Civil dissent is only for white people

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

They could start by maybe rallying around an idea that's not based in the false narrwive that black people qre being hunted down and executed by the police and instead maybe protest the democrat party holding many of them in poverty for the last 60 some ought years just to secure their vote.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/

You know what's funny about this? Even knowing that you're killed more than we are, you hold an almost revered respect for the police.

So which is it? Are you saying that white people are more likely to be brutalized by the police? Because if that's true, why do you, as a whole, hold a more favorable view of them?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/175088/gallup-review-black-white-attitudes-toward-police.aspx

Combined 2011-2014 data measuring Americans' confidence in the police shows that 59% of whites have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the police, compared with 37% of blacks.

When you find racial bias in more than one PD, it's not a false narrative. Baltimore, Chicago, Ferguson. All of them have reports citing racism and issues targeted at POC.

[OriZ 3,157]

Which begs the question, how does a black person protest in 2016?

That's easy. You get a permit for a peaceful protest, and you protest peacefully, the way all civil people do. You don't riot, you don't block roads, you don't loot, you don't burn. You can also do what he did. Legally I have no problem with it. I wholeheartedly disagree with it and think it was grossly disrespectful, but nonetheless he is entitled to his constitutional rights. Unfortunately for him though and justifiably at the same time, it has caused him to lose the respect of many, many people.

They could start by maybe rallying around an idea that's not based in the false narrwive that black people qre being hunted down and executed by the police and instead maybe protest the democrat party holding many of them in poverty for the last 60 some ought years just to secure their vote.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/

Ssshhh...don't say false narrative around here(I know that's what you meant despite the typo and even +1 ya for it )

Edited September 7, 2016 by OriZ

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

That's easy. You get a permit for a peaceful protest, and you protest peacefully, the way all civil people do. You don't riot, you don't block roads, you don't loot, you don't burn. You can also do what he did. Legally I have no problem with it. I wholeheartedly disagree with it and think it was grossly disrespectful, but nonetheless he is entitled to his constitutional rights. Unfortunately for him though and justifiably at the same time, it has caused him to lose the respect of many, many people.

Ssshhh...don't say false narrative around here(I know that's what you meant despite the typo and even +1 ya for it )

And tell me, what does that achieve here in the US? Because a majority of changes that have come for any minority group have come from protesting and rioting. A few examples...

The Montgomery bus boycott didn't change black people riding the back of the bus. It wasn't until their profits started to hurt, and even then, they tried to force them to ride the bus by not insuring the folks who were driving them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_bus_boycott

Or let's talk about the White Night riots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Night_riots

Or when Rodney King's assaulters were convicted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

Or getting Zimmerman to trial: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0ahUKEwjW0-fY4f3OAhUCeSYKHa7mBt8QFghDMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fpictures%2Fnationwide-protests-over-trayvon-martin-case%2F&usg=AFQjCNENdYnLYV0hFCna_7Yb-Nnyk6NIyA&sig2=zTJm-fdOZbSHO1ZaX1yokQ

Or the Baltimore riots:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Baltimore_protests

And I find it interesting your stance on disrespectful when it's of no consequence to disrespect the President of the United States by calling him a clown.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

So your advocating looting and violence.

Well you do get points for finally admitting it

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

So your advocating looting and violence.

Well you do get points for finally admitting it

Nope, I advocate for change. I'm just pointing out by history's standpoint, riots have gotten a response when quiet protesting didn't. But, funny enough, people only seem to get upset when it's POC that's rioting. Because when the Pumpkin patch riots happened in 2014, I didn't see folks advocating for them folks to be locked up and calling them animals.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

A lot of changes happened in this country due to protest. Look at women protesting for right to vote. I know, it's only bad when black people protest for their rights.

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=yb-3Vk4eTQM

[Boiler 43,391]

A lot of changes happened in this country due to protest. Look at women protesting for right to vote. I know, it's only bad when black people protest for their rights.

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=yb-3Vk4eTQM

Like those who want to introduce Sharia Law.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Like those who want to introduce Sharia Law.

You do realize the native Americans have their own laws they use, the Amish and there is an Islamabad in the U.S. there are communities that are governing themselves and have their rules.

Like the born again christian jesuses that marry little girls in Texas, but keep worrying about Muslims only.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Like those who want to introduce Sharia Law.

