-and, yet, somehow..in a discussion about why cops might mace a nine year old, and why they might think they could get away with it, and specifically as you complained about the religion of anti-racism..they suddenly seemed relevant. Now, you continue with more of the usual bugbears. Are you positively determined to convince me that you're as much of an idiot as other posters have already determined you to be? Should I stop giving you more credit than your comments deserve?

What makes you think that calves the size of cantelopes was a good argument? What makes you think that bad mom was a good argument? What makes you think that cops were worried cuz hypothermia was a good argument? Put on that anti-brutality hat for a second, tell me what you think of those arguments, that context, that you offered.

You already know my explanation. The tools that we built and the ideology that we created to maintain a white supremacist status quo are, as they always would be, escaping the boundaries we placed on them in order to protect them through the thin veneer of civility.

(February 3, 2021 at 3:04 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Why would they do that if they can just mace her?  For the hell of it?........again...an absurd comparison where neither option reflects reality.  They maced her to make her comply.  Simple.  

By all means, add as much context as you think an explanation would require.  As a person committed to speaking out against police brutality, why do you think that law enforcement officers might believe that macing a nine year old is a solution to noncompliance, and why do you think that law enforcement officers might believe that they can get away with it, and how did we get to that point?

Because she was fat and had a bad mom?  Is that the context that you think needs to be taken into account?  Is that the context that explains an officers decision to mace a child, or their belief that it was appropriate, or their belief that they would get away with it even if it weren't?

I don't know what to say other than what I've already said (typed). I can't read their minds and don't know why they did it.

I brought up her weight because someone else posted that she was 60 lbs, which I accept was an honest mistake on his part. I gave an account of how the mother was acting because someone posted that we don't have sufficient information to judge the parents, which I also accept as an honest mistake because he hadn't watched the entire video, which is kind of hard to find on youtube, so I give him a pass for that. Why is it bad to correct incorrect information?

Care to correct any of your contextual information?

About chokeholds: I’ve looked this up, and, on the one hand, you are right about chokeholds being an effective way of subduing a suspect in a minimal amount of time. However, there are caveats: looking it up on r/martialarts, there is a consensus that a properly-executed stranglehold can actually be used effectively and relatively safely (assuming the perp has no pre-existing conditions.) However, a poorly-executed one can cause significant damage or death. And if this article about the Eric Garner case is any indication, these improperly-executed ones are the ones being targeted for banning, not the ones that r/martialarts is saying are effective (and even then, quite a few point out that their use in law enforcement may not be worth it), unless, of course, things have evolved in the last few years.

Train to Crazytown it is. In a thread about cops macing a nine year old, we have a defense and debate about the merits of that defense..of whether or not strangling a motherfucker is an effective way to deal with suspects.

It's a great way to do all sorts of shit to suspects - and since we're fine with that, for some reason™, some nine year old is going to be choked to death by a good cop trying to save her from hypothermia brought on by bad mom feeding her cheetohs and chocodiles.

I agree that many blacks have an uphill battle, but why are we calling it a white supremacist status quo? Why are Jews and Asians doing better than whites if it simply comes down to white supremacy? Why do African immigrants do better than whites? Indians generally have darker skin that whites, don't they? Why is the government letting in so many non-white people to the point where whites are going to no longer by the majority? Not everything comes down to white supremacy. Yes, the rich get richer and the poor stay poor, but not everything comes down to skin colour. Does the government care about black people? Nope, but I don't think it's as simple as calling everything white supremacy.

(February 3, 2021 at 3:54 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: I agree that many blacks have an uphill battle, but why are we calling it a white supremacist status quo?

Because we care about correct information, remember?

Quote:Why are Jews and Asians doing better than whites if it simply comes down to white supremacy? Why do African immigrants do better than whites? Indians generally have darker skin that whites, don't they? Why is the government letting in so many non-white people to the point where whites are going to no longer by the majority? Not everything comes down to white supremacy. Yes, the rich get richer and the poor stay poor, but not everything comes down to skin colour. Does the government care about black people? Nope, but I don't think it's as simple as calling everything white supremacy.

