DesiDesai40 said, August 16, 2014, 09:21:33 pmAnd let's not distort history because peaceful protests did tidbits. Now that most people literally "believe" that all people are "relatively" free, things will remain completely static. It hurts.I disagree entirely. Things will never stay static; the fight will always continue. It only looks like things are static because we've come so, so far, but we still have a long road ahead!
DesiDesai40 said, August 16, 2014, 09:21:33 pmTrayvon didn't change anythingbecause zimmerman was not guilty
I don't know Jmorph. Concern with us and "for" us just doesn't seem to be there. With racism so much less "glaring" than it was in the past, I don't think it will inspire or galvanize non-blacks enough to actually do something. For decades we've complained about a system which essentially keeps us poor, literally starves most of us, gives us no ways out, provides lackluster education throughout our areas, then throws many of us in jail with no recourse other than to steal to survive or assure that our children survive in many cases. Of course black-on-black crime tends to be the heaviest so I have to back track from that statement.Personally I don't think its in anyone's personal interest to defend us, really. That requires time and monetary investments, at known losses, that most people just don't have, especially while the population grows and competition for resources thickens. In my mind the inner cities will remain our homes and people will be able to do with us as they like.By the way, had no clue you were (likely) black. Are you?
I dunno, protests like these still give me hope. The problems that are left are all insidious and systematic, hard to easily get a grip on for sure, but I still believe things will turn around, eventually.DesiDesai40 said, August 16, 2014, 09:53:00 pmBy the way, had no clue you were (likely) black. Are you?nope, I mean like, the collective we, the entire human race! And from personal experience; as a gay dude, I definitely have felt things improving.
Jmorphman said, August 16, 2014, 09:57:59 pmDesiDesai40 said, August 16, 2014, 09:53:00 pmBy the way, had no clue you were (likely) black. Are you?nope, I mean like, the collective we, the entire human race! And from personal experience; as a gay dude, I definitely have felt things improving.I see. Well you would feel things changing, no? Entire laws have been enacted which legalize practices formerly denied to gays. Thank goodness mentalities are changing too.
yea....gay rights have really come a long way. its good to see us finally get some kind of respect...we are all the same at the end of the day.
DKDC said, August 16, 2014, 08:49:23 pmXhominid said, August 16, 2014, 08:43:52 pmOh, so you're not advocating guns and NRA stuff, but "sadly it becomes a necessity" ? Yeah, it's everyone's fault for missing your point, sure, it's not your fault.It's not a necessity. Even when shit goes so far south like that, it still gets resolved like it just did, without any necessity like the one you say.By the way, my previous post was not targeted at you.1. Your first post kinda came off that way, I apologize.2. Alright, let me finally get this shit under wraps:I'm not saying that we should be ready and take down the government or whatever nonsense that you guys would stretch from my posts, but I'm saying the possibility should neverbe tossed off the table, I am NOT against peaceful protests if they help the situation(lord knows how many times I've gotten that drilled into my head in life), but if shit truly does go south, then it SHOULD be an option, a last resort.I'm mainly saying the police should really never have this level of power to begin with. National Guard? CIA? Sure. Normal Police Force? Why would they have all the stuff that happened in Ferguson for? And to abuse it as hugely as they did for the complete dismantling of the force to even be a thing?Jmorphman said, August 16, 2014, 09:09:56 pmWhile the Second Amendment is often interpreted as being a measure to ensure citizens could overthrow the government if it became too corrupt, an equally valid interpretation exists that states that the amendment is in fact about establishing the equivalent of an army: instead of a centralized army there would be instead loosely connected militias dedicated towards national defense. There was a lot of indecision about what shape the American government would take in the early days, as the Federalists and the anti-Federalists struggled to hash out a workable system of governance. The anti-Federalists were wary of a strong central government and thus disinclined to want a national army; small militias could've been a compromise between the two sides.Of course, even if the first interpretation was taken as true, it doesn't have a lot of use in the modern day. The only way an armed revolt of citizens could overthrow the government today was if almost the entire population rose up; modern military technology is simply too advanced. It's not like the founders envisioned people with hunting rifles facing off with jets, or something.Of course we as civilians are screwed considering how powerful the military is, doesn't stop the fact of actually TRYING to overthrow the government if it gets too corrupt anything less than exercising the rights we have been given since the nation's birth.QuoteWere you, now? Because you're doing an extraordinarily shitty job at communicating that:Again, you took those quotes out of context. The first one was ONLY if the situation at Ferguson was repeated again and again(NOT the shooting of the person in question, but how the police handled it). The second is pretty much the same as the first. My fuck ups can easily be attributed to the fact that in certain cases I just can't get my point across.
We can effect change in the government much more effectively than armed revolt, even if it became absurdly corrupt.Xhominid said, August 17, 2014, 02:44:25 amAgain, you took those quotes out of context. The first one was ONLY if the situation at Ferguson was repeated again and again(NOT the shooting of the person in question, but how the police handled it). The second is pretty much the same as the first. My fuck ups can easily be attributed to the fact that in certain cases I just can't get my point across.C'mon. Nothing in your first post says anything like what you're describing now, and that other post was quoted in full.
Xhominid said, August 17, 2014, 02:44:25 amI'm not saying that we should be ready and take down the government or whatever nonsense that you guys would stretch from my posts, but I'm saying the possibility should neverbe tossed off the table, I am NOT against peaceful protests if they help the situation(lord knows how many times I've gotten that drilled into my head in life), but if shit truly does go south, then it SHOULD be an option, a last resort.I'm mainly saying the police should really never have this level of power to begin with. National Guard? CIA? Sure. Normal Police Force? Why would they have all the stuff that happened in Ferguson for? And to abuse it as hugely as they did for the complete dismantling of the force to even be a thing?All of this is kind of self-contradictory, or at least, self-excusive.If people in charge manage to figure out that the police having this kind of equipment was crazy in the first place, and if someone can make sure that it doesn't happen again, then there's no reason to even discuss armed self-defense against power-crazed police. Because peaceful protest will only be the only logical reaction.If the police generally manages somehow to keep this kind of army arsenal, and does end up power-crazed tyrants like that again, then the idea of armed self-defense is a joke and doesn't stand a chance. Unless we start going guerilla warfare and act like everywhere is Mexico.There are only two possibilities here. And one way or the other, armed self-defense is a laughable response.Not to mention that if things did go so bad that armed self-defense were to become a matter of survival of the citizens, then it sure as hell won't be an issue whether the law allows it or not. Such a dictatorship-oriented situation would remove or trample any such law allowing it anyway, and people who need that to survive wouldn't care if the law allows them to do that or not.This entire discussion is null and irrelevant. If people need to survive, they'll do what they have to, and if they aren't in immediate danger, then it's not even on the table.
Jmorphman said, August 17, 2014, 02:47:46 amWe can effect change in the government much more effectively than armed revolt, even if it became absurdly corrupt.This is the subject of an upcoming seminar that I suspect was just thrown together this past week. One of the topics of discussion will be underlying issues, in particular "how did a white administration get elected in an area that's over 70% minority". And that will probably lead to why there is a mostly white police force. I'm starting to feel my sympathies move away from the protesters when I read about continued looting and destruction of private property.
Looting during a massive protest will always happen no matter what color, black, asian, hispanic or even a large white protest, people will loot or cause violence, its not the main objective but shit eventually happens everytime
Careful, if you declare that looting and violence will happen regardless of the intentions of the protesters, then it's a good excuse to start rejecting any protest. Because hey, even if the protesters are nice people, looting will happen no matter what.Instead, you should push for security during protests and prevention of looting. That would be... the job of the police - to hit on looters, and not hit on protesters - to protect the protesters.
Hmmm.... you think that raging protesters that are protesting against the police will feel protected by them? On the other hand a thug's mind on this case as an excuse will be "fuck the police i dont trust them so ill tare the city apart because they shot one of ours for no reason"... unfortunatelly trough history this is what a police officer sees or thinks about an african american during this kind of events in this country, for most of them they are not "good people" other than delinquents saddly... a racial issue that has been passed trough decades...
Quoteunfortunatelly trough history this is what a police officer sees or thinks about an african american during this kind of events in this country, for most of them they are not "good people" other than delinquents saddly... a racial issue that has been passed trough decades... Im not sure you know any black people.
Yes I do actually quite a few, and that is why Im saying this, sure not all cops think this way but most of them do, and this is a Southern State... so a bit more complicated for them
Lord Kain said, August 17, 2014, 07:01:52 pmHmmm.... you think that raging protesters that are protesting against the police will feel protected by them?no, but the people and places surrounding the protest should feel protected against looters that are amongst the protesters
^ that.QuoteJust before midnight, some in what had been a large and rowdy but mostly well-behaved crowd broke into that same small store, and began looting it, according to Missouri State Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson. Some in the crowd began throwing rocks and other objects at police, Johnson said. One officer was hurt, but details on the injury were not immediately available. Johnson added that police backed off to try and ease the tension. He believes looting may have spread to a couple of nearby stores. No arrests were made. source If I am a small business owner that has invested/risked my resources and time and I'm robbed, bullied, assaulted (allegedly) and a few nights later police allow "protesters" to loot and burn my business, I'd be furious. Where's MY protection. You can march and chant and wave signs all you want but the minute you break the law, you are a criminal. If you destroy my property, you are violating my rights.
