By the way, it's a tell when you search "5 white guy's killed on 9/20" and the top 20 hits are RWNJ derposphere sites. They consider these "Gotcha!" Stories and pass it around each other, most straight plagiarizing without giving credit and then masturbating to how they chessmated the libruls.

Which of these white cop shooting black guy's were the police not in danger? Etc Etc

You're just gonna ignore that 5 white guy's were killed on the day Keith Scott was killed? Hopefully one day you will realize how much of a Sheep you are.

Tulsa for one

This is all wrong.

Activists organize ahead of actions. All this shiz is talked out (ad nauseam IMO) before hand. As I mentioned before, in the context of the decades long struggle for civil rights, the "institutional" is always understood. Real people out IRL aren't parsing their words to make this non-distinction you imagine that you see. Cliffs: you got the context 100% wrong.

Words often have distinct meanings. You & me deal with this shiz all day, every day... by using context. But... only those who have already had their brains turned inside out by this pernicious "secret inner heart" segregationist propaganda crap struggle with this "two kinds of racism" conundrum. They instead often have a surprisingly uniform, and clearly trained, ability to refuse to acknowledge context at all, and to derail the conversation into the brick wall of what a dictionary says.

Regardless the reason your Gotcha! Post is moronic is that it exchanges actual tangible data for anecdote, which again, is only applied by ****ing morons like yourself and your entire derposphere you got your dumb**** chessmate from to begin with.

Is that the one were the guy was drugged up and had a blank stare? They found PCP in his car. He walked away from the cops toward his car(possibly to get a weapon) and ignored their commands. He was a known drug trafficker.

Nothing to worry about here!!

Here's one. Mentally ill man with a gun barricades himself inside his house. After a 6-hour standoff, he climbs out the window and points a gun at police.

Does it really need to be explained to you why this police shooting is not being protested?

Yes, yes it was.

I have trouble understanding how "racist cops are murdering black men" can mean anything but the personal animus (common usage) of the word racist. You have to turn your brain inside out to make it mean anything else, imo.

It was,and there were multiple non-lethal options they could have attempted BEFORE graduating to lethal force.

No to all of these.

Cops killing white people without justification wouldn't make killing black people without justification acceptable. It's the complete lack of accountability that's the problem.

If police were completely color blind in their application of unnecessary force, BLM would still be a force for good. They are successfully raising awareness that sometimes the police are no angels. That benefits white victims. Any reforms to increase accountability or decrease criminal police violence will benefit white victims.

If somehow there was no systemic racism in US policing, the error by BLM would be harmless.

hot damn these parties sound sexy

Uh, I can't read hypothetical people's minds. You could, I guess, wander into a crowd, pick a person at random, and ask them if they agree or disagree with the above statement. Then ask them "why?" I guess.

As I explained, your Ms BLM, an conscientious activist, will have discussed all this shiz out ahead of time. Quite a bit IME. They aren't going to "suddenly think of something" because the shooter is black, etc.

It does appear the police could have handled this better. We are also looking at another scenario were the guy killed put himself in that situation.

It's pretty difficult to judge at what point you feel that your life or others is in danger. A large man on drugs not responding to commands has in the past become a dangerous person. Do you really think this cop wanted to shoot him? These are tense unpredictable situations that the police and the shooting victim should not have been in in the first place.

This is much more than a hypothetical. I've heard and read this sentiment many times over the past year or so. Pretty sure a twitter search of cops + racist + murder would turn up dozens of similar comments from just today. Hasn't Kaepernick said racist cops are getting away with murder, or something very similar?

I'm not even blaming anyone necessarily for believing that, just trying to figure out if anyone here thinks most of these people aren't blaming cops personally and calling them racists of the racial animus variety instead of merely blaming the system.

Well. like I said, I can't read hypothetical people's minds. But once again, you weren't talking about "hearing things" from random people. You were talking about conscious activists, or as you called them "Mr BLM". These folks aren't mislead by this "secret inner heart" crap. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

Anyways, if cops are acting in a (institutionally) racist manner, like say what happened in Ferguson, it makes perfect sense to call them "racists" for these actions. Just like it makes perfect sense to call a buncha peeps acting in a (institutional) baseball playing manner "baseballers". You don't need to go into trying to 'grok' the "secret inner heart" of these (institutional) baseball players to ascertain if they are the 'real' baseballers. That whole line of reasoning is a buncha crap.



