Fox News calls Black Lives Matter movement a "murder movement," "hate group"

by Ben Reilly Wed Sep 02, 2015 4:54 pm

First topic message reminder :

Fox News ran an onscreen banner during Monday night's episode of "Fox & Friends" referring to the Black Lives Matter movement as a "murder movement," and one Fox host wondered why the movement wasn't labeled a hate group.

"Fox & Friends" co-host Brian Kilmeade was speaking with Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke about the death of Deputy Darren Goforth of Harris County, Texas, who was fatally shot while pumping gas in a Houston suburb on Friday night. Goforth was white, and the man who police believe killed him, Shannon Miles, is black.

There is no evidence that Miles has any connection to the Black Lives Matter movement, but the "Fox & Friends" segment made a point to strongly imply that Black Lives Matter was at fault for Goforth’s death.

An onscreen banner during the segment read "Murder Movement" above a subhead that said, "Sheriff: #BlackLivesMatter Is Out Of Control." Clarke told Kilmeade on the show that he's "sick and tired" of seeing headlines emphasizing the race of white officers shooting unarmed black people. The headline he’d like to see is "Black Man Shoots White Defenseless Police Officer," Clarke said.

“President Obama has breathed life into an ugly movement … we now have to counter this slime. This filth coming out of these cop-haters,” Clarke said as Fox showed footage of Black Lives Matter protesters.

Clarke, a frequent guest on Fox News, is regularly critical of Black Lives Matter. He's bashed the movement for not protesting black-on-black crime, and told Fox News host Megyn Kelly that he would have been embarrassed of Sandra Bland if she had been his daughter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-lives-matter-fox-news-hate-group_55e5c102e4b0b7a9633a3b12

Fun fact -- a report last year found that of 26 on-air Fox News personalities, 24 were white. If Fox News looked like America, there would be 16 whites and the rest would be minorities.

by Ben Reilly Thu Sep 03, 2015 4:13 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, hasn't this business about it being a hate group come about because of the pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon thing?

That has been widely touted as "lighthearted", but they should be careful because the cops might not see it that way, and some cop haters might take it as a green light to kill cops.

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC: Do Black Lives Matter activists hate police officers?

TRAHERN CREWS: No, not at all. And I want to put that chant in context. We had a great demonstration that day. It was very exciting. It was so exciting that I think the police who were along escorting the marchers wanted to be a part of the march or a part of the demonstration. So on the way back, the officer leading the parade kept talking into his microphone and saying things to the crowd, like, stay off the medium [sic], do that, he was laughing and joking with the marchers, so then the marchers kind of started chanting that towards him. It was more playful than anything. So --

HAYES: So that was -- you're saying, that was in a playful context, that chant?

CREWS: Exact-- at that particular demonstration, yes. That was. Because, and the officer was laughing and joking along with the protesters.

HAYES: People --

CREWS: And, and, and he, and the officer also said, when they started chanting, he said back into the microphone, everybody loves bacon.

by Ben Reilly Thu Sep 03, 2015 4:13 pm

Also, Rags, it's obviously not just about history -- it's about ongoing events.

by Original Quill Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:02 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Point taken. It would immediately be objected to, because of the implied, but unspoken premise that whites need protection like blacks. But whites are privileged, and coddled by the police. Blacks are not.

There is in fact no statistical equivalency between blacks and whites in the treatment by the police, or the entire criminal justice system. So, why bring it up? Why even contrast whites with blacks? Its a specious issue...one I suspect that Raggs raised only for argument sake. It has no basis in reality.

You're the one who constantly contrasts white people and black people.

But only in relevant ways. You sometimes grasp a point, but only half way; it leaves me wondering if are joking or really don't get it. This is a case in point.

Here, it is a false equivalency to try to contrast or even compare blacks killed by police and whites killed by police. One is a profound problem in reality; the other is simply a rhetorical device.

Certainly the police are the police of all people. But there the equivalency breaks down. Cops in America treat blacks heinously and cruelly. But, then, they turn around and kiss the arse of any white person they encounter. That's an internal thing going on in the mind of the police officer: he's a racist. That is the problem we are addressing, not some mathematical formality that nowhere describes reality.

by Raggamuffin Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:06 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You're the one who constantly contrasts white people and black people.

But only in relevant ways. You sometimes grasp a point, but only half way; it leaves me wondering if are joking or really don't get it. This is a case in point.

Here, it is a false equivalency to try to contrast or even compare blacks killed by police and whites killed by police. One is a profound problem in reality; the other is simply a rhetorical device.

Certainly the police are the police of all people. But there the equivalency breaks down. Cops in America treat blacks heinously and cruelly. But, then, they turn around and kiss the arse of any white person they encounter. That's an internal thing going on in the mind of the police officer: he's a racist. That is the problem we are addressing, not some mathematical formality that nowhere describes reality.

I'm sure that the families of the white people killed by police would appreciate their death being called a "rhetorical device". Rolling Eyes

Perhaps you think those deaths didn't actually happen.

Any word about the police officers who are killed by black people? I won't bother to ask you about the police officers who are killed by white people because white people don't count to you.

by Raggamuffin Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:15 pm

I'm sure the family of Zachary Hammond really like the way the police kissed his arse - as you put it. Rolling Eyes

by Original Quill Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:16 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Kid: "It's Mother's Day? Why isn't there a Kid's Day?"

Mother: "Because everyday is Kid's Day."

There really aren't many organizations in the U.S. that don't advance white people's interests. The country is still very much set up for white people. Why isn't there a White History Month? Because every month is White History Month.

I think in the U.S., groups oriented toward white people are, in the main, seen as racist -- then again, they often are racist. The major exception would be the many organizations that provide relief to the Appalachian region, the population of which is overwhelmingly white and exceedingly poor.

We generally don't find it appropriate to create organizations for the advancement of people who haven't been systematically discriminated against because of traits they were born with; it seems kind of cry-baby-ish Of course, they still exist!