Coming for J isn't wise. But I commend your effort.

[OriZ 3,157]

And tell me, what does that achieve here in the US? Because a majority of changes that have come for any minority group have come from protesting and rioting. A few examples...

The Montgomery bus boycott didn't change black people riding the back of the bus. It wasn't until their profits started to hurt, and even then, they tried to force them to ride the bus by not insuring the folks who were driving them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_bus_boycott

Or let's talk about the White Night riots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Night_riots

Or when Rodney King's assaulters were convicted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

Or getting Zimmerman to trial: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0ahUKEwjW0-fY4f3OAhUCeSYKHa7mBt8QFghDMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fpictures%2Fnationwide-protests-over-trayvon-martin-case%2F&usg=AFQjCNENdYnLYV0hFCna_7Yb-Nnyk6NIyA&sig2=zTJm-fdOZbSHO1ZaX1yokQ

Or the Baltimore riots:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Baltimore_protests

And I find it interesting your stance on disrespectful when it's of no consequence to disrespect the President of the United States by calling him a clown.

LOL omg I can't believe you're actually trying to compare the two. Are you kidding me that's ridiculous, talk about hanging by a thread. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not liking the president or *gasp* yes, god forbid, even calling him names. I guarantee you I would say the exact same thing had he chosen to call Bush, or Obama, or Clinton or Trump clowns. Completely different story than disrespecting the country or the flag, which I would never dare do. I hate to break it to ya, but presidents are nothing but flesh and blood. They are nothing special, in fact I'm pretty sure most of us could do a better job than most of them. Having a 9 letter word in front of your name does not make you immune from criticism or, yes, being called a clown if that's said person personal opinion of you. It does absolutely nothing to disrespect the country, the anthem or the flag. Yes it might be the highest office but it is occupied by a mortal human being, so if I think that person is a clown damn right I will say it and that's not me doing anything to disrespect the actual country. Huge, major difference. I know you might want to try and believe that calling the president names is the same as disrespecting the country but it's really not. You do realize they are no better than any of us and we can call them whatever we want, unless you want to be in Putin's Russia. At the same time, whether or not you find what I say to be disrespectful, it is my right to do so, just as I acknowledged that while I found not standing for the anthem to be disrespectful, it was his right to do so.

So your advocating looting and violence.

Well you do get points for finally admitting it

That's what I was thinking reading that. Way to ignore all the achievements peaceful protests, including the civil rights movement actually did have. And to give Zimmerman as an example, wow, just wow.

Edited September 7, 2016 by OriZ

[smilesammich 10,727]

presidents are nothing but flesh and blood, wth are flags made out of? especially the american ones made in china that smell like racing fuel..

That's what I was thinking reading that. Way to ignore all the achievements peaceful protests, including the civil rights movement actually did have.

do you think that at the time, folks were calling those protests peaceful? necessary?

[OriZ 3,157]

presidents are nothing but flesh and blood, wth are flags made out of? especially the american ones made in china that smell like racing fuel..

do you think that at the time, folks were calling those protests peaceful? necessary?

Well, the president just occupies the office for several years. I don't see the president, in that sense, as being representative of the country to the degree that the flag or the anthem are. Just another person that happens to be there at the time, nothing more, nothing less. The flag doesn't change every 4-8 years, neither does the anthem.

I think at the time alot more people considered most(granted not all of them were) of them to be peaceful, and yes, I believe many considered them necessary and justified. I wasn't alive at the time but from what I know about it it was vastly different from today's BLM, and it achieved more ultimately, than BLM with their attitude is ever going to if you ask me.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

LOL omg I can't believe you're actually trying to compare the two. Are you kidding me that's ridiculous, talk about hanging by a thread. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not liking the president or *gasp* yes, god forbid, even calling him names. I guarantee you I would say the exact same thing had he chosen to call Bush, or Obama, or Clinton or Trump clowns. Completely different story than disrespecting the country or the flag, which I would never dare do. I hate to break it to ya, but presidents are nothing but flesh and blood. They are nothing special, in fact I'm pretty sure most of us could do a better job than most of them. Having a 9 letter word in front of your name does not make you immune from criticism or, yes, being called a clown if that's said person personal opinion of you. It does absolutely nothing to disrespect the country, the anthem or the flag. Yes it might be the highest office but it is occupied by a mortal human being, so if I think that person is a clown damn right I will say it and that's not me doing anything to disrespect the actual country. Huge, major difference. I know you might want to try and believe that calling the president names is the same as disrespecting the country but it's really not. You do realize they are no better than any of us and we can call them whatever we want, unless you want to be in Putin's Russia. At the same time, whether or not you find what I say to be disrespectful, it is my right to do so, just as I acknowledged that while I found not standing for the anthem to be disrespectful, it was his right to do so.

