Jump to content

"Love One Another" v. "Black Lives Matter"


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

We went over these stats already, so I asked you for a study and you give me somersaults. Until you can show that the media coverage is about deaths/killings and not protests over deaths/killings, you are deflecting from discussion of the racial policy that explains the latter.

Oh, it is back to avoid. Read my answer above. You follow in the footsteps of so many others. It is just too bizarre for words. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
6 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Name just one, please.

Iirc Daniel Taylor, but the name may be off a bit. 
 

Didn’t even google it, btw. 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
12 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Black deaths are covered ad nauseum.

11 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It is just too bizarre for words. 

Produce some articles that report the police killing of a black person independent of a subsequent reaction such as a protest or demonstration.

You will see that the reports are about the protests. Why are they reported and not ignored (they are newsworthy). Why are there no reports of protests over white police killings (there are no protests to report).

Newspaper obituaries and police logs are something altogether different.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

But it's not as if smac doesn't have a valid point.  We sit idly by watching conversation because if we dip our toes in it, we get trounced with reasoning that doesn't really work.  BLM peddles its message in a religious way.  That's exactly the cause of it's success, it seems to me.  But it makes it terribly dogmatic and as such causes problem as much as it attempts to fix problem.  John McWhorter's original piece on the matter still applies.  As a dogmatic religion there are enemies being created where there need not be enemies.  Smac, no doubt, feels black lives matter.  He's simply not convinced by the dogmatic messaging, it seems to me.  So as with religion BLM creates enemies where enemies need not be created.  Back when religion was central in my life I couldn't for the life of figure out what "the world" was which was supposed to be what we were to fight against.  Equally I couldn't figure out who was supposed to be the bad guys peddling the ways of the world, or why anyone who was identified should be seen as bad.  

I wouldn't say there is no issue involving race or BLM that we don't need to work through.  THe problem is, of course, BLM peddles religion and as such we get stuck at dogmatic propositions and those who dare question or explore beyond those dogmatic notions are seen as enemy.  It's a sad joke, in a way, and that's a big problem.

The protesters are not particularly interested in winning over those who are convinced they are radical communists. Why would they even try to win them over? They are not going to be won over. Bending over backwards to do so would be idiotic.

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am not really trying to do that.  Also, I do not agree with the "largely spontaneous" characterization.  Again, BLM has been involved in 95% of the riots.  I can't chalk that up to happenstance or coincidence.

By BLM you mean what? Card carrying BLM members? Most protests probably have less than half a dozen of those if they have any at all. If BLM is used as a blanket term for protesters then rioters are generally not protesters so that does not apply. If you mean anyone out on the street during a protest then sure but your definition is worthless. By that standard Rittenhouse was BLM and so are the police.

I think you are blinded by your need to see an organization in everything. It is why you insist Antifa and BLM are everywhere and behind everything when there is no evidence to back that up. Do you also believe the Proud/Poor Boys have an overhead organization? Why or why not?

  • Like 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

@Storm Rider what is your concern about the consequences of the media coverage as you've described and evaluated it?

The media has become a political arm of the Democrats. They don't report the news anymore. When they do report the news it's all slanted. It's slanted by what they leave out, what they choose to report on or not report.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

The media has become a political arm of the Democrats. They don't report the news anymore. When they do report the news it's all slanted. It's slanted by what they leave out, what they choose to report on or not report.

 

Well, now Fox News, who is usually biased towards Republicans had to cut off Trump's press secretary. So the media that is usually favoring towards Trump, is finally having a light switch go on, or they are realizing how what she is doing is putting our democracy in danger. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/10/whoa-fox-news-cuts-off-kayleigh-mcenany-for-votes-spiel

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The protesters are not particularly interested in winning over those who are convinced they are radical communists. Why would they even try to win them over? They are not going to be won over. Bending over backwards to do so would be idiotic.

By BLM you mean what? Card carrying BLM members? Most protests probably have less than half a dozen of those if they have any at all. If BLM is used as a blanket term for protesters then rioters are generally not protesters so that does not apply. If you mean anyone out on the street during a protest then sure but your definition is worthless. By that standard Rittenhouse was BLM and so are the police.