Perhaps if the whole lot of you stopped bleating on about history the whole time, things might improve.

History is the 'track record' that led to the evil. If you don't understand how something happened, how can you ever pretend to fix it? Where do you begin/ What parts do you bend to correct the shape?

History is like any science. Take geology--you wouldn't place the Hoover dam without understanding the strata of the rock--what a disaster that would be. Yet, if you don't know how rocks forms, you will know nothing about the stresses and strengths of the terrain. Try to place a dam in sandstone, and FAIL!

The history of discrimination is the same. A very important technique in creating is reverse engineering for design: "taking apart an object to see how it works in order to duplicate or enhance the object." Reverse engineering is precisely how you reverse discrimination.

If you want to understand something, look at how it was made.

by Original Quill Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

But only in relevant ways. You sometimes grasp a point, but only half way; it leaves me wondering if are joking or really don't get it. This is a case in point.

Here, it is a false equivalency to try to contrast or even compare blacks killed by police and whites killed by police. One is a profound problem in reality; the other is simply a rhetorical device.

Certainly the police are the police of all people. But there the equivalency breaks down. Cops in America treat blacks heinously and cruelly. But, then, they turn around and kiss the arse of any white person they encounter. That's an internal thing going on in the mind of the police officer: he's a racist. That is the problem we are addressing, not some mathematical formality that nowhere describes reality.

I'm sure that the families of the white people killed by police would appreciate their death being called a "rhetorical device". Perhaps you think those deaths didn't actually happen.

Any word about the police officers who are killed by black people? I won't bother to ask you about the police officers who are killed by white people because white people don't count to you.

But statistically, how often does that happen? We are talking about policy here. Policy depends upon generalization. You don't legislate, or promulgate rules for police departments, by addressing the specific example. You cannot generalize from specifics.

You promulgate rules, or look at problems, with a mind toward doing something about it. If it's truly an individual problem, by definition it will not happen again. But if it is a reoccurring event, we need to plan for it.

Police don't pick on whites. So there is no there there. Police do pick on blacks. So there is a problem there...one that needs some rules.

Police officers killed on duty are another problem. Apples and oranges...it's just changing the subject. I feel if we can correct the problem with cops killing blacks, we will have the time to move on to police officers killed on duty. We are most effective if we concentrate on one issue at at time.

by Raggamuffin Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm sure that the families of the white people killed by police would appreciate their death being called a "rhetorical device". Perhaps you think those deaths didn't actually happen.

Any word about the police officers who are killed by black people? I won't bother to ask you about the police officers who are killed by white people because white people don't count to you.

But statistically, how often does that happen? We are talking about policy here. Policy depends upon generalization. You don't legislate, or promulgate rules for police departments, by addressing the specific example. You cannot generalize from specifics.

You promulgate rules, or look at problems, with a mind toward doing something about it. If it's truly an individual problem, by definition it will not happen again. But if it is a reoccurring event, we need to plan for it.

Police don't pick on whites. So there is no there there. Police do pick on blacks. So there is a problem there...one that needs some rules.

Police officers killed on duty are another problem. Apples and oranges...it's just changing the subject. I feel if we can correct the problem with cops killing blacks, we will have the time to move on to police officers killed on duty. We are most effective if we concentrate on one issue at at time.

So are you suggesting that every white person who is killed by the police deserved it and is a criminal killed for good reason, and that every black person who is killed by the police was "picked on" and is innocent?

The reason I asked about the killing of cops is that you and your ilk are very fond of saying that the number of black people killed by cops is disproportionate to the percentage of black people in the population. Well the same goes for cops killed by black people. You shouldn't address one issue and not the other.

by Original Quill Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

But statistically, how often does that happen? We are talking about policy here. Policy depends upon generalization. You don't legislate, or promulgate rules for police departments, by addressing the specific example. You cannot generalize from specifics.

You promulgate rules, or look at problems, with a mind toward doing something about it. If it's truly an individual problem, by definition it will not happen again. But if it is a reoccurring event, we need to plan for it.

Police don't pick on whites. So there is no there there. Police do pick on blacks. So there is a problem there...one that needs some rules.

Police officers killed on duty are another problem. Apples and oranges...it's just changing the subject. I feel if we can correct the problem with cops killing blacks, we will have the time to move on to police officers killed on duty. We are most effective if we concentrate on one issue at at time.

So are you suggesting that every white person who is killed by the police deserved it and is a criminal killed for good reason, and that every black person who is killed by the police was "picked on" and is innocent?

That is complete nonsense that you made up. Where do you get this stuff; do you make a living writing Jumble puzzles for the Sunday papers? Lol.

Don’t forget that we are talking about statistics. You lose sight of that when you say “every white person” and “every black person”—going immediately to talking about specifics. Remember, you can’t generalize from specifics. When you talk about general propositions, you talk “all” not “every”. So that's where you went wrong on that one.

Then you invent your own perception of consequences: bad for one, good for another. I don't know where you get that. We are talking about consequences only in the way that the statistics permit. You tell me…what do the statistics say?

You and I are unimportant; we are just reporting on the facts. The facts are what are important. What do conclusions do the statistics permit?

Raggamuffin wrote:The reason I asked about the killing of cops is that you and your ilk are very fond of saying that the number of black people killed by cops is disproportionate to the percentage of black people in the population. Well the same goes for cops killed by black people. You shouldn't address one issue and not the other.

No, two different studies. A lot of your confusion is that you jump from one subject to the other, without realigning your premises. Black people killed by police is one statistic. The table of who kills police is another statistic. You can’t generalize about the two of them in the same sentence, because you cannot summarize summary statistics.

In other words, you can’t compare proportions derived from two different studies, because they don’t share the same populations. Remember your 7th grade math...you can't add, subtract, or even compare the fractions, until you transform them into common denominators. It's the same thing here: you can't compare two different studies until you reduce them to common denominators. It's meaningless.

by Raggamuffin Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:22 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So are you suggesting that every white person who is killed by the police deserved it and is a criminal killed for good reason, and that every black person who is killed by the police was "picked on" and is innocent?

