Students Asked To Leave Multicultural Room For 'Police Lives Matter' Sticker

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

All lives matter/blue lives matter is petty white people who don't understand or accept that POC are being abused and killed everyday. By saying those things (and its unbelievably obvious you are only saying that because of BLM not because you fucking care) what you are really saying is that black lives don't matter.

BLM is the equivalent of "Men Lives Matter". Men kill women at a much higher rate, but do not want to be killed by police at a higher rate.

You are correct, POC are abused and killed everyday, namely Asian-Americans by African-Americans. If you look at FBI statistics, you arrive at an insane number (of how likely it is the former attacks the latter vs the other way around).

BLM, the media and elites in the US have done a great job to manipulate public perception. 44% of liberals believe that 1.000 or more unarmed* African-American men are killed by police per year.
[*does not mean innocent, just as armed does not mean guilty]

 

[Darth Meteos]

It's actually the exact opposite. The Confederacy, as the name implies, was a confederacy of rogue states that aimed at seceding from the Union and were willing to fight in order to achieve that objective. The police is an integral part of the Union - they're its law enforcement. Every police officer is an agent of the government in the most literal sense.

So, basically, all police in America want to secede from the Union and form their own government that allows slavery.
I see.

either you deliberately missed the point or you're both dumb as rocks
which is it

 

[Deleted member 546149]

Nobody is guilty until proven in a court of law. Sadly in America everything is basically racist.

Chauvin is proven guilty and George Floyd wasn't actually given a court trial ( can't imagine why) but the evidence is clear

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

The mostly-peaceful demonstrations proved him guilty. I would have found him guilty as well if I had been part of the jury.

 

[Benja81]

Chauvin is proven guilty

Thank God for that because as you said the evidence was clear.

George Floyd wasn't actually given a court trial but the evidence is clear

Probably so, but I have stolen before and been caught as well and have resisted arrest before too in my much younger days. I'm still still alive because the arresting cop must have believed my life mattered. Why didn't Chauvin think George Floyd's life mattered