I think you are blinded by your need to see an organization in everything. It is why you insist Antifa and BLM are everywhere and behind everything when there is no evidence to back that up. Do you also believe the Proud/Poor Boys have an overhead organization? Why or why not?

Please cite your sources for your “less than half a dozen” statement.  I would like to read them. 
 

This past week alone I processed more than half a dozen contract requests, across at least five of our buildings, for damage done by “protestors”.  And that is just the latest in months of damage being done during riots.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well, now Fox News, who is usually biased towards Republicans had to cut off Trump's press secretary. So the media that is usually favoring towards Trump, is finally having a light switch go on, or they are realizing how what she is doing is putting our democracy in danger. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/10/whoa-fox-news-cuts-off-kayleigh-mcenany-for-votes-spiel

This is true and makes my point. The media should not be left or right except in their editorial pages. They shouldn't try to influence elections or our government. They are supposed to be the watch dogs for the citizens. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
11 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

The media has become a political arm of the Democrats. They don't report the news anymore. When they do report the news it's all slanted. It's slanted by what they leave out, what they choose to report on or not report.

I understand the sentiment. Is the concern that these protests do not qualify as news? Does the slant (often presented as "analysis" and "commentary" that is  countered by other ideologically-influenced news sources) alter the observation that law enforcement policy has a disproportionately negative effect on black citizens and communities?

Even watchdog journalism can be slanted, but is there any reason to think that government policy on a broader scale does not have a disproportionately negative effect on black citizens and communities?

Edited by CV75
  • Like 1
Link to post
14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The protesters are not particularly interested in winning over those who are convinced they are radical communists. Why would they even try to win them over? They are not going to be won over. Bending over backwards to do so would be idiotic.

If they are not interested, then why are they trying to?  One of the problems is they are trying to win people over through dogma rather than reason.  

Link to post

Is "disproportion" relevant?  

Suppose, as a pure hypothetical, over the course of her judgeship a Supreme Court justice hires one law clerk of a certain ancestral background that comprises approximately 13.4% of the general US population, and one hundred forty-nine law clerks not of that ancestral background, for a total of 150 law clerks.

For reference, 1/150 is approximately 0.67% of law clerks coming from this ancestral background, which is less than the 13.4% this group comprises of the general population.  If the justice hires law clerks proportional to their numbers in the general population with respect to their ancestral background, we would expect her to hire around .134 x 150 = 20 of them from this group.

Would racial animus be implicated in this hypothetical twenty-fold disparity hiring with respect to ancestral background?  Why or why not?

And if not, why should law enforcement disproportionately (with respect to their numbers in the population) affecting Black citizens and communities be considered problematic?

Edited by Jared Livesey
Link to post
54 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

Is "disproportion" relevant?  

Suppose, as a pure hypothetical, over the course of her judgeship a Supreme Court justice hires one law clerk of a certain ancestral background that comprises approximately 13.4% of the general US population, and one hundred forty-nine law clerks not of that ancestral background, for a total of 150 law clerks.

For reference, 1/150 is approximately 0.67% of law clerks coming from this ancestral background, which is less than the 13.4% this group comprises of the general population.  If the justice hires law clerks proportional to their numbers in the general population with respect to their ancestral background, we would expect her to hire around .134 x 150 = 20 of them from this group.

Would racial animus be implicated in this hypothetical twenty-fold disparity hiring with respect to ancestral background?  Why or why not?

And if not, why should law enforcement disproportionately (with respect to their numbers in the population) affecting Black citizens and communities be considered problematic?

I misused the word "affect" to convey a negative effect. I'll try to wordsmith my post; thank you.

Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:
Quote

The protesters are not particularly interested in winning over those who are convinced they are radical communists. Why would they even try to win them over? They are not going to be won over. Bending over backwards to do so would be idiotic.

If they are not interested, then why are they trying to? 

They are not trying to win anyone over.  By way of example:

These are not the acts of people trying to win people over.

Quote

One of the problems is they are trying to win people over through dogma rather than reason.  