That is complete nonsense that you made up. Where do you get this stuff; do you making a living writing Jumble puzzles? Lol.

Don’t forget that we are talking about statistics. You lose sight of that when you say “every white person” and “every black person”—going immediately to talking about specifics. Remember, you can’t generalize from specifics. When you talk about general propositions, you talk “all” not “every”. So that's where you went wrong on that one.

Then you invent your own perception of consequences: bad for one, good for another. I don't know where you get that. We are talking about consequences only in the way that the statistics permit. You tell me…what do the statistics say?

You and I are unimportant; we are just reporting on the facts. The facts are what are important. What do conclusions do the statistics permit?

Raggamuffin wrote:The reason I asked about the killing of cops is that you and your ilk are very fond of saying that the number of black people killed by cops is disproportionate to the percentage of black people in the population. Well the same goes for cops killed by black people. You shouldn't address one issue and not the other.

No, two different studies. A lot of your confusion is that you jump from one subject to the other, without realigning your premises. Black people killed by police is one statistic. The table of who kills police is another statistic. You can’t generalize about the two of them in the same sentence, because you cannot summarize summary statistics.

In other words, you can’t compare proportions derived from two different studies, because they don’t share the same populations. Remember your 7th grade math...you can't add, subtract, or even compare the fractions, until you transform them into common denominators. It's the same thing here: you can't compare two different studies until you reduce them to common denominators. It's meaningless.

I asked you a question because you really seem to think that every single black person is a victim, and every single white person deserves what they get. You even called the deaths of white people at the hands of the police a "rhetorical device".

To be honest, your views on white people make me a bit sick - you talk about them as if they're barely human.

Go and talk to someone else with your racist crap.

by Original Quill Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

That is complete nonsense that you made up. Where do you get this stuff; do you making a living writing Jumble puzzles? Lol.

Don’t forget that we are talking about statistics. You lose sight of that when you say “every white person” and “every black person”—going immediately to talking about specifics. Remember, you can’t generalize from specifics. When you talk about general propositions, you talk “all” not “every”. So that's where you went wrong on that one.

Then you invent your own perception of consequences: bad for one, good for another. I don't know where you get that. We are talking about consequences only in the way that the statistics permit. You tell me…what do the statistics say?

You and I are unimportant; we are just reporting on the facts. The facts are what are important. What do conclusions do the statistics permit?

No, two different studies. A lot of your confusion is that you jump from one subject to the other, without realigning your premises. Black people killed by police is one statistic. The table of who kills police is another statistic. You can’t generalize about the two of them in the same sentence, because you cannot summarize summary statistics.

In other words, you can’t compare proportions derived from two different studies, because they don’t share the same populations. Remember your 7th grade math...you can't add, subtract, or even compare the fractions, until you transform them into common denominators. It's the same thing here: you can't compare two different studies until you reduce them to common denominators. It's meaningless.

I asked you a question because you really seem to think that every single black person is a victim, and every single white person deserves what they get. You even called the deaths of white people at the hands of the police a "rhetorical device".

No, I called your argument a “rhetorical device”. Don’t assume you are any more important than you are…a messenger.

And you do that poorly because you have such a disorganized mind. You switch premises, change definitions and make leaps of logic in mid-sentence. How can you communicate, let alone think like that?

Raggamuffin wrote:To be honest, your views on white people make me a bit sick - you talk about them as if they're barely human.

You were sick to begin with. That is not an insult; that is the problem. Either you don't listen (see above, re: "rhetorical device") or you don't have good habits of mind. You cannot hold on to one thought, as you grasp another for comparison or deduction. You don't define, and if you do you lose sight of your definitions. You don't understand simple methodological concepts like quantitative analysis or historical causation.

I could go on. But suffice it to say there is a reason why you listen to your teacher in school. It's at times like this that you see what you missed.

by Raggamuffin Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:39 pm

Quill, I simply don't like your racist attitude towards white people. You can talk to someone else about it though.

by Original Quill Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, I simply don't like your racist attitude towards white people. You can talk to someone else about it though.

You are the racist. I am the analyst. I have spent literally hours on here trying to disabuse you of your racist ideas. Your racism stems from poor parental supervision, and laziness/lack of discipline with ideas. You weren't a good student, obviously.

Now you come upon the wide-world and attempt to visit upon the rest of us your undisciplined-cum-racism ideology. You are the reason why--where I have doubts about democracy--that I despair at intellectual fallibility of people. You fall for easy language (see, re: "rhetorical devices"), a complete lack of discipline of mind, lack of definition, loss of definition, and no idea when it comes to methodological concepts.

If the human race fails, it's people like you that will have permitted it.

by Raggamuffin Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:56 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, I simply don't like your racist attitude towards white people. You can talk to someone else about it though.

You are the racist. I am the analyst. I have spent literally hours on here trying to disabuse you of your racist ideas. Your racism stems from poor parental supervision, and laziness/lack of discipline with ideas. You weren't a good student, obviously.

Now you come upon the wide-world and attempt to visit upon the rest of us your undisciplined-cum-racism ideology. You are the reason why--where I have doubts about democracy--that I despair at intellectual fallibility of people. You fall for easy language (see, re: "rhetorical devices"), a complete lack of discipline of mind, lack of definition, loss of definition, and no idea when it comes to methodological concepts.

If the human race fails, it's people like you that will have permitted it.

You want to drag my parents into it? Just be aware that if you continue, I'll drag your parents into it - if you ever had any.

by Original Quill Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:21 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You are the racist. I am the analyst. I have spent literally hours on here trying to disabuse you of your racist ideas. Your racism stems from poor parental supervision, and laziness/lack of discipline with ideas. You weren't a good student, obviously.

Now you come upon the wide-world and attempt to visit upon the rest of us your undisciplined-cum-racism ideology. You are the reason why--where I have doubts about democracy--that I despair at intellectual fallibility of people. You fall for easy language (see, re: "rhetorical devices"), a complete lack of discipline of mind, lack of definition, loss of definition, and no idea when it comes to methodological concepts.