That's what I was thinking reading that. Way to ignore all the achievements peaceful protests, including the civil rights movement actually did have. And to give Zimmerman as an example, wow, just wow.

Actually there is something wrong with it, hence the reason why military folks aren't allowed to disrespect him in public or on social media. There's a UCMJ article that doles out punishment. But for your second opinion, how can you render a judgment on a job you've never done? And I'm thinking running a country is a harder job than you make it out to be. No way I'm qualified to run for that office, and I'm smart enough to know that. I know Trump's case is a bit different since being a bigoted, loud-mouth bully seems to be less of an issue for some than HRC. But I digress.

And I'm not ignoring the peaceful protests, just stating facts. And men and women wiser than all of us here have made that same statement.

“Dr. King's policy was that nonviolence would achieve the gains for black people in the United States. His major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That's very good. He only made one fallacious assumption: In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.” Stokely Carmichael.

What's wrong with the Zimmerman reference? If protests didn't take place, he would have never seen the inside of a courtroom since it was deemed he killed a black teen, they didn't even want to get out of bed that night and arrest him.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Well, the president just occupies the office for several years. I don't see the president, in that sense, as being representative of the country to the degree that the flag or the anthem are. Just another person that happens to be there at the time, nothing more, nothing less. The flag doesn't change every 4-8 years, neither does the anthem.

I think at the time alot more people considered most(granted not all of them were) of them to be peaceful, and yes, I believe many considered them necessary and justified. I wasn't alive at the time but from what I know about it it was vastly different from today's BLM, and it achieved more ultimately, than BLM with their attitude is ever going to if you ask me.

MLK was killed for the cause, and even at that time his approval rating among white people was 23%. That's pretty low for a man who preached nonviolence and did it the "right "way.

The problem is this, peaceful protests take years, even decades to take effect. And black folks have been marching and singing we shall overcome for almost 60 years. Even when Dylan Roof murdered those church going folks, we were expected to forgive him. Had that been in reverse, I'm pretty sure forgiveness wouldn't have been on the table.

As a whole, people here have an issue with aggression when it comes to POC only. Because let's be clear, when white men and women get guns and decide to bully a mosque at a time where the Muslims there just wanted to go pray, no one said a word about it. When they had the draw Mohammad convention and those two nutjobs were killed, no one said we should forgive them. Only when we march, protest, or riot for injustice sakes, it makes people angry.

Maybe you should ask yourself why black people wanted police brutality to end is such a problem for you.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Well, the president just occupies the office for several years. I don't see the president, in that sense, as being representative of the country to the degree that the flag or the anthem are. Just another person that happens to be there at the time, nothing more, nothing less. The flag doesn't change every 4-8 years, neither does the anthem.

I think at the time alot more people considered most(granted not all of them were) of them to be peaceful, and yes, I believe many considered them necessary and justified. I wasn't alive at the time but from what I know about it it was vastly different from today's BLM, and it achieved more ultimately, than BLM with their attitude is ever going to if you ask me.

are you serious? because i can't take this in bold seriously.

of course it achieved more ultimately, there was and is no convincing argument for the continuance of blatant jim crow. it was going to come down, if for any one reason, christianity. yeah, that's right. i said it. same reason 'uncle tom's cabin' had the impact that it did. in the face of black christians, white christians didn't have a leg to stand on and were forced to look at their hypocrisy.

now what we have with blm is black people giving their experience with racial injustice in this country, asking to be heard and some folks refusing to listen and insisting that if they've not perceived racial injustice in any given situation it doesn't exist and blm are a pack of cop killers (that have killed zero 0 cops) that just want to instigate violence and unrest. bs. blm weren't anywhere close to the first group to call out what's been happening since the civil rights movement..people have been speaking and writing about the new jim crow for years. do some research. or don't, it's all made up by blm.

Edited September 7, 2016 by smilesammich