That pro white thread.

[The Architect Of Fate]

In the longer video I watched, she's talking about this especially in the context of black female lead non-profits, but you are right. The quote does say activists. The point remains though, that this woman is a quack for saying that non-profits shouldn't have to financially disclose as a response to people criticizing her. Sounds like something a scam artist would say.

Actually, she didn't say non-profits shouldn't have to she said she was suspicious of the system are they going to judge BLM fairly, or will dig trying to find something they can use against the organization to discredit it, and frankly you are the last person on earth who gets to call someone else a quack 

[vulcanlogician]

They are self-proclaimed radicals and you are the one that phrased being radical as a negative thing.

When? The "vague and imprecise" don't make you radical thing? Nah. That was just me wanting more support for your "radical" claim.

I didn't bring up the word radical. Radical can be good or bad. It depends whether the changes you're aiming for are good for society or bad and just not realistic.

True. You didn't put the word into the debate. But you replied to a post where the word was used and said some things that I construed as negative opinions about radicalism. I guess you've clarified yourself here.

The lady is no longer working for BLM, but you should write BLM off as an organization, since there is millions of dollars donated to them that is unaccounted for right now, they are spending millions of dollars on houses, and BLM put a statement up on their official website calling Jussie Smollett innocent not long ago.

BLM the organization is in shambles, but of course protest should still continue and the more reasonable protesters should be listened to, and the pressure should be kept on the powers that be. I don't have all of the answers for how we get to a more equal society, but I'm pretty confident that getting rid of courts and telling society to just learn to deal with harm better is not the answer. I'm pretty sure that Boru's idea of making arrest and detainment optional and letting criminals run away is not the answer we're looking for either, but we should keep striving for that answer, whatever it is.

It's good to hear you say that. I appreciate many of the concessions you make, IR. I know a lot of folks don't give you credit for that, because you guys are too busy duking it out, but I appreciate that about you.

I also wonder if you aren't letting yourself get "worked up" by conservative critics of the woke movement. I'm not saying you are, but I AM saying that there are folks out there who intentionally try to get honest and thoughtful people worked up over what is (upon closer inspection) bullshit. I just don't want you to be one of them. I never take anyone's word for anything these days. If someone flashes a twitter post on a youtube vid, I always try to track down the post itself before concluding anything... shit like that.

A lot of mountains are made out of mole hills. It isn't just the left doing this.

edit: I also think you misrepresented Boru's statements.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

(Bold mine)

Then isn't it lucky that that is absolutely NOT what I said?

Boru

You posted

I wonder why the cop even chased him. Let him run, pick him up later.

Boru

How is letting someone run not making detainment optional? What if they run again the next time you go after them, and the next time after that?

Letting THAT guy run in THAT set of circumstances isn’t remotely the same as ‘making arrest and detainment optional’ (but well done you for including ‘pick him up later’).

As I pointed out in that thread, Lyoya is a refugee - the cops know where he lived, they know where he worked - he could have been picked up at any time. Why does someone pulled over for a dodgy number plate need to be be forcibly arrested right then and there? This wasn’t a violent guy, this wasn’t someone who was a threat to public safety. He’s Congolese and thus likely had good reason to be afraid of a cop grabbing him in the street.

Maybe if he were picked up at his home or at his job the situation could have been handled in such a way that he’d still be breathing.

Boru

[Irreligious Atheist]

You posted

How is letting someone run not making detainment optional? What if they run again the next time you go after them, and the next time after that?

Letting THAT guy run in THAT set of circumstances isn’t remotely the same as ‘making arrest and detainment optional’ (but well done you for including ‘pick him up later’).

As I pointed out in that thread, Lyoya is a refugee - the cops know where he lived, they know where he worked - he could have been picked up at any time. Why does someone pulled over for a dodgy number plate need to be be forcibly arrested right then and there? This wasn’t a violent guy, this wasn’t someone who was a threat to public safety. He’s Congolese and thus likely had good reason to be afraid of a cop grabbing him in the street.

Maybe if he were picked up at his home or at his job the situation could have been handled in such a way that he’d still be breathing.

