Yeah cuz each and every one wasn't valid. One of them was redlining banned in 1971 and yet again I'm not rehashing. If you honestly think that someone not regarding your examples as valid, automatically equating to them being fringe or extreme right wing then I really don't know what to tell you. We'll leave it at that.

No. Not all cops are like Chauuvin and it's dishonest to assert otherwise.

I wouldn't take much of what Victor says too seriously. He's still upset they took Uncle Joe out of the mausoleum.

You don't get to 'not regard' my examples because your opinion. I provided examples of Red Lining PLUS examples of CURRENT DAY admitted discrimination by the Banks.

All of these areas have been covered extensively both based on history and current society:

- A sector (Banking) ADMITTING they committed Institutional racism
- VARIOUS Court FINDINGs determined they committed institution racism
- Various payments and settlements FOR Institutional Racism
- Scholarly articles DEMONSTRATING and CONCLUDING incidents and ongoing Institutional Racism

I did the same for the Health Care industry citing similar proofs.


And while I know people on this forum do not like me calling someone's position dishonest or a lie (so I won't) I then have no other proper way to describe your posts when you continue to say, whenever this topic comes up and you say 'no proof of Institutional Racism has ever been presented to you'.

It has and that is fact. That you hand wave it all away does not mean it was not presented and it was not accurate.

So instead of saying 'lie' I will say your position is factually incorrect. Proof or Institutional racism has been presented to you and substantiated and your denials do not change that fact.

I don't think you can just dismiss Victor's take.

IF you say so, how do you explain the Rodney King incident?

I mean, I am sure not all the cops there are ones who would have beat Rodney like that, but certainly we can see they will stand guard to create a perimeter where it can happen and then all lie about it after to ensure the cops walk and victim gets maximum punishment, even if unjust.

I think the policing culture makes it much harder to be honest and virtuous in that spot than complicit and dishonest.

Just like ALL poker players are lying, scummy thieves.

well, maybe not all.

blanket statements can really get directly to the point

Agreed. Many of my good friends went into policing and I do not think any of them would perpetrate these type of abuses.

However my indictment is more of the policing culture. The Blue Wall and how it can and does seem to get conformity, almost certainly from some cops who may feel real moral outrage when they witness police abuses.

I think that Blue Wall historically was a very dangerous thing for any cop to break from to report abuse in the Brotherhood and the cops that did found themselves outside the brotherhood and often alone or with purposely delayed help when needed.

Many movies have dealt with that and I don't think that is due solely to fiction.

Only thing my pa taught me before leaving home was that if you see a cop coming cross the street.

Banks were shown to favour Asians primarily which was reasonable alternate evidence to question the systemic racism against poc narrative. It wasn't a case of hand waving things away as if by rote. I have no problem changing my stance like I did with AA's murder once satisfactory evidence came to light. Again my disagreeing with you doesn't make me extreme right wing any more than my strong worker's rights stance makes me a Communist.

Yes I can dismiss it by virtue of the fact that not all cops are like Chauvin.

That doesn't mean there aren't scumbag cops, as your RK point highlights. Doesn't mean they're all like that or all engage in the blue wall mentality.

I shouldn't have responded to him considering he thinks Soviet era gulags were better than US prisons.

point of fact, I was comparing the overall systems. not individual prisons. a large part of my criticism is the amount of prisoners and their long sentences. the Soviets gulaged a ton less people than USA imprisons.

Again the BANKS ADMITTED IT.

The COURTS FOUND IT.

The government acknowledged it.

Academic Studies have validated it.

And you say 'nuh uh... does not count as I have done my own analysis on the situation and deemed it did not happen.'

And the problem IS NOT that you say you disagree with it. The problem is you continually repeat you have never been presented with any evidence of Institutional Racism. You don't say that 'i just don't agree with it'. You just blanket say nothing has been presented.

Presentation is not limited to what you agree with. I have 100% presented you with evidence and FINDINGS of IR. Your disagreeance does not invalidate the presentation.

Your being utterly convinced your points are valid doesn't validate them either.

someone needs to to a video re-enactment of the shooting only switch it up to have three African American men chase down and kill a caucasian jogger all the while claiming to perform a citizen's arrest.

A Bank ADMITTING they engaged in systemic Institution racism..

A court FINDING they engaged in Institution racism...


Is NOT just my opinion or points. Those are admissions or findings of FACT.

That is the concept you fail to understand or admit as you hand wave it away stating no such evidence of any Institutional racism exists or has been shown to you.

Your denial that IR was a factor is your opinion that is in denial of the facts. It does not invalidate the facts nor counter them.

And to be clear CV your position is that admissions like this by banks that i provided upthread...

JPMorgan puts $30B toward fixing banking’s ‘systemic racism’

not only do not count as institutional or systemic racism, simply because you don't agree with them, but you then say in subsequent posts over and over you have never been presented with any evidence of systemic racism.

Meaning you don't accept that admissions like this even count in the debate one way or the other in this debate and they don't qualify as evidence or proof.

And you think that is a reasonable position to hold to.

Not required any sane person can see this as second degree murder

I dont know much about this case but what is being said is 2 guys chased a guy jogging away from them and just ended up killing him since they thought he was burglar??

unless you saw him or knew 1000% he was a murderer, why the **** would you just straight up kill him? I don't get it wtf. maybe slow him down at the very least but to just plain end him without, form what I understand, little knowledge of what's going on. it doesn't add up

what am IO missing tho? im ignorant to the deep dive of the case

It makes no sense.

They got in their truck and ran after him. They got out of their truck and confronted him. He most likely fought back, they shot him.

A lot like Trayvon Martin but with 3 aggressors instead of 1.

What amazes me about this case is that the only reason it's being prosecuted is because of the video. And the only reason we saw the video is because the moron who recorded it wanted to show how "innocent" his friends were.

And this is as clear as you can get showing a modern day lynching.

I wish I believed that the motivations for filming this incident were as benign as you suggest. If this incident had ended with Arbery being terrified rather than shot, I suspect that these morons would happily have screened this home movie for their fifty closest friends.

Yup. That video does not exist these 3 guys walk. They get away with this lynching just by saying they drove out front of him, waited for him to approach and he lunged at them and they defended themselves.

Not guilty. Not charged at all.

he tried to grab their gun. its on video. not guilty for sure.

Doesn't really matter if he tried to grab their gun. They are committing felony kidnapping/false arrest, and the result of their actions was his death. Arbury doesn't try to grab his gun if they dont attempt to illegally detain him.

Arbury tries to make a break for it around the truck, and Travis, with his gun drawn, meets him at the front bumper, at which point, Arbury made the decision to lunge for the shotgun, probably assuming that the only way to make it home from this encounter is to equalize the firepower.