Talking about race doesn’t make me the least bit uncomfortable. In America, our police forces have gotten out of control, and individual officers ARE getting away with murder (mostly murder of blacks by whites, admitted).
Many people will not be a part of the discussion if it IS about race for one of two reasons - either talking about race makes them uncomfortable, or they feel the problem isn’t theirs to discuss.
I’ll be happy to participate in a discussion about white cops killing black people, mostly without the slightest bit of provocation. You’ve got me in the discussion, but if you narrow the issue of police brutality to exclusively one of race, then you’re going to lose support for the topic for the two reasons I listed above, as well as maybe others I haven’t discovered.
It’s the MAJOR thing involved, and especially in this case and the case I shared. Yes. Yes it is the biggest and most important part of this discussion. It certainly is.
20:1, you guys, as @awjt stated. TWENTY TO FUCKING ONE.
To pretend that the race implications are minor is insane and inane and god damned missing the entire fucking point and it’s dangerous.
But sure, let’s do exactly what everyone on Fox news wants to do and ignore the blatant, glaring, obvious race implications and let’s instead talk about non-defined “special allowances”!
Because what’s really important here is that everyone be brutalized equally. Anyone who thinks that no one should be brutalized is clearly a racist white person who doesn’t care if a black person dies.
I’m really not even sure what would constitute an appropriate citation for this, but I’ll try to draw a comparison which I am afraid will completely derail the conversation. Some feminist forums have, as a rule (or a variation), ‘If you are a white male, then get the fuck out We don’t need your input’.
Rules like this paint white males as intrinsically wrong with no chance for redemption, and oddly, you won’t find many white males interested in supporting feminists with such views, and so support for feminist issues is thereby narrowed.
And as I’ve said twice already, I know it’s at least partially about race, for sure. And as I’ve said twice as well, if you make this ONLY about race then you stifle discussion to a narrow agenda that people aren’t going to be as interested in discussing. Instead, we’re busy fighting over what should be under discussion.
Police need to be accountable for their actions, no matter who they kill. Because the majority of victims in this situation are black, the result will most improve for those most affected if all killings are reduced. As has been posted on BB already, cities which have used body cameras on police have seen both police and civlians better behaved and a reduction in complaints against police. I think that’s a pretty good place to start.
What do “some feminist forums” have to do with this discussion? And what is the problem with not allowing the majority speak in a space for the discussion about the oppression of minorities in a forum that’s on the internet? I mean you can make your own forum, if you wish to speak, but I have no idea why feminists are obligated to have you speak in their own space.
Rules like this paint white males as intrinsically wrong with no chance for redemption, and oddly, you won’t find many white males interested in supporting feminists with such views, and so support for feminist issues is thereby narrowed.
Or maybe they just want a space of their own? Oh waah! A white man can’t speak in a forum specifically made for feminists! Well, how terrible!
Still don’t see a problem.
Maybe those feminists are tired of having white men try to take over the conversation and ‘splain’ to them how things should be? I mean, take this entire thread as an example! And this isn’t even ABOUT feminism! (Although I find it rather curious that you use a random, vague “feminist forum” as an example. Huh. Wonder why. Wah. Poor white man!)
You asked for a citation supporting how narrowing the scope of conversation reduces the number of people willing to participate in the conversation. I’m sure I didn’t pick the best example, and I knew it would derail the conversation but I guess I just didn’t have anything better.
I am a feminist, why wouldn’t I want to speak in a feminist space? More importantly, why shouldn’t I be allowed to LISTEN in a feminist space? I never said that I felt anyone should be obligated to let me speak.
Your attack on an image of who you think I am is one way to take this conversation.
I’m still not sure what a feminist forum has to do with all this. You brought it up, weirdly enough, as an example of poor behavior in a thread totally unrelated to feminism because waaaah women sometimes want a space away from men. How novel! (Not really.) It was mostly just an attempt for you to whine about how oppressed you, a white man, feels in a feminist space and my response was: NO ONE CURRS. But nice job making this all about you. Again.
No one said that. We are only responding to people who wish us to stop talking about the obvious and blatant racial implications in favor of a more “neutral” discussion. Which is bullshit. This IS NOT neutral. This IS about race.
You don’t seem to be interested in talking about what can be done to reduce the occurrence of police officers killing unarmed civilians in most unprovoked attacks.
It was certainly homicide, the primary complaint is that prohibited force & excessive force were evident, coroner cites as contributing to death, but no indictment of officer on any charge.
Yes, police harass, profile, pigeon-hole, beat, stop n frisk, kill with impunity, quite regularly. But this is another example of the rarer “Even with damning evidence, not even a trial”
Grand juries don’t convict, they indict. This should have gone to the courts, but an arm of one branch of governance somehow managed to shield another, from itself, in spite of all of it.
People be comparing it to Rodney King, but those cops had to stand trial before being let off scot free despite indisputable evidence of wrongdoing.
In stark contrast to this case and Ferguson, a police officer in <a href="http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2014/12/complaint_former_ann_arbor_pol.html#incart_river"target=_"blank>Ann Arbor was forced to resign in July for soliciting sexual favors in exchange for dismissing traffic tickets. His case has been referred to the County prosecutor’s office and he’s very likely to actually see criminal sexual conduct charges. There’s no tolerance for police misconduct in this town, that attitude is held by nearly all residents, and the police chief has carried through with the will of the people. In another case, still under investigation, an officer did fatally shoot a resident a couple weeks ago (first time since the 1980’s), is on administrative leave and it’s entirely possible that the officer could face charges. We don’t have to live in a police state, but it takes very actively involved citizenry electing city government that shares the philosophy of safety of all citizens first, then putting pressure on that government to follow through with the will of the citizens in the hiring process for PD managerial ranks. In any very rigidly structured organization, the shit truly runs downhill.
Good job (not) of avoiding my question. Since you typed that “special allowances” are made here for some particular race, you certainly should be able to explain just what the hell you meant by what you typed.
