Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[Leonhard]

Well, here's the point --- I get tired of CERTAIN liberals going on and on AFTER somebody gets dead, when it makes so much more sense to do what it takes to PREVENT them from getting dead.
Prosecuting the actors in this case - even condemning them to death - doesn't bring back the victim.

I agree, when there's a systemic problem it should be treated as a system. Justice is important, if those guys are guilty of things, then having them appropriately punished will help create some balance. However it won't fix the underlying problems that created the situation.

I don't think JimL, Tassman or Starlight are representative of liberals Cow Poke. They're here. Liberals are very diverse, and for the ones, in the US I know by talking to some of them that they're tired of the Democratic Party. I think those three guys here are mostly here because they find it fun to be contrarian to people here. It's a small forum, they don't get crowded out, they can just keep an outrage machine going. Fueling it with accusations now and then.

At any rate that's how I see. I mostly follow danish politics. As irony would have it, in Denmark I'm considered part of the right-wing. I vote Conservative over here, but in comparison to you guys I'm left-wing. Which is hilarious to me. The only reason the Arbery shooting is even on my radar is that it went viral when it came out that it had been 76 days before anything happened, and the case only began moving forward after the video went viral.

[Leonhard]

Because you're exercising good judgment.
Now, take what you said, and you're in the same situation, but you are black, and the island you're visiting is mostly whites with a history of racism.

Okay Cow Poke, I know you wanna be kind, but Socratic stuff like this is a bit patronizing and annoying to me. Sorry.

What are you trying to state? You began with these leading questions about Arbery's actions after I pointed out that I don't think I could ever just see it as an accident following bad judgement. You agreed that you hadn't called it that, but then you began with these leading questions as a response.

[Mountain Man]

That's the point.... and had it been another black guy who had shot him, it'd be no big news at all, though Trayvon would be just as dead, and we wouldn't even be discussing it.

Yep... black on black violence is ignored by the liberal media.

[Cow Poke]

I agree, when there's a systemic problem it should be treated as a system. Justice is important, if those guys are guilty of things, then having them appropriately punished will help create some balance. However it won't fix the underlying problems that created the situation.

I don't think JimL, Tassman or Starlight are representative of liberals Cow Poke.

I have to remind myself of that from time to time. We tend to get the extreme fringe, I think.

They're here. Liberals are very diverse, and for the ones, in the US I know by talking to some of them that they're tired of the Democratic Party. I think those three guys here are mostly here because they find it fun to be contrarian to people here. It's a small forum, they don't get crowded out, they can just keep an outrage machine going. Fueling it with accusations now and then.

At any rate that's how I see. I mostly follow danish politics. As irony would have it, in Denmark I'm considered part of the right-wing. I vote Conservative over here, but in comparison to you guys I'm left-wing. Which is hilarious to me. The only reason the Arbery shooting is even on my radar is that it went viral when it came out that it had been 76 days before anything happened, and the case only began moving forward after the video went viral.

The delay in action is, to me, one of the most egregious part of this whole thing (aside from the fact that there's a dead man, of course)

[Leonhard]

That's the point.... and had it been another black guy who had shot him, it'd be no big news at all, though Trayvon would be just as dead, and we wouldn't even be discussing it.

I think we can all agree that news have a tendency to construct a warped picture of reality by selectively reporting only the things that generates revenue for them.

Which is a problem of capitalism.

[DivineOb]

If you bothered to drill down through your source, you'd know it makes a distinction between "white" and "Hispanic".

The problem with the George Zimmerman case is that the liberal media jumped the gun and said, "White guy shoots black guy!" Then someone said, "Uh, you know he's Hispanic, right?" Next thing you know, the headlines are reading, "White Hispanic guy shoots black guy!"

census.jpg

Since you can't read I've highlighted the relevant parts. It breaks down people who are "white alone" between those who are "white alone & Hispanic or Latino" and those who are "white alone & Not Hispanic or Latino." So no, there isn't a "distinction" in the sense that Whites are not Hispanics. Your claim was that White Hispanic is a new concept invented in 2012 and it clearly is not. Must you argue about everything and not admit you were wrong about the concept only appearing in 2012 and not being something I specifically remember going back years before?

Sheesh

ETA: Sorry the pic is so small. But you can at least see what's highlighted for when you take a second look at the PDF. If someone knows how to post pictures which show up a more reasonable size I'll be happy to repost.

[shunyadragon]

Nobody had ever heard the term "white Hispanic" until the media invented it to describe George Zimmerman. Have you ever filled out a job application or similar form? "White" and "Hispanic" are usually regarded as mutually exclusive.

I have and explained it to you and I work for the 2020 Census.

[shunyadragon]

Yep... black on black violence is ignored by the liberal media.

No it is not ignored, and changing the subject to raise the fog index is not constructive to the thread.

[Cow Poke]

Okay Cow Poke, I know you wanna be kind, but Socratic stuff like this is a bit patronizing and annoying to me. Sorry.

Ya totally lost me on that one.

What are you trying to state? You began with these leading questions about Arbery's actions after I pointed out that I don't think I could ever just see it as an accident following bad judgement.

Nor do I.

You agreed that you hadn't called it that, but then you began with these leading questions as a response.

OK, still lost me.

Lemme try to get us back on track.

In the Black Panther thread I started (largely TOTALLY ignored by the liberals) one of the very ACTIVIST (formerly) anti-police advocates (Quannell X) went through police training in Missouri City (Houston, Texas area).
AFTER the training, he had a very different viewpoint than before.

He made a passionate appeal to young blacks to the effect, "Brothers and Sisters, when the police tell you to do something - DO IT - DO WHAT THEY SAY", and indicating that 'we can sort it out after the fact'.