I have a cup of coffee in my hand, not a cup of white supremacy.  Obviously, no one is calling everything white supremacy.  

I find another occasion to ask you whether the absurdity of your situation ever hits you.  Is this one of those times that you don't mind making common cause with white supremacists or being called a racist because, you think, they can make good arguments, and that these are those arguments?

Why are police acclimated to this sort of violence, and how did our system get this way so that police officers could be acclimated in this way? Any ideas? Faintest clue? Is there simply no way to know and no relevant facts, for context?

(February 3, 2021 at 3:49 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: About chokeholds: I’ve looked this up, and, on the one hand, you are right about chokeholds being an effective way of subduing a suspect in a minimal amount of time. However, there are caveats: looking it up on r/martialarts, there is a consensus that a properly-executed stranglehold can actually be used effectively and relatively safely (assuming the perp has no pre-existing conditions.) However, a poorly-executed one can cause significant damage or death. And if this article about the Eric Garner case is any indication, these improperly-executed ones are the ones being targeted for banning, not the ones that r/martialarts is saying are effective (and even then, quite a few point out that their use in law enforcement may not be worth it), unless, of course, things have evolved in the last few years.

Thank you for that. I admit I haven't looked too far into this and like I said before, my opinion right now is based in large part off of what UFC fighters have said, because I consider them to probably know what they're talking about when it comes to this. President Trump already signed an executive order banning chokeholds, unless the officer's life is at risk. I disagree with that executive order, and think police should be given better training on chokeholds so they're less likely to do it improperly.

Deferring to the alleged authority of a prizefighter...in a discussion about law enforcement........ Digging floors beneath the basement of crazytown.

Here, I'll give you some info from someone who's subdued violent people (but, I admit, only a few nine year olds). You never, ever, want to get within arms reach of a person that you think poses a risk to you. Prizefighters are paid to play a game by rules. People who pose a credible risk to you, not so much. If I was going to use violence against a nine year old to subdue her..which is laughable...I guess I might panic and kick her in the stomach with my cantelope sized calves - but I'd probably just shoot her in the chest.

You know, life at risk and all.

The obvious question arises. Which of the officers did this particular nine year old murder, and how did they get better?

(February 3, 2021 at 4:00 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(February 3, 2021 at 3:54 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: I agree that many blacks have an uphill battle, but why are we calling it a white supremacist status quo?

Because we care about correct information, remember?

Quote:Why are Jews and Asians doing better than whites if it simply comes down to white supremacy? Why do African immigrants do better than whites? Indians generally have darker skin that whites, don't they? Why is the government letting in so many non-white people to the point where whites are going to no longer by the majority? Not everything comes down to white supremacy. Yes, the rich get richer and the poor stay poor, but not everything comes down to skin colour. Does the government care about black people? Nope, but I don't think it's as simple as calling everything white supremacy.

I have a cup of coffee in my hand, not a cup of white supremacy.  Obviously, no one is calling everything white supremacy.  

I find another occasion to ask you whether the absurdity of your situation ever hits you.  Is this one of those times that you don't mind making common cause with white supremacists or being called a racist because, you think, they can make good arguments, and that these are those arguments?  

Why are police acclimated to this sort of violence, and how did our system get this way so that police officers could be acclimated in this way?  Any ideas?  Faintest clue?  Is there simply no way to know and no relevant facts, for context?

If I didn't think the arguments were good ones, I wouldn't be using them. If a white supremacist says the sky is blue, I'm not going to disagree just because I don't want to be confused for one of them. I'm not going to tip toe around things so as to not be seen as a hateful person. If someone wants to see me that way, good for them. White supremacist status quo doesn't sound entirely correct to me, so I don't use that language. White privilege doesn't sound like the best term to use either to me, so I don't use that either, because others have even more privilege than whites, and I don't think it makes the most sense to just demonize white people all day long. Yes, white people have privilege over others. Some other races are also doing better than whites and have even more privilege. I don't think we're solving societies problems by going on about white people all day long.

Blacks have been mistreated for a long time, going back to slavery. They are still mistreated by many cops and the system. I do not defend that, nor have I defended this 9 year old girl being pepper sprayed, so I don't know what to tell you.