Example: When peeps said "look at those racist firemen hosing down black folk" they weren't speculating on the "secret inner heart" of those particular fire department employees. Got it ??

I'm not sure. How do we ascertain that it wasn't a very hot day and the firemen were merely trying to instigate a jovial water fight?

Making insensitive post's like these, speaks volumes about you're character. I do hope that one day, you learn from you're ignorance & immaturity...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He was parodying a RWNJ

If you've never been a fireman I doubt you can accurately assess the conditions in which it is appropriate to start a water fight.

Not really worried about distinguishing between activists and regular folk, just trying to understand what people mean by the words they say. When some of my facebook friends complain, "racist cops are murdering innocent black men," or something to that effect, I assume they think those cops have personal animus towards black people and that's why they shot and killed them. I assume that because of the context, and because one of them has told me that straight up.

Now, I generally avoid Facebook political discussions, and I've only got a handful of such face-to-face conversations under my belt, but at no point did it seem questionable what was meant by the term racist in that context. I think it always meant personal animus or fear, unless otherwise noted by talking about systemic variables, like police training, use of force standards, profiling, and so on, in which case the term systemic racism was typically used if at all.

We've spent a while here discussing two of the meanings of racism, racial animus (common MSM) and structural (your preferred usage), and you seemed to be be first claiming that it should only mean structural/institutional, and not personal animus, and now that it doesn't really make any difference.

I don't care what it means, just so long as everyone understands each other because I really think the difference matters a lot. If a cop kills a black man because of personal animus/fear, then there is a certain line of remedies for that, and if he kills a black man because of a set of circumstances that caused him to draw his gun and make a mistake, ie, use of force standards, training, and so on, then there are other remedies. No doubt situations occur where either or both causes are in play, and it shouldn't be so difficult to discuss them separately.

Well, you started out distinguishing activists -vs- random facebook peeps... remember your "Mr BLM". So I guess we're done here.

But that's not how the language works. That's no how anyone, like M.King, used the language back before segregationists like G.Wallace hijacked the r-word. The reason you make that assumption is in fact this language hijacking over the last ~50 years.

"Fascist thugs are killing innocent Roma folk"
"Cheating Patriots are beating honest NFL teams"
"Righteous Quakers are providing aid to refugees"
"<adjective> <group> are doing <action>"

When you hear the above, are you at all confused regarding if the speaker is saying "every one of those thugs have personal animus against Roma folk", are you at all confused that the speaker is saying "every one of those Patriots are cheaters", or "every one of those Quakers are 'righteous' in their 'secret inner heart'". Or... using context, do you understand that the speaker is saying that those thugs are part of a fascist institution, those football players are part of a cheating institution, and that those Quakers are part of a what the speaker characterizes as a righteous institution.

Can you think of another example where a statement of the form "<adjective> <group> does <action>" leads you to imagine the speaker is saying..."every single member of that group has personal animus in their 'secret inner heart', every single member of that group are personally righteous in their 'secret inner heart', or anything else about every single member of that group? Besides the r-word.

Well you can't, because the language doesn't work that way. Except for those who have been successfully propagandized, of course.

While some generalize about all cops out of frustration, I'm sure most don't think all cops are to blame for the unjust treatment of black bodies, just those who harass and murder black people for being black. I'm confident even the most jaded will acknowledge there are good cops who treat people fairly and encourage their coworkers to do the same. At least that's been my experience.

I'm more interested in what they mean by "racist": personal animus, institutional or something else. It sounds like you're saying if someone carries the flag of BLM, then we should expect them to use the term, "racist" in the institutional sense only. Is this true?

IDK what "carries the flag" entails. There's nothing special about BLM, nothing changed ~3 years ago. The civil rights movement, from long before M.King & G.Wallace, all the way up to today, is the struggle against institutional racism.