I think TW hit on what I was gonna say. The existence of organizations like BLM now doesn't mean the problem didn't exist before... just that they were too afraid of repercussions to point it out.

I think we're seeing groups start to stick up for themselves when previously they didn't. As a white guy the easy route is to assume there must not have been a problem before these groups. But that's just because we never would have a reason to see it.

victor809 wrote:

... dude. I just can't fathom how you're having such a problem with this.

The purpose of BLM was pretty clear. And it came into existence due to actual problems that were occurring.

Guess what... those problems existed long before BLM existed. And likely a large reason for the timing is simply the ubiquity of cellphone video to allow blacks to provide video evidence of their claims.

You want to delegitimize all of BLM because of rioting... that's not smart. The problem exists and will continue to exist until it's fixed. Rioting may not solve the problem but neither does pretending to ignore it because your delicate sensibilities are offended by their method of bringing it to your attention.

victor809 wrote:

Let's say tail shoots my dog.

I may respond to that in a number of different ways. I may just file a police report and follow the legal route.
Or I may poop on his doorstep.

One method of brining the issue to the attention of authority is legal the other isnt. They may have different levels of success or even different levels of satisfaction.

Neither impacts the severity of the issue.

victor809 wrote:

He tried to make it better. .. but it prolly wouldn't have an issue if the professor had cooperated a little bit. .. 😟

DrafterX wrote:

He tried to make it better. .. but it prolly wouldn't have an issue if the professor had cooperated a little bit. .. 😟

DrafterX wrote:

no argument, but I know that all kinds of people get upset when cops pull them over and they really were speeding. Cuss them out, tell them they'll see them in court...basically saying they suck at their job even though the cop did the job correctly.

But Gates really was at his own house. His reaction may have been normal, we'll never know.

I'm pretty sure I would not have gone off on the officer if it happened at my home, and I doubt the Cambridge cop had race in mind...perhaps Gates was being opportunistic, no one knows despite certainty on c-bid, but rereading Obama's words makes him sound kind of normal.

To me, not much of an example of widening the racial divide.

frankj1 wrote:

... dude. I just can't fathom how you're having such a problem with this.

The purpose of BLM was pretty clear. And it came into existence due to actual problems that were occurring.

Guess what... those problems existed long before BLM existed. And likely a large reason for the timing is simply the ubiquity of cellphone video to allow blacks to provide video evidence of their claims.

You want to delegitimize all of BLM because of rioting... that's not smart. The problem exists and will continue to exist until it's fixed. Rioting may not solve the problem but neither does pretending to ignore it because your delicate sensibilities are offended by their method of bringing it to your attention.

victor809 wrote:

Race riots are not a new phenomena, not only in the U.S., but many other places where an oppressive majority mistreats and creates a hopeless environment for a weak minority. I'm no expert, but I think Obama's reaction may have diffused the potential severity of the riots in response to police shootings.

Did anyone notice the difference between the police response to the occupy movement and the black protests? Occupy resulted in total reform of police tactics towards citizen protests and freedom of speech. Communication, free speech zones, identify and meet regularly with protest leaders, no military style tactics, etc. Occupy had majority white protestors...

delta1 wrote:

Why do you hate puppy-dogs.. ?? 😠

DrafterX wrote:

Fake news, man.

tailgater wrote: