Transformers and More @ The Seibertron Store
![Visit shop.seibertron.com to buy "ENERGON UNIVERSE 2024 SPECIAL #1 Cvr A Image Comics 0324IM166 1A (CA) Johnson"](https://www.seibertron.com/images/ebay/comic-books/image/energon-universe/01A/t-DSC06079.jpg)
![Visit shop.seibertron.com to buy "ENERGON UNIVERSE 2024 SPECIAL #1 Cvr E 1:50 Image Comics 0324IM170 1E Randolph"](https://www.seibertron.com/images/ebay/comic-books/image/energon-universe/01E/t-DSC05949.jpg)
That's the right way to go in my opinion as well. Prevent the problems from happening in the first place. However, the biggest issue remains the same: the people in charge. You can come up with the most noble and common sense social programs, but if there are corrupt and greedy people in charge if them, they won't work as intended. This starts with the people in charge, and the process that puts them in charge, whether it be appointment by a mayor or whoever, or through an election. And I also believe people who are tasked with using policies to effect change in certain areas should have to come from those areas. (This is also 1 of the biggest flaws of our federal government, but that might be a different discussion.) Anyway, these things won't happen overnight regardless of who is in charge, but I hope they do happen. And I think this is something that can't start at the top, it has to start at the bottom, on the local levels. When people look to the president or Congress to make the changes for them, it won't work. The change for communities has to come from those communities. Otherwise it's just an overreaching of the federal government, and the problem with that is not all laws can be equally applied to everyone.I guess I can see where you're coming from with the concern there, but I don't feel like the economic front to addressing systematic racism would fall into that category. When people talk about that (at least in the circles I frequent) they aren't talking about the weird and vacuous reparations form of it where you give every black person a check and somehow that helps them out of poverty. They're more talking about investing in communities than individuals. More equality of opportunity than equality of outcome. So like investing in education, more specifically funding grade schools, which tend to be underfunded in urban or inner city communities due to a lack of available funding from property taxes. And of course a lack of education tends to correlate with higher rates of criminality and poverty, so making sure every child is getting a proper education would go a long way to help lower these things. Of course this is just an example of one thing that needs to be done there's other aspects of society that need to be addressed as well and this won't by any means be a quick transition but I feel like investing in poor or otherwise struggling communities in this sort of way would be a worthwhile investment.
ShadowKatt wrote:Don't bother quoting this, I'm not answering any of it. I'm done. I said my peice before, I made my arguements, no one listened then and no one's changing now. As the saying goes, we've made our beds, and now we're going to have to sleep in them.
Burn wrote:BLM has obviously evolved, from what should have been a movement about change, it's clearly been taken over by people who want anarchy.
There are those out there though who still believe in the original purpose of BLM, and it's disappointing that those people are now being lumbered in with the anarchists.
AcademyofDrX wrote:Burn wrote:BLM has obviously evolved, from what should have been a movement about change, it's clearly been taken over by people who want anarchy.
There are those out there though who still believe in the original purpose of BLM, and it's disappointing that those people are now being lumbered in with the anarchists.
"Taken over"? Did I miss an executive committee meeting where we voted for new leadership? Is "guy who kicked other guy in head" running the show now?
Black Lives Matter is a cause, not a group. There are various activist communities affiliated with that cause, and I don't want to use "no true Scotsman" here, but the property damage and violence associated with public demonstrations aren't inherent to or reflective of what Black Lives Matter stands for. And as I've said all along, reframing the protest movement away from its origins to specific isolated incidents is an intentional act of marginalization perpetrated by people acting in bad faith. You can say "I oppose these acts" without decrying the entire enterprise.
AcademyofDrX wrote:I'm sorry, you can go form All Buildings Matter but I quite frankly think Black Lives Matter more and is a bigger problem not being adequately served by the status quo. I absolutely reject your claim "it" is happening "everywhere." And ending racial injustice will do more to quit violence at protests than anything protestors could achieve independently.
Rodimus Prime wrote:But they're not isolated incidents. They're happening everywhere there are protests going on. In every city. Some are mild and some are atrocious, but they're being done in the name of the 'cause.'
That's not to say I think that's what every protester/supporter of the 'cause' wants, but as long as people like you are willing to brush it aside in the name of focusing on the original intent, it will keep happening. As a supporter, the blm movement is a house that you built along with others who support it, and it falls on you to keep it in order the same way it's up to police departments to eradicate the type of officers who started this.
-Kanrabat- wrote:Trump have high chances to landslide this November. For that, you can thanks BLM.
Notimus Crime wrote:-Kanrabat- wrote:Trump have high chances to landslide this November. For that, you can thanks BLM.
No, the vast majority of polls place Biden at a pretty comfortable lead nationally. But I'm sure those are all fake news and the REAL polls are the ones that show Trump CRUSHING Biden.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
The gap has gotten a bit smaller recently but it by no means indicates a landslide is likely.
-Kanrabat- wrote:Checking calendar.
Hmmmm. Look like 2016 all over again!
Notimus Crime wrote:-Kanrabat- wrote:Checking calendar.
Hmmmm. Look like 2016 all over again!
The difference in 2016 was a lot smaller (like 3 or 4 points if I remember correctly), whearas now it's a much more comfortable lead to where it's pretty safe to say Biden has a high chance of winning in November. I'm not saying there's no chance of Trump winning, but it's really quite irrational to insist Trump has a high chance of not only winning but landsliding when almost every poll places him at least seven points behind Biden.
-Kanrabat- wrote:Notimus Crime wrote:-Kanrabat- wrote:Checking calendar.
Hmmmm. Look like 2016 all over again!
The difference in 2016 was a lot smaller (like 3 or 4 points if I remember correctly), whearas now it's a much more comfortable lead to where it's pretty safe to say Biden has a high chance of winning in November. I'm not saying there's no chance of Trump winning, but it's really quite irrational to insist Trump has a high chance of not only winning but landsliding when almost every poll places him at least seven points behind Biden.
You don't get it at all.
The polls in 2016 were saying Clinton all the way, Trump have NO chances to win!
History is not only repeating itself, but now his opponent is half senile Biden with Harris, who is hated by both the Left AND the Right.
Anyway, I think we are getting woefully off topic here.
Burn wrote:History has shown many times that polls are not entirely accurate.
Even if it looks like a landslide, there's been many elections over the years where the result has gone the opposite of the predicted landslide.
Burn wrote:I also recommend reading SK's post, to whom I was replying to, maybe then you'll see the context and not be so quick to tear my comments apart.
I'm with you on that. As I said in a previous post, actions will always speak louder than words. The sad reality is that the general public's appetite for sensationalism is fed by the main stream media's greed for attention. It's a twisted, disgusting parasitic relationship where both parts are the parasite. This results in more shocking sounds and images on TV, phone and computer screens, regardless of the messages being transmitted. This is why I don't take most news seriously unless I've actually located a few eliable sources for it, no matter what it's about. I wish there was no violence with these protests, because it distracts people from the main issue at hand. Unfortunately there are some who still choose to reject that reality, keeping their heads in the sand, and thus aren't helping their own 'cause' to achieve results. Is it pride? Is it ignorance? Who knows. You're right about not knowing the accuracy of peaceful protests versus violent mobs. But the fact that there are violent mobs acting in the name of the 'cause' and those who reject this and excuse it is the biggest detriment to the 'cause' itself.Notimus Crime wrote:Rodimus Prime wrote:But they're not isolated incidents. They're happening everywhere there are protests going on. In every city. Some are mild and some are atrocious, but they're being done in the name of the 'cause.'
First, I'd like to point out that no matter how much peaceful protest happens, riots and violent protest are the ones that are going to be disproportionately reported on. Nobody really cares if a peaceful assembly of people march and congregate outside some place and chant some things. Maybe if an official releases a statement about it or if police officers push down a 70 year old man who is then ignored when he starts bleeding out of his ear on the concrete (not making that up, 57 officers resigned in solidarity with the two officers who got suspended because they were caught on on camera doing that) you'll hear about it. But a riot where people burn, loot, and get in altercations with police? Now there's something to report on. It's hard to accurately gauge how much of either is happening based on how many violent incidents you hear about. By that I mean you can obviously know there's more violent happening if you hear about more violent, but there isn't a reliable way to gauge how often it's happening in relation to peaceful protests when peaceful protests are reported on far less.
I agree with this for the most part, but the concept is still the same. They're both organized and include elements that are a detriment to the entire group's mission. Only the methods of correcting or removing these elements is different. The removal still has to occur for the group to achieve its goals. For the 'cause,' it's the eradication of racial injustice. For the police it's containing criminals and crime in general.That's not to say I think that's what every protester/supporter of the 'cause' wants, but as long as people like you are willing to brush it aside in the name of focusing on the original intent, it will keep happening. As a supporter, the blm movement is a house that you built along with others who support it, and it falls on you to keep it in order the same way it's up to police departments to eradicate the type of officers who started this.
I don't think the two are necessarily the same. In the case of the police departments, they're an institution. They can create and enforce new rules among their current officers, change the way officers are trained to discourage more brutal and violent tactics/teach the value of de-escalation, and fire any officers who refuse to change and continue to abuse their power. With BLM, it's a largely decentralized political movement. They could be doing more, but that isn't saying much. Almost anyone can walk into a protest regardless of their intent. I'm not saying we shouldn't be pushing to encourage less violent tactics to be more commonplace or that it's impossible to do so, just that it's much more hard to ensure every person in every protest in a worldwide movement are using nonviolent means of protest than it is for police departments to ensure the specific officers within their department are doing so.
Yeah, that's true. As I've said before, my view on the violence is that it is an unfortunately inevitable product of civil unrest. However, that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter when it happens. The part I'm struggling with is what could be done here, since BLM is a largely decentralized movement. By that I mean yes there is an organization here that attempts to coordinate when protests happen, but you can't control what people join that protest and what those people are going to do. Maybe they should encourage nonviolent protest more and not make as bold of statements in solidarity with people who riot and loot because they're fed up with the system or feel like they're not being heard when they protest nonviolently (not helped by the fact that violent protest gets all of the media coverage). I don't think you necessarily have to condemn those people because I can understand where they're coming from and could conceive of cases that doing so may seem like you're trying to de-legitimize the injustices that have been committed against them, but it doesn't send the best message for how people should conduct themselves in a protest. You could say "oh well they should still condemn those who do it for no good reason or because they're monsters etc etc" but my thinking on that is it can be very hard to draw the distinction of who's doing what for what reason and it can still look bad to your opponents (makes it look like you're trying to draw distinctions when they aren't very clear or giving certain people a pass for illegitimate reasons).Rodimus Prime wrote: You're right about not knowing the accuracy of peaceful protests versus violent mobs. But the fact that there are violent mobs acting in the name of the 'cause' and those who reject this and excuse it is the biggest detriment to the 'cause' itself.
-Kanrabat- wrote:The HUGE difference with MLK and too many BLM "leaders" is that MLK never, ever endorsed violence. Also, the police at the time did their job and were not impeded by corrupt polititians, meaning the riots of the time never had the chance to go as bad as they are today.
The current BLM "leaders" publicly endorse the riots and violence with no shame, and loudly. "Looting is our right! Looting is reparation!" Plus, police now cant do anything when the DA refuse to prosecute and keep releasing the most violent criminals.
This sure is not helping.
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Glyph, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], MSN [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]