If the human race fails, it's people like you that will have permitted it.

You want to drag my parents into it? Just be aware that if you continue, I'll drag your parents into it - if you ever had any.

Stop trying to blame your own shortcomings on others. It's not parents you lack, it's intellectual discipline...which usually stems from a lack of proper educational supervision. Simply put, someone didn't make you do your homework. Your teachers were lax. Your friends took you smokin' and jokin' joints, rather that spending time in library at school. Who knows...but somehow you bypassed the rational thought department when they were passing things out.

You have developed lazy habits of mind, and you bring them to this place and ask us to indulge you. If you want to learn, fine. But don't impose your improper learning on others.

by Raggamuffin Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You want to drag my parents into it? Just be aware that if you continue, I'll drag your parents into it - if you ever had any.

Stop trying to blame your own shortcomings on others. It's not parents you lack, it's intellectual discipline...which usually stems from a lack of proper educational supervision. Simply put, someone didn't make you do your homework. Your teachers were lax. Your friends took you smokin' and jokin' joints, rather that spending time in library at school. Who knows...but somehow you bypassed the rational thought department when they were passing things out.

You have developed lazy habits of mind, and you bring them to this place and ask us to indulge you. If you want to learn, fine. But don't impose your improper learning on others.

You mentioned parental supervision. Don't ever bring my parents into your revolting, racist, stupid posts. Understand?

You were brought up as a fantasist, a liar, and a racist. Look at your own faults before you point the finger elsewhere.

by Original Quill Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Stop trying to blame your own shortcomings on others. It's not parents you lack, it's intellectual discipline...which usually stems from a lack of proper educational supervision. Simply put, someone didn't make you do your homework. Your teachers were lax. Your friends took you smokin' and jokin' joints, rather that spending time in library at school. Who knows...but somehow you bypassed the rational thought department when they were passing things out.

You have developed lazy habits of mind, and you bring them to this place and ask us to indulge you. If you want to learn, fine. But don't impose your improper learning on others.

You mentioned parental supervision. Don't ever bring my parents into your revolting, racist, stupid posts. Understand?

You were brought up as a fantasist, a liar, and a racist. Look at your own faults before you point the finger elsewhere.

Think about it Raggs. It's stupid to threaten. Anything you can do, you will do...you probably already have done. This is the web...anything goes, and nothing sticks.

Why waste your time and my time on another post? If no one has anything new to bring up, we move on to another thread.

by Raggamuffin Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:20 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You mentioned parental supervision. Don't ever bring my parents into your revolting, racist, stupid posts. Understand?

You were brought up as a fantasist, a liar, and a racist. Look at your own faults before you point the finger elsewhere.

Think about it Raggs. It's stupid to threaten. Anything you can do, you will do...you probably already have done. This is the web...anything goes, and nothing sticks.

Why waste your time and my time on another post? If no one has anything new to bring up, we move on to another thread.

I was giving you fair warning, and I'm pleased to see that you've dropped your attack on my parents. Good call.

You can move where you like.

by eddie Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:45 pm

Quill you are so completely condescending of others' intellect and also feel that you can quite literally talk down to them, as if your view is better because you're you.
Why do you do that?

by Guest Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:55 am

eddie wrote:Quill you are so completely condescending of others' intellect and also feel that you can quite literally talk down to them, as if your view is better because you're you.
Why do you do that?

Eh?
She is as condescending as Quill is and how as well, many of us all can be in debates Eddie. So why have you not directed this question also at Rags? Seems like you are deliberately singling out just Quill for something all posters do at times. Well Quill is right about the intellect part when somebody is constantly negative like Rags.
She has been negative throughout this debate, and negativity is not something you associate with intellect.

If you are bothered by people knocking down others intellect, then ensure that you do so to others to be fair.
The grounds made by Quill though have balance as she so negative in her replies, they just become a auto defense system. Quill got the upper hand in this debate easily and the fact is that Rags can be very frustrating to debate, where on many words are often exchanged, even Eilzel yesterday, the most patient here got frustrated with her poor replies. She can also be rude to boot, as we all can, but a negative argument is not something that could be claimed to intellect. So yes I can be condescending but am rarely negative in my views. Though have to admit, Rags brings much to the forum and makes for some very active debates

Please show some balance, because your reasoning to single out Quill when many are guilty of this is poor Eddie, based more on likability for you here. Hey ho its a new dawn and day, so onward and upwards

Negativity is multifaceted and shows up differently in each person. Broadly speaking though, negative people are more likely to focus on and bring up the flaws in situations, or talk about things they dislike. They have a cynical, pessimistic attitude. They may be straight up moody or grumpy, or have more of a subtle prickly, sarcastic edge to them.

Negativity hinders people in two ways. First, it's just viscerally unpleasant to be around someone who's injecting unpleasant emotions and vibes into every conversation. It's not that their points are never valid, but it wears people down to always be subjected to that perspective. Secondly, someone's a lot less likely to do things to further their social cause if they see the worst in everything. They're going to be held back in making friends if they keep finding flaws in everyone they meet, or they're too critical towards their own efforts to improve their social skills.

by The Devil, You Know Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:26 pm

it would appear from some of the comments attributed to that group that they would qualify as a hate group.

perhaps though, white coppers dont matter

by Guest Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:10 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:it would appear from some of the comments attributed to that group that they would qualify as a hate group.

perhaps though, white coppers dont matter

Absurd reasoning.
That is like saying all British are racist based off some who are.
You seem to be missing the point also on why such a group has arisen.
Never knew all the Police in the US were white also, I was on the understanding many ethnic groups served, where their personal safety is important when carrying out their duties, by means of reasonable action taken.

by Original Quill Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:45 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:it would appear from some of the comments attributed to that group that they would qualify as a hate group.

perhaps though, white coppers dont matter

You are going in the right direction, Dean. But you are using the wrong stepping stones to get it across.

Yes, there is deep and profound hate involved. Hate crimes are being committed. There is a hate-group afoot.

But if you want to talk about any problem, you must begin with it's source. Cops kill black males disproportionately. There's the anchor-point. That is where it all starts. So, yes...it is in substance hate. But it is the hate of police of black males.

Very quickly, I have to say that the massive majority of law enforcement officers are good and dedicated people. I was a prosecutor and I had the pleasure of teaching many law enforcement officers at the Academy and in universities. But--particularly in the southern US--the mixture of power with personal emotional aspects within the individual's life--religion, racism, etc.--becomes confused. So it is a subject onto itself, and needs to be addressed. Not, as some suggest, swept under the rug.

Death of police is Raggs way of diverting the subject...in fact changing the subject, if you will. It's apples and oranges, as two different and totally separate issues. The two involve two different antagonists; the two involve two different protagonists. The two issues involve two different populations...you study different pools to learn anything. The two issues have two different motivations entirely: on the one hand, cops get killed by criminals, who are motivated by crime; on the other hand, cops single out black males because they are motivated by racism. Finally, the two issues have completely different histories: crime is as old as humankind; racism has its history (in America) in deliberate slavery of black people by white people.

You change the argument when you find the other side gaining the advantage. How? You seize upon a coincidence of terms to transition. "Parental supervision" you change to attacking your parents to avoid the accusation that you didn't do your homework. "Rhetorical devices" you change to a subject about how cops are the victims. We have a million examples right here, but you can see that these are arguments by (what we lawyers call) 'easy language'--taking metaphors and similes and changing their meaning in the middle of the discussion.

by The Devil, You Know Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:it would appear from some of the comments attributed to that group that they would qualify as a hate group.

perhaps though, white coppers dont matter

You are going in the right direction, Dean. But you are using the wrong stepping stones to get it across.

Yes, there is deep and profound hate involved. Hate crimes are being committed. There is a hate-group afoot.

But if you want to talk about any problem, you must begin with it's source. Cops kill black males disproportionately. There's the anchor-point. That is where it all starts. So, yes...it is in substance hate. But it is the hate of police of black males.

Very quickly, I have to say that the massive majority of law enforcement officers are good and dedicated people. I was a prosecutor and I had the pleasure of teaching many law enforcement officers at the Academy and in universities. But--particularly in the southern US--the mixture of power with personal emotional aspects within the individual's life--religion, racism, etc.--becomes confused. So it is a subject onto itself, and needs to be addressed. Not, as some suggest, swept under the rug.

Death of police is Raggs way of diverting the subject...in fact changing the subject, if you will. It's apples and oranges, as two different and totally separate issues. The two involve two different antagonists; the two involve two different protagonists. The two issues involve two different populations...you study different pools to learn anything. The two issues have two different motivations entirely: on the one hand, cops get killed by criminals, who are motivated by crime; on the other hand, cops single out black males because they are motivated by racism. Finally, the two issues have completely different histories: crime is as old as humankind; racism has its history (in America) in deliberate slavery of black people by white people.

You change the argument when you find the other side gaining the advantage. How? You seize upon a coincidence of terms to transition. "Parental supervision" you change to attacking your parents to avoid the accusation that you didn't do your homework. "Rhetorical devices" you change to a subject about how cops are the victims. We have a million examples right here, but you can see that these are arguments by (what we lawyers call) 'easy language'--taking metaphors and similes and changing their meaning in the middle of the discussion.

if more blacks are committing crimes it stands to reason more will be killed during those crimes. I am sure some are shot and killed unlawfully, but the majority are not. If you have a group saying kill white cops, then please do not try to make excuses for them
black lives matter no more than white ones.

by The Devil, You Know Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:00 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:it would appear from some of the comments attributed to that group that they would qualify as a hate group.

perhaps though, white coppers dont matter

Absurd reasoning.
That is like saying all British are racist based off some who are.
You seem to be missing the point also on why such a group has arisen.
Never knew all the Police in the US were white also, I was on the understanding many ethnic groups served, where their personal safety is important when carrying out their duties, by means of reasonable action taken.

if its coming form a specific group then it is fair to say that group is a hate group. sharpton and co are hate merchants in much the same vein as the numerous Muslim hate preachers like choudry and co.

by Guest Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:10 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Absurd reasoning.
That is like saying all British are racist based off some who are.
You seem to be missing the point also on why such a group has arisen.
Never knew all the Police in the US were white also, I was on the understanding many ethnic groups served, where their personal safety is important when carrying out their duties, by means of reasonable action taken.
if its coming form a specific group then it is fair to say that group is a hate group. sharpton and co are hate merchants in much the same vein as the numerous Muslim hate preachers like choudry and co.

No it is not fair to say at all, just because some within the group are hateful.
So you are wrongly assuming off some vocal supporters, who do nothing for the cause except to make you wrongly claim its the groups intent, To claim sharpton as a hate monger based off no evidence and your opinion counts for very little. He may have said some daft things, but hate promoter? The evidence suggests otherwise.

by Guest Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:15 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You are going in the right direction, Dean. But you are using the wrong stepping stones to get it across.

Yes, there is deep and profound hate involved. Hate crimes are being committed. There is a hate-group afoot.

But if you want to talk about any problem, you must begin with it's source. Cops kill black males disproportionately. There's the anchor-point. That is where it all starts. So, yes...it is in substance hate. But it is the hate of police of black males.

Very quickly, I have to say that the massive majority of law enforcement officers are good and dedicated people. I was a prosecutor and I had the pleasure of teaching many law enforcement officers at the Academy and in universities. But--particularly in the southern US--the mixture of power with personal emotional aspects within the individual's life--religion, racism, etc.--becomes confused. So it is a subject onto itself, and needs to be addressed. Not, as some suggest, swept under the rug.

Death of police is Raggs way of diverting the subject...in fact changing the subject, if you will. It's apples and oranges, as two different and totally separate issues. The two involve two different antagonists; the two involve two different protagonists. The two issues involve two different populations...you study different pools to learn anything. The two issues have two different motivations entirely: on the one hand, cops get killed by criminals, who are motivated by crime; on the other hand, cops single out black males because they are motivated by racism. Finally, the two issues have completely different histories: crime is as old as humankind; racism has its history (in America) in deliberate slavery of black people by white people.

You change the argument when you find the other side gaining the advantage. How? You seize upon a coincidence of terms to transition. "Parental supervision" you change to attacking your parents to avoid the accusation that you didn't do your homework. "Rhetorical devices" you change to a subject about how cops are the victims. We have a million examples right here, but you can see that these are arguments by (what we lawyers call) 'easy language'--taking metaphors and similes and changing their meaning in the middle of the discussion.
if more blacks are committing crimes it stands to reason more will be killed during those crimes. I am sure some are shot and killed unlawfully, but the majority are not. If you have a group saying kill white cops, then please do not try to make excuses for them
black lives matter no more than white ones.

Illogical, as what do you need to factor in with each crime?
How many whites were defenseless compared to Blacks who were defenseless, killed by cops?
Countless more factors to add to this.
The point goes above your head again, because whites do not face discrimination like Blacks do in America. Through the criminal procedures, blacks are more likely than whites to be arrested for the same crimes. Charged for the same crimes. Sentenced harsher for the same crimes. There clearly is numerous cases of people being shot unarmed by the Police. How you try to turn this around as reverse racism is poor to say the least

by Original Quill Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:22 pm

Dean wrote:if more blacks are committing crimes it stands to reason more will be killed during those crimes.

That presumes you are focusing on the criminal justice side of things. However, even there you stand on shaky ground:

Prison Policy Initiative wrote:Nationally, according to the U.S. Census, Blacks are incarcerated five times more than Whites are, and Hispanics are nearly twice as likely to be incarcerated as Whites:

The racial and ethnic make-up of incarcerated populations is dramatically different from that of the U.S. as a whole.

Race/Ethnicity--% of US population--% of U.S. incarcerated population--National incarceration rate (per 100,000)

White (non-Hispanic) 64% / 39% / 450 per 100,000
Hispanic 16% / 19% / 831 per 100,000
Black 13% / 40% / 2,306 per 100,000

Social science research has time and again come to the robust conclusion that exposure to the criminal justice system has profound and intergenerational negative effects on communities that experience disproportionate incarceration rates. It is imperative that we are able to measure the extent to which the criminal justice system disparately impacts our communities.

These data indicate that it is law enforcement selectivity, rather than race/ethnicity, that is the determining factor.

Dean wrote:I am sure some are shot and killed unlawfully,

Of course, if any of them are shot and killed unlawfully, it is a crime in itself and needs to be prosecuted. So you see the concern at this point is not just the statistical profile.

Dean wrote:...but the majority are not. If you have a group saying kill white cops, then please do not try to make excuses for them black lives matter no more than white ones.

This is the false claim, that you have no facts to substantiate. No group is saying kill white cops. Nor have you presented any evidence about killing of police officers, by race, date, city or any other variable. So it's hard to say anything about the who/whys/wherefores of killing of police officers.

However, there is substantial evidence--now captured on cell phone cameras, dash cams, and body cams--that irrefutably show that black males are being killed unjustifiably by police officers.

Now, by this I don't mean to foreclose your opportunity to present evidence for your claim. But I've said enough to show that it is a different debate, for a different discussion, for a different time.

by Original Quill Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:36 pm

Dean wrote:if its coming form a specific group then it is fair to say that group is a hate group. sharpton and co are hate merchants in much the same vein as the numerous Muslim hate preachers like choudry and co.

Any facts? Or shall we file this among the other cartoons?

by Original Quill Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:48 pm

eddie wrote:Quill you are so completely condescending of others' intellect and also feel that you can quite literally talk down to them, as if your view is better because you're you.
Why do you do that?

"Condescending" is a characterization of argument, reflective of argument, disingenuously offered in judgment, and is really nothing more than a retort in argument. It is the kind of criticism that you find in marital spats, because it perfidiously attempts to elevate what is just another argument to the level of judgment. Judgment is what most marital arguments are about.

It is not something I respond to because it does not address the subject. In fact, it changes the subject. If I respond at all, I simply tell it like it is: this debate is not about me. That simple phrase is true, and it bypasses a lot of needless misdirection.

Let me redirect you to the thread title.

by Raggamuffin Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:03 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:Quill you are so completely condescending of others' intellect and also feel that you can quite literally talk down to them, as if your view is better because you're you.
Why do you do that?

"Condescending" is a characterization of argument, reflective of argument, disingenuously offered in judgment, and is really nothing more than a retort in argument. It is the kind of criticism that you find in marital spats, because it perfidiously attempts to elevate what is just another argument to the level of judgment. Judgment is what most marital arguments are about.

It is not something I respond to because it does not address the subject. In fact, it changes the subject. If I respond at all, I simply tell it like it is: this debate is not about me. That simple phrase is true, and it bypasses a lot of needless misdirection.

Let me redirect you to the thread title.

Perhaps you should have taken your own advice before you started on about my parents, my teachers, and my educational experience.

by Raggamuffin Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:07 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You are going in the right direction, Dean. But you are using the wrong stepping stones to get it across.

Yes, there is deep and profound hate involved. Hate crimes are being committed. There is a hate-group afoot.

But if you want to talk about any problem, you must begin with it's source. Cops kill black males disproportionately. There's the anchor-point. That is where it all starts. So, yes...it is in substance hate. But it is the hate of police of black males.

Very quickly, I have to say that the massive majority of law enforcement officers are good and dedicated people. I was a prosecutor and I had the pleasure of teaching many law enforcement officers at the Academy and in universities. But--particularly in the southern US--the mixture of power with personal emotional aspects within the individual's life--religion, racism, etc.--becomes confused. So it is a subject onto itself, and needs to be addressed. Not, as some suggest, swept under the rug.

Death of police is Raggs way of diverting the subject...in fact changing the subject, if you will. It's apples and oranges, as two different and totally separate issues. The two involve two different antagonists; the two involve two different protagonists. The two issues involve two different populations...you study different pools to learn anything. The two issues have two different motivations entirely: on the one hand, cops get killed by criminals, who are motivated by crime; on the other hand, cops single out black males because they are motivated by racism. Finally, the two issues have completely different histories: crime is as old as humankind; racism has its history (in America) in deliberate slavery of black people by white people.

You change the argument when you find the other side gaining the advantage. How? You seize upon a coincidence of terms to transition. "Parental supervision" you change to attacking your parents to avoid the accusation that you didn't do your homework. "Rhetorical devices" you change to a subject about how cops are the victims. We have a million examples right here, but you can see that these are arguments by (what we lawyers call) 'easy language'--taking metaphors and similes and changing their meaning in the middle of the discussion.
if more blacks are committing crimes it stands to reason more will be killed during those crimes. I am sure some are shot and killed unlawfully, but the majority are not. If you have a group saying kill white cops, then please do not try to make excuses for them
black lives matter no more than white ones.

Exactly - if they want the complain about the police, they should say that all lives matter.

I asked about the killing of cops by black people because I wondered if there was a connection between the disproportionate percentages re black people being killed, and black people killing cops.

Without going into each and every case, it's impossible to know the reasons either way, but if a white person is killed, nobody seems to bat an eyelid, and that seems wrong to me.

by Guest Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:26 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

"Condescending" is a characterization of argument, reflective of argument, disingenuously offered in judgment, and is really nothing more than a retort in argument. It is the kind of criticism that you find in marital spats, because it perfidiously attempts to elevate what is just another argument to the level of judgment. Judgment is what most marital arguments are about.

It is not something I respond to because it does not address the subject. In fact, it changes the subject. If I respond at all, I simply tell it like it is: this debate is not about me. That simple phrase is true, and it bypasses a lot of needless misdirection.

Let me redirect you to the thread title.

Perhaps you should have taken your own advice before you started on about my parents, my teachers, and my educational experience.

Oh grow up for goodness sake.
You lost this debate, which is evident from your constant deflections

by Raggamuffin Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:31 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Perhaps you should have taken your own advice before you started on about my parents, my teachers, and my educational experience.

Oh grow up for goodness sake.
You lost this debate, which is evident from your constant deflections

Fuck off. Keep your nose out for once.

by eddie Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:34 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:Quill you are so completely condescending of others' intellect and also feel that you can quite literally talk down to them, as if your view is better because you're you.
Why do you do that?

"Condescending" is a characterization of argument, reflective of argument, disingenuously offered in judgment, and is really nothing more than a retort in argument. It is the kind of criticism that you find in marital spats, because it perfidiously attempts to elevate what is just another argument to the level of judgment. Judgment is what most marital arguments are about.

It is not something I respond to because it does not address the subject. In fact, it changes the subject. If I respond at all, I simply tell it like it is: this debate is not about me. That simple phrase is true, and it bypasses a lot of needless misdirection.

Let me redirect you to the thread title.

Yeah. Okay.
You and I are not married..... but you're still condescending.

My other half isn't condescending in arguments, I never call him that.
He's irritating and stupid so I call him a stupid prick.

I find you quite irritating and stupid yet intelligent at the same time (textually intelligent, I-read-a lot intelligent) but apart from all that, I stop reading your words because of your condescending tone.

Words, and your written thoughts are no good unless people want to read them.

by Guest Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Oh grow up for goodness sake.
You lost this debate, which is evident from your constant deflections

Fuck off. Keep your nose out for once.

Nope, and learn some manners Potty mouth.

by Raggamuffin Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:37 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuck off. Keep your nose out for once.

Nope, and learn some manners Potty mouth.

Can you please stop following me around the forum harassing me?

Thanks.

by Original Quill Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:05 am

eddie wrote:Words, and your written thoughts are no good unless people want to read them.

On the other hand, if you write just for popularity you end up with a depreciated product. I'd rather read Dostoevsky.

You haven't learned to separate ideas from messengers. A lot of people criticized Jean Jacques Rousseau for his life, yet he was the founder of social theory. Holger Ross Lauritsen and Mikkel Thorup (eds.), Rousseau and Revolution (2009). Said reviewers:

David Lay Williams, DePaul University wrote:Jean-Jacques Rousseau is perhaps most famous or even infamous for two features associated with his work and its influence. Among casual readers, he is known as the muse of the Jacobins in the French Revolution. The popular image persists of Robespierre quoting passages from the Social Contract while simultaneously ordering executions. Among more familiar readers, he is known for the many paradoxes and ambiguities that cover most corners of his oeuvre. He can be found advancing ancient and modern devices, celebrating the solitary life while insisting on the social, condemning the arts while writing novels and operas, and insisting that freedom involves being forced against one's evident will.

Writers, like conversationalists, can learn to speak for reward. It's an art form, really. In live interaction, researchers call it grooming. You groom another to like you. The term has received popular--albeit, negative--circulation recently, from activities of predators operating on the Internet. Sexual predators and paedophiles groom their victims, and we despise that. But do you realize that lovers groom each other? Your trusty dog Spot grooms you; in fact, you groom Spot, by petting him, not brushing. Anytime you befriend someone you want to share a relationship with, you groom that person. It's the art form of making something or somebody like you.

There's good and bad in that, and the range goes from bff to Uncle Ned, who hugs you a bit too tightly. I am ambivalent about grooming. But we should at least recognize that it is a different practice than telling the truth, or speaking/writing for learning or reasoning. Sometimes when you are writing on an Internet board, you are not trying to groom new friends. You are sharing ideas, perhaps in the hope that new ideas or facts will come back to you.