Boru

You didn't answer the question though. What if he runs again? Why do you let him run the 1st time but not the next time? What is the difference between the two situations? Him grabbing the cops weapon at home could result in his children, if he has any, being shot by the cops by accidental crossfire. You try to pick him up at work and he fights the cops there, you are putting his co-workers in danger. Why is that any better of a situation?

[The Architect Of Fate]

You didn't answer the question though. Why do you let him run the 1st time but not the next time? What is the difference between the two situations? 

He doesn't need to because it's self-evident you simply try again later

Him grabbing the cops weapon at home could result in his children, if he has any, being shot by the cops by accidental crossfire. You try to pick him up at work and he fights the cops there, you are putting his co-workers in danger. Why is that any better of a situation?

He only grabbed the cop's weapon after the cop started an altercation and making up hypotheticals is useless and no it by default is a better solution than that guy being killed as he was.


The fact is there is no reason that man should be dead for a fucking license plate and anyone defending this is living in Bizzaro land

[The Architect Of Fate]

You posted

How is letting someone run not making detainment optional? What if they run again the next time you go after them, and the next time after that?

Letting THAT guy run in THAT set of circumstances isn’t remotely the same as ‘making arrest and detainment optional’ (but well done you for including ‘pick him up later’).

As I pointed out in that thread, Lyoya is a refugee - the cops know where he lived, they know where he worked - he could have been picked up at any time. Why does someone pulled over for a dodgy number plate need to be be forcibly arrested right then and there? This wasn’t a violent guy, this wasn’t someone who was a threat to public safety. He’s Congolese and thus likely had good reason to be afraid of a cop grabbing him in the street.

Maybe if he were picked up at his home or at his job the situation could have been handled in such a way that he’d still be breathing.

Boru

But... but.. he might run again and then ......You might have to try again later ...The horror the horror 

But...but .. he might grab the cop's weapon after the cop pursues him which could not have done...,.(Insert a million other scenarios which don't change the fact that in the one that happened a man was killed over a dodgy license plate and that's messed up.

Cop apologists are too much

[Irreligious Atheist]

They are self-proclaimed radicals and you are the one that phrased being radical as a negative thing.

When? The "vague and imprecise" don't make you radical thing? Nah. That was just me wanting more support for your "radical" claim.

I didn't bring up the word radical. Radical can be good or bad. It depends whether the changes you're aiming for are good for society or bad and just not realistic.

True. You didn't put the word into the debate. But you replied to a post where the word was used and said some things that I construed as negative opinions about radicalism. I guess you've clarified yourself here.

The lady is no longer working for BLM, but you should write BLM off as an organization, since there is millions of dollars donated to them that is unaccounted for right now, they are spending millions of dollars on houses, and BLM put a statement up on their official website calling Jussie Smollett innocent not long ago.

BLM the organization is in shambles, but of course protest should still continue and the more reasonable protesters should be listened to, and the pressure should be kept on the powers that be. I don't have all of the answers for how we get to a more equal society, but I'm pretty confident that getting rid of courts and telling society to just learn to deal with harm better is not the answer. I'm pretty sure that Boru's idea of making arrest and detainment optional and letting criminals run away is not the answer we're looking for either, but we should keep striving for that answer, whatever it is.

It's good to hear you say that. I appreciate many of the concessions you make, IR. I know a lot of folks don't give you credit for that, because you guys are too busy duking it out, but I appreciate that about you.

I also wonder if you aren't letting yourself get "worked up" by conservative critics of the woke movement. I'm not saying you are, but I AM saying that there are folks out there who intentionally try to get honest and thoughtful people worked up over what is (upon closer inspection) bullshit. I just don't want you to be one of them. I never take anyone's word for anything these days. If someone flashes a twitter post on a youtube vid, I always try to track down the post itself before concluding anything... shit like that.

A lot of mountains are made out of mole hills. It isn't just the left doing this.

edit: I also think you misrepresented Boru's statements.