What was his point? He was more interested in PREVENTING THE DEATH of young blacks than "getting even" after the fact, and chalking up another "racial victory".

In this case --- even allowing that these two white men (3, now) were vicious hate-filled bigots who purposely rand down and killed a black man because he was black --- what would be better?
NOT having a dead black man? Or "getting justice" after he's already dead.

[Leonhard]

Ya totally lost me on that one.



Nor do I.



OK, still lost me.

Lemme try to get us back on track.

In the Black Panther thread I started (largely ignored by the liberals) one of the very ACTIVIST (formerly) anti-police advocates (Quannell X) went through police training in Missouri City (Houston, Texas area).
AFTER the training, he had a very different viewpoint than before.

He made a passionate appeal to young blacks to the effect, "Brothers and Sisters, when the police tell you to do something - DO IT - DO WHAT THEY SAY", and indicating that 'we can sort it out after the fact'.

What was his point? He was more interested in PREVENTING THE DEATH of young blacks than "getting even" after the fact, and chalking up another "racial victory".

In this case --- even allowing that these two white men (3, now) were vicious hate-filled bigots who purposely rand down and killed a black man because he was black --- what would be better?
NOT having a dead black man? Or "getting justice" after he's already dead.

Ah I get it, sorry the leading questions were really throwing me off. Because it came off as you wanting to say something along "I know you consider it not to be an accident, but have you considered it in the light of: ..." Etc. Which was confusing to me.

I am all for preventing death, but this isnt' a zero-sum game. I don't see us having to give up one to get the other. And I don't see that you can't support one, without also expressing outrage over the other.

Would you agree that we can have both? Seeking justice, and a focus on creating a safer world?

[Cow Poke]

Ah I get it, sorry the leading questions were really throwing me off. Because it came off as you wanting to say something along "I know you consider it not to be an accident, but have you considered it in the light of: ..." Etc. Which was confusing to me.

Glad we cleared that up, because I clearly do NOT think it was just an accident, tragic or otherwise. I think the actors (used in the sense of the guys who did the deed) screwed up really badly, and I find no justification whatsoever for their actions.

I am all for preventing death, but this isnt' a zero-sum game. I don't see us having to give up one to get the other. And I don't see that you can't support one, without also expressing outrage over the other.

Generally, however, the people who make the most noise about a death AFTER THE FACT come across more like virtue-signalling do-gooders than people who really have a heart for preventing such tragedies.
That's actually the major reason I went from police work to ministry - to have an impact BEFORE people get dead.

Would you agree that we can have both? Seeking justice, and a focus on creating a safer world?

I think if the folks who hyperventilate over racially-motivated killings would take a more balanced approach, instead of simply a "let's close the barn door, the horse is gone" - like Quannell X - and realize there's a whole lot more to this than pitching fits about racism... It's like - it makes them feel good to howl and pitch fits and fix blame, but they're REALLY not working to solve the problem.

[Leonhard]

Glad we cleared that up, because I clearly do NOT think it was just an accident, tragic or otherwise. I think the actors (used in the sense of the guys who did the deed) screwed up really badly, and I find no justification whatsoever for their actions.



Generally, however, the people who make the most noise about a death AFTER THE FACT come across more like virtue-signalling do-gooders than people who really have a heart for preventing such tragedies.
That's actually the major reason I went from police work to ministry - to have an impact BEFORE people get dead.



I think if the folks who hyperventilate over racially-motivated killings would take a more balanced approach, instead of simply a "let's close the barn door, the horse is gone" - like Quannell X - and realize there's a whole lot more to this than pitching fits about racism... It's like - it makes them feel good to howl and pitch fits and fix blame, but they're REALLY not working to solve the problem.

I think we'll just agree on all that.

[Cow Poke]

I think we'll just agree on all that.

But, you made a good point (at the risk of being accused of patronizing you ) about the liberals here....

I have to remember that these are probably the very fringe. Because MOST - the VAST MAJORITY - of the people I deal with in real life (outside the church) are VERY liberal, and I don't find this nuttiness at all, except in the most extreme.

[Mountain Man]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44970[/ATTACH]

Since you can't read I've highlighted the relevant parts. It breaks down people who are "white alone" between those who are "white alone & Hispanic or Latino" and those who are "white alone & Not Hispanic or Latino." So no, there isn't a "distinction" in the sense that Whites are not Hispanics. Your claim was that White Hispanic is a new concept invented in 2012 and it clearly is not. Must you argue about everything and not admit you were wrong about the concept only appearing in 2012 and not being something I specifically remember going back years before?

Sheesh

ETA: Sorry the pic is so small. But you can at least see what's highlighted for when you take a second look at the PDF. If someone knows how to post pictures which show up a more reasonable size I'll be happy to repost.

Right, like I said, your source makes a distinction between "white" and "Hispanic" as we can see in the screenshot (thanks for pointing it out), and the term "white Hispanic" was not something anybody had ever heard of until the liberal media used it to describe George Zimmerman.

It's kinda funny that now liberals refer to Hispanics as "brown" and insist that the only reason Trump wants to stop illegal immigration is because he only wants white people entering the country. So if the story were reported today, Zimmerman would be described as a "brown Hispanic".

[oxmixmudd]

Come on, Jim, you wouldn't say, "hey, let's stop at the Circle K and I'll buy you a Big Gulp"? You'd REALLY let the black guy go into a house under construction to 'get a drink', knowing the problems it might cause?

Friends don't let friends get dead.

He did what he did CP. And what he did should not have been a big deal. Why is that so hard to accept? I would not do what he did, but my point is I know good, upstanding people that would. So my point is that him stopping to get a drink on a construction property does not mean he was a bad fellow. And I think I've justified that point sufficiently.