I am interested in politics and political ideas. I have a doctorate in political theory, and a doctorate of laws, which permits me to practice law. Over the course of my life, when I wasn't in a courtroom I was lecturing in a university. I've learned how people think, learn and rationalize. I have an intense interest in politics and law, and I like to exchange ideas about it. Unfortunately, most people like to live it, as well. So that leads to conflict. But I'm not a groomer, so be it.

For decades I remained detached, preferring to explore the history of British political thought of 4 - 500-years ago. But when soldiers of my own country started in kidnapping, raping, torturing and killing other human beings, I took an intense interest in the political thought of the present day. If I wanted people to like me, I would grow a beard, smoke a pipe, and groom people while pontificating abstract ideas about people who lived hundreds and thousands of years ago; I would be a character and I would spend my days in the library, dine at the faculty club and teach classes at the City University of New York.

But I don't want it all to be about me. I don't need to groom people to like me. So I speak up, sometimes offend others, and fook all about grooming people. It may be a nasty habit, but I like to look into things that interest me, speak out whatever the subject, and perhaps become a bit more belligerent in politics and life.

by eddie Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:50 am

That was like listening to free-form Jazz. scratch

by Original Quill Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:09 pm

eddie wrote:That was like listening to free-form Jazz.

Yep. Well, Jazz started in New Orleans. Modern Jazz started in San Francisco. So we're just jazzing it up. Razz

by eddie Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:24 pm

I like jazz - just hate free-form. It's noisy and tuneless IMO

by Original Quill Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:44 pm

eddie wrote:I like jazz - just hate free-form. It's noisy and tuneless IMO

Jazz is defined as free form, sorta.

Dictionary.com wrote:music originating in New Orleans around the beginning of the 20th century and subsequently developing through various increasingly complex styles, generally marked by intricate, propulsive rhythms, polyphonic ensemble playing, improvisatory, virtuosic solos, melodic freedom, and a harmonic idiom ranging from simple diatonicism through chromaticism to atonality.

Originally, it was three chords and a cloud of dust. Within each chord, you had freedom to play any melody you chose. Also the source of riffs. Other dujas.

by eddie Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:40 pm

Lol I know - my other half is a musician and learned to play jazz before I anything else.

I'm merely referring to the free-form Jazz that's called "free-form Jazz"

by Original Quill Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:08 pm

eddie wrote:Lol I know - my other half is a musician and learned to play jazz before I anything else.

I'm merely referring to the free-form Jazz that's called "free-form Jazz"

Yes, focusing on that aspect of it.

I have a theory (of musicology?) that jazz was the creation of people who had an incomplete education in music, and so they took off on their own. "Three chords and a cloud of dust" is an apt description, because they had half the framework (three chords = a key), but they had to provide their own melody within that key. Ergo: Jazz. Eight or sixteen bars in a major, eight or sixteen in the sub-dominate, and eight or sixteen in the seventh, and back into the major...pick your relative minors as you like. The melody was almost secondary, and as long as it fit into the rhythmic structure, as well as the simple harmonic scale of the key, they were okay.

Jazz began with Africans. More than anything, African musical instruments are heavily rhythmic. So people who were used to percussion only would have to learn the idea of melody, as well as the melody itself. And of course, no one was willing to sit down and teach a slave anything, let alone music and melody. So they worked it out on their own.

by eddie Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:16 pm

It's a great history actually Quill.
My other half, where learning Jazz, used to watch lots of documentaries about the history of jazz (aNd other music too) and I watched a lot,of,them with him when we got together.

All music has black roots.

Where would we be without music?
I'd be in the nuthoise for sure!

by Original Quill Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:28 pm

eddie wrote:It's a great history actually Quill.
My other half, where learning Jazz, used to watch lots of documentaries about the history of jazz (aNd other music too) and I watched a lot,of,them with him when we got together.

All music has black roots.

Where would we be without music?
I'd be in the nuthoise for sure!

I wish your OH and I could sit down. I have a great collection of records, Billy Holiday, Ledbelly--which is blues--and some early Armstrong and Ella. You have to watch old documentaries and listen to recordings, because they aren't around anymore...to talk to or listen to.

Love music.

by eddie Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:18 pm

To understand an instrument and how to play it, and write it, as we did then, you have to learn some history of music.

He read up on guitars too lol he's a real music boffin.

by Original Quill Sun Sep 06, 2015 2:50 am

When I lived in San Diego I had a music store called the Blue Guitar. We imported Paracho guitars from Mexico, brought them across the border and sold them. They were classicals, with rosewood box and spruce top.

Occasionally, we got some handmade ones. We would commission some flamenco guitars from Francisco Aguilar, of Tecate. Cedar body with spruce top...gives a more percussion sound, better for dance. And one time we bought a Manual Remirez in Mexico City, made in Madrid. At one time it was Segovia's back-up guitar. Gorgeous.

Fox News calls Black Lives Matter movement a "murder movement," "hate group" - Page 2 Manuel-ramirez-lorenzo-frignani-250x250

This isn't it; but it was like this.

Incidentally, if you like Jazz or any American origin music, get a book by Alan Lomax, American Folk Song and Folklore (1942, reprint 1977, 1988). He is sort of the original American ethnomusicologist.

Any of his books are informative. When he was alive, he went around the backwoods recording the likes of Jelly Roll Morton, whom he claims invented New Orleans Jazz, Woody Guthrie, Lead Belly, Muddy Waters, Big Bill Broonzy, Sonny Terry, and Brownie McGhee. and other jazz pioneers, as well as songs sung by sharecroppers and prisoners in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi. He counted among his close friends, Burl Ives, Woody Guthrie, Lead Belly, Pete Seeger, Josh White, etc. He was a professor at Texas A&M University, and at one time held the title of Assistant in Charge at the Library of Congress.

Two great collector recordings of his, with RCA, are Woody Guthrie's Dust Bowl Ballads and Lead Belly's Midnight Special and Other Southern Prison Songs.

by eddie Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:36 am

(Sorry for beig off topic all!)

Very quickly, my other half likes the PRS guitar and collected a few

Also my personal favourite jazz guitarist is Pat Metheny
My other half has too many to list!

by Sponsored content