You're absolutely right about conservatives sheepdogging people into getting worked up over sensible things. The woke will take the phrase "I don't see colour", and in bad faith, they will interpret that to mean "I don't care about issues people of colour deal with", when most people by saying that they don't see colour clearly just mean "I don't judge based on colour". The right does the exact same thing. When they hear people talking about white privilege, which is a very real thing, they will take that in bad faith and interpret that to mean that people are claiming all white people are born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

If the lady was saying make the prison system more like Norway, I'd be on board. I'm down for that. Major changes do need to be made. But when she starts talking about doing away with courts and instead teach society to better deal with being harmed, she's throwing out the baby with the bath water. I can certainly understand people seeing how terrible prisons are and wishing them away or seeing how unfair the court system can be for POC and wanting to blow that whole system up/burn it down and start a new, but despite all of it's flaws, I personally think there is still great value in the constitution of the US and with what the rest of the West has to offer, and we can't throw out the good with the bad.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Accept overwhelming when they say "I don't see colour " they do mean "I don't care" and they simply try and use the latter to cover their ass to justify the former. But nice job reciting the talking point lol, And woke is a meaningless buzzword, And really no one cares if you agree with her or not 

You can't misrepresent people (the Rightwing, Anti SJW, Alt-Right, Fake leftists,) because they're never honest about their own positions and frequently invent bullshit cover stories to hide their real beliefs, and were simply not falling for it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Letting THAT guy run in THAT set of circumstances isn’t remotely the same as ‘making arrest and detainment optional’ (but well done you for including ‘pick him up later’).

As I pointed out in that thread, Lyoya is a refugee - the cops know where he lived, they know where he worked - he could have been picked up at any time. Why does someone pulled over for a dodgy number plate need to be be forcibly arrested right then and there? This wasn’t a violent guy, this wasn’t someone who was a threat to public safety. He’s Congolese and thus likely had good reason to be afraid of a cop grabbing him in the street.

Maybe if he were picked up at his home or at his job the situation could have been handled in such a way that he’d still be breathing.

Boru

You didn't answer the question though. What if he runs again? Why do you let him run the 1st time but not the next time? What is the difference between the two situations? Him grabbing the cops weapon at home could result in his children, if he has any, being shot by the cops by accidental crossfire. You try to pick him up at work and he fights the cops there, you are putting his co-workers in danger. Why is that any better of a situation?

The difference is that he'd be in a familiar environment - people DO react differently in different situations.  Remember - in the interaction that cost him his life, he was on the street and clearly didn't understand what was going on. What follows is a not unlikely scenario:

Two cops go to his home and explain why they're there. They tell him that a number plate violation isn't terribly serious, but that he'll need to come along with them sort out the resisting thing. Understanding that he's not in a serious amount of trouble, he goes along quietly. His court appointed lawyer meets with him at the jail and explains his options. At his arraignment the next day, the court sets a modest bail and Mr. Lyoya is released pending a preliminary hearing.

See? Justice is served - Mr. Lyoya is now in the justice system and is going to have to accept whatever penalty society demands for the heinous crimes of 1) having a bad number plate and 2) being afraid of cops. The chief difference between what did happen and what could have happened, is that - in my scenario - Mr. Lyoya's two children still have their father.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

You didn't answer the question though. What if he runs again? Why do you let him run the 1st time but not the next time? What is the difference between the two situations? Him grabbing the cops weapon at home could result in his children, if he has any, being shot by the cops by accidental crossfire. You try to pick him up at work and he fights the cops there, you are putting his co-workers in danger. Why is that any better of a situation?

The difference is that he'd be in a familiar environment - people DO react differently in different situations.  Remember - in the interaction that cost him his life, he was on the street and clearly didn't understand what was going on. What follows is a not unlikely scenario:

Two cops go to his home and explain why they're there. They tell him that a number plate violation isn't terribly serious, but that he'll need to come along with them sort out the resisting thing. Understanding that he's not in a serious amount of trouble, he goes along quietly. His court appointed lawyer meets with him at the jail and explains his options. At his arraignment the next day, the court sets a modest bail and Mr. Lyoya is released pending a preliminary hearing.

See? Justice is served - Mr. Lyoya is now in the justice system and is going to have to accept whatever penalty society demands for the heinous crimes of 1) having a bad number plate and 2) being afraid of cops. The chief difference between what did happen and what could have happened, is that - in my scenario - Mr. Lyoya's two children still have their father.

Boru

No no he will whip out a chain gun a murder the poor defenseless cops. He's clearly "No Angel"he probably smoked weed once