said "when all racists were Democrats," not "when all Democrats were racist."
And likewise, I'm saying that "all racists are now Republicans," not "all Republicans are racist."
All dolphins are mammals, but not all mammals are dolphins. It's okay, I know it's hard to get a grip on.
And when I say "all," I'm obviously not being literal. I'm sure there are some racists who might vote for Democrats, and probably a lot more that just plain don't vote. Just saying that if someone is a racist, then the Republican party is the place to be! Especially during these last few years...
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 5:33 am
I hear leftists individuals like you accuse conservatives like me of being racist all the time, and I'm sick of it.
You get called a racist often, do you?
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 5:33 am
The conservative opposition to affirmative action is a good place to start, since it is overwhelmingly supported by liberals, especially on college campuses. Affirmative action is essentially the idea of lowering standards for certain races and favoring them. Affirmative action is typically used in college admissions, depending on the institution. The conservative belief to affirmative action towards blacks, for example, is that blacks have repeatedly proven themselves to be able to compete with other races without the benefit of lower standards, such as college admissions.
There is no mandate for "affirmative action" in regards to college admissions.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... eady-have/
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 5:33 am
The liberal stance of affirmative action is the complete opposite of the conservative stance, obviously. This is true, there are countless examples of blacks succeeding in every field at every level, even in the 20th century. Therefore, the policy of affirmative action is not needed at all. Study after study shows that affirmative action hurts more blacks than it helps. Why? Because the lower standards allow blacks to be placed into schools for which they are not academically prepared. High dropout rates for blacks confirm this. I hope you can see just how insulting this stupid policy is towards blacks. Yet, the radical left calls conservatives racist for opposing this racist and insulting policy. So tell me, who are the racists?
I see. So it's a bad thing when we help a few minorities get into college, but you're okay with the standards being dropped when it comes to students getting preferential treatment because their parents went to the same college? Or when athletes are accepted despite their grades being lower than other applicants? It's a rigged game. If you're gonna cry foul, at least be aware of all the other instances when college admission standards are dropped in order to accept various students.
Forgive us racist liberals for trying to create a loophole for black scholars who might not otherwise get a good education. Sorry for all the harm we've done to them.
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 5:33 am
Now lets talk about voter ID.
Damn, you're just gonna go all over the place, aren't you? And I bet you're gonna complain that my response is way too long. Then again, of course, if I failed to answer, you'd complain about that as well, I suppose. But okay, let's jump down your little rabbit hole as you try to convince me that liberals are racist and conservatives are the savior for the black community:
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 5:33 am
Conservatives believe that an ID should be required to participate in any election, just as European countries do to keep their elections safe. Liberals believe this policy is a racist plot by the conservatives to establish voter suppression. Why? Because the radical left believes that blacks and other minority groups just aren't capable of acquiring an ID, otherwise why would they oppose it? Let's be real. You need an ID to drive, to fly, to buy alcohol, and to purchase cold medicine. So, why do liberals believe that whites are capable of acquiring voter ID but blacks aren't? You tell me. So tell me again, who are the racists?!
Perhaps the racist is the person who thinks, "it's easy for me to get an ID, so that means it's easy for everybody"?
Our Constitution's Equal Protection Clause says that a state is not allowed to "unduly burden" the right to vote. And the Supreme Court has ruled that even very minor burdens need a damn good reason to be enacted (a reason that
far outweighs the burden). Because
voting is a right. It is not a privilege (like driving or flying or buying alcohol or purchasing certain medications).
Is voter fraud a damn good reason to enact Voter ID Laws? Yeah, it
would be if voter fraud was an issue. But time and again, studies clearly show that in-person voting fraud is very rare. According to one study, out of the 750 million votes cast in US elections between 2000-2012, there were 10 instances of voter impersonation fraud, 52 cases on non-citizens casting an ineligible vote, and 145 cases of double-voting. Again, that's over a 12-year period and out of a total of 750 million votes.