Not so.  There is no effort to persuade, either through presentation of "dogma" or "reason."  Instead, they they are trying to bully, threaten, coerce and intimidate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
45 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I misused the word "affect" to convey a negative effect. I'll try to wordsmith my post; thank you.

 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

is there any reason to think that government policy on a broader scale does not have a disproportionately negative effect on black citizens and communities?

Is it possible that government policy on a broader scale has a disproportionately negative effect on black citizens and communities, and yet the government policy on a broader scale be neutral with respect to ancestral background?

If not, why not?

If so, how does ancestral background become relevant to government policy, or, in other words, why are we talking about race?

Link to post
1 hour ago, Jared Livesey said:

Is it possible that government policy on a broader scale has a disproportionately negative effect on black citizens and communities, and yet the government policy on a broader scale be neutral with respect to ancestral background?

If not, why not?

If so, how does ancestral background become relevant to government policy, or, in other words, why are we talking about race?

Given that the context of my question is what we find in our assessment of news reports and other observations, what is your conclusion?

Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

They are not trying to win anyone over.  By way of example:

These are not the acts of people trying to win people over.

Not so.  There is no effort to persuade, either through presentation of "dogma" or "reason."  Instead, they they are trying to bully, threaten, coerce and intimidate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Welcome to religion.  I think you've made the point I've raised.  The effort is not to convince someone through reason, but to force upon everyone dogma.  Using bullying, threats, coercion and intimidation is the historic hallmark of religious tactics.  

Link to post
14 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Please cite your sources for your “less than half a dozen” statement.  I would like to read them. 
 

This past week alone I processed more than half a dozen contract requests, across at least five of our buildings, for damage done by “protestors”.  And that is just the latest in months of damage being done during riots.  

I don’t have sources. I don’t see why I should as the assertion I was challenging did not either. There are very few people who are officially members of BLM because the movement itself is decentralized. You should probably do something to stop the protests and the riots that accompany them would probably calm down too.

Provide sources when asked. This is a hot button thread so let's keep a lid on it.

Link to post
4 hours ago, Jared Livesey said:

Is "disproportion" relevant?  

Suppose, as a pure hypothetical, over the course of her judgeship a Supreme Court justice hires one law clerk of a certain ancestral background that comprises approximately 13.4% of the general US population, and one hundred forty-nine law clerks not of that ancestral background, for a total of 150 law clerks.

For reference, 1/150 is approximately 0.67% of law clerks coming from this ancestral background, which is less than the 13.4% this group comprises of the general population.  If the justice hires law clerks proportional to their numbers in the general population with respect to their ancestral background, we would expect her to hire around .134 x 150 = 20 of them from this group.

Would racial animus be implicated in this hypothetical twenty-fold disparity hiring with respect to ancestral background?  Why or why not?

And if not, why should law enforcement disproportionately (with respect to their numbers in the population) affecting Black citizens and communities be considered problematic?

That is dumb. No one is asserting that it is random chance. They are asserting it is deliberate racism and that white supremacists and racists disproportionately go into police work. The FBI issued a report warning about this being “on the rise” but they were ignored.

Link to post
46 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Given that the context of my question is what we find in our assessment of news reports and other observations, what is your conclusion?

My conclusion is that my question - is "disproportionate" or "disparate" "outcomes" by race sufficient to prove a charge of racial animus, such as the alleged existence of white "systemic racism" - has gone unanswered the three times I have posed it to you, and by that evidence you are disinclined to answer it.  Fair enough.

A necessary condition to problem solving is having an actual problem to solve.  Suppose one sets about to solve the problem of "systemic racism," by which is meant white racism, but everywhere one looks, one cannot find it - the rules are racially neutral, and they are applied racially neutrally - and everything one tries does not eliminate its alleged symptoms, such as disparate or disproportionate outcomes, then one will begin to suspect the problem isn't the system - one will suspect the problem is whites qua whites.  That reasoning ends in pogroms and holocausts.

It seems wise to me, though I concede many disagree, to find out the truth first, and then see if the problem as originally hypothesized exists.  If disparate or disproportionate outcomes may possibly not be the result of racial animus, but instead be explicable entirely as the normal outworkings of heritable differences in abilities among humans that are in competition with one another for resources, power, reproductive opportunities, pleasure, and popularity, then disparate or disproportionate outcomes may not be symptomatic of "systemic racism," and thus not evidence for its existence.