So right there, we see that voter ID laws do
not have a damn good reason to exist.
Now, how about the burden on the voter?
Voter ID laws have been shown to deter voting by low-income families, students, seniors and minorities. These groups are less likely to have a photo ID of the class required by certain states.
Depending on the state, a drivers license can cost anywhere from $15 to nearly $60. If you are a senior citizen on a low fixed income, that could be enough to keep you from voting.
Some states offer free IDs, but to get one you need to prove your identity. It can cost $25 to get a copy of your birth certificate, depending where you live.
While some people might be willing to spend the money to get an ID for voting (when they otherwise don't need one), others might live a hundred miles from the nearest DMV.
And other people simply decide not to hassle with getting the ID and as a result, don't vote.
Don't fool yourself. Voter ID laws are
not about keeping the elections secure. They are a tool to keep certain voters (who are typically Democrats) away from the polls. As such, they are very effective and are mainly in place in Republican-led states. And this is why so many of them are being struck down in the courts across the country.
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 5:33 am
Now let's talk about school choice. Conservatives push for school choice, which would allow all parents, not just wealthy ones, to choose where their children can attend school. Tuition Vouchers and Charter schools are all conservative initiatives. The liberal belief, obviously, is opposed to all of that. The radical left doesn't trust minority parents to select an appropriate school for their children.
The notion that liberals don't trust minority parents to select their kids' schools is ridiculous, and you know it. That sort of propaganda may work on your fellow Republicans, but do you really expect me to agree with such an idiotic notion? Honestly? (The Revolutionary War ended in 1783 BTW.)
The debates over Charter Schools and School Voucher programs aren't about race. It's about tax money being diverted from public schools and the fears of privatizing our public school system. At the start, the hope was that such programs might help low-income students stuck in under-funded public schools, but things didn't turn out so well over the years.
Hey! I got an idea! Instead of you and I squabbling about it, let's hear from actual black people what they think about the issue! Here's a link to a statement from the NAACP on why they want a moratorium on charter schools:
https://www.naacp.org/latest/statement- ... r-schools/
Seems like they're against it. Does that mean the NAACP is racist against black people?
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 5:33 am
So tell me Dan, given the liberal and Conservative viewpoints on those policies, who are the racists?! Which political side supports racist policies?!
I think it's clear that the racist policies out there are championed by the Republican Party. Your weak arguments aren't fooling anyone.
Republicans work overtime to silence the votes of black people, as I explained above. Trump's administration preys on the ignorant fears (of Americans who feel immigrants are stealing their jobs) by directing their focus on a silly extension of our southern border wall (ignoring our northern border for some reason other than racism). The GOP applauds when Trump bans Muslim immigration (because all Muslims are terrorists?). Republicans vote to give billions in tax breaks to the rich while, at the same time, make drastic cuts to vital social programs like Medicare and Social Security. Republicans fight against police reform. Republicans fight against consumer protections, such as predatory lending businesses.
No pun intended, but you're trying to convince me that black is white and white is black. Not sure why. It's no secret that racists tend to flock to the Republican Party.
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 5:33 am
Today, the democratic party is pretty much in complete favor of open borders.
I think you watch too much Fox News. Democrats are in favor of common sense immigration reform, as are many Republicans. Just because Democrats are against many of Trump's immigration policies doesn't mean they want open borders. Please give me a link to where prominent democrats talk about their desire for open borders. I'll wait.
gd134 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 5:33 am
Why? Because it's all about power since minority groups are more likely to vote for democrats in elections. That's how the left functions.
The fact that minority groups tend to vote for Democrats means Democrats are somehow exploiting them? How so? By showing them how the Republican party only has the vested interests of the rich in mind?
You come up with the nutty accusation that liberals don't trust minority parents to select an appropriate school for their kids, and here you are saying that minorities aren't clever enough to choose the correct political party???
"The white conservatives aren't friends of the Negro either, but they at least don't try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them."-
Malcolm X