Edited by Jared Livesey
Link to post
31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Welcome to religion.  I think you've made the point I've raised.  The effort is not to convince someone through reason, but to force upon everyone dogma.  Using bullying, threats, coercion and intimidation is the historic hallmark of religious tactics.  

Is that the kind of missionary you were?  That’s not how I recall being trained in the MTC. 

I agree that the effort is not to convince others through logic or reason (some religions certainly try that though), but in our church, as you well know, we encourage others to not take our word for it, but to seek spiritual confirmation through study and prayer.  We do not do the convincing - we leave that job up to the Holy Spirit.

No threats, no coercion, no intimidation, no force - just a simple invitation (James 1:5).

 

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t have sources. I don’t see why I should as the assertion I was challenging did not either. There are very few people who are officially members of BLM because the movement itself is decentralized. You should probably do something to stop the protests and the riots that accompany them would probably calm down too.

Not surprised. This has become customary for you. Making assertions without any facts or sources to back them up. 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

My conclusion is that my question - is "disproportionate" or "disparate" "outcomes" by race sufficient to prove a charge of racial animus, such as the alleged existence of white "systemic racism" - has gone unanswered the three times I have posed it to you, and by that evidence you are disinclined to answer it.  Fair enough.

A necessary condition to problem solving is having an actual problem to solve.  Suppose one sets about to solve the problem of "systemic racism," by which is meant white racism, but everywhere one looks, one cannot find it - the rules are racially neutral, and they are applied racially neutrally - and everything one tries does not eliminate its alleged symptoms, such as disparate or disproportionate outcomes, then one will begin to suspect the problem isn't the system - one will suspect the problem is whites qua whites.  That reasoning ends in pogroms and holocausts.

It seems wise to me, though I concede many disagree, to find out the truth first, and then see if the problem as originally hypothesized exists.  If disparate or disproportionate outcomes may possibly not be the result of racial animus, but instead be explicable entirely as the normal economic outworkings of heritable differences in abilities among humans that are in competition with one another for resources, power, reproductive opportunities, pleasure, and popularity, then disparate or disproportionate outcomes may not be symptomatic of "systemic racism," and thus not evidence for its existence.

Are you still in the questioning or discovery stage as to whether some people do not like people who have black skin simply because of the color of their skin?  Do you seriously doubt that type of "racism" exists?

Maybe you just need to take trip to somewhere in the deep southern parts pf the U.S.  Maybe you have just never actually seen it.  I have, and I know that type of "racism" exists.

I hate the term racism or the practice of thinking about people with different pigments of skin color as if they are people of different "races".  All people are in the same race.

Link to post
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not so.  There is no effort to persuade, either through presentation of "dogma" or "reason."  Instead, they they are trying to bully, threaten, coerce and intimidate.

I hope that non-members reading this board don't think Latter-day Saints are racist and bigoted. 

I joined a BLM protest a couple of blocks from my office.  There were thousands of people there.  I hung out with and got to know a black guy and his wife and chlldren.  I held a "BLM" sign.  I could not imagine that I, nor my new friend, were there to "bully, threaten and intimidate."  

Knowing the hundreds of years of institutionalized outrage against blacks, and then the resulting carpetbagging federalism after the Civil War to disenfranchise blacks, I have a very sympathetic ear to things like reparations and institutional apologies.  

Do NOT call other posters racist or bigoted because you disagree with them.

 

Link to post
4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is that the kind of missionary you were?  That’s not how I recall being trained in the MTC. 

I agree that the effort is not to convince others through logic or reason (some religions certainly try that though), but in our church, as you well know, we encourage others to not take our word for it, but to seek spiritual confirmation through study and prayer.  We do not do the convincing - we leave that job up to the Holy Spirit.

No threats, no coercion, no intimidation - just a simple invitation (James 1:5).

 

Um, no, I believe we appeal to people to use reasoning, too.  Logic and reason AND what the Holy Spirit will tell them.  Come now, said Isaiah as he was inspired to say by the Lord, let us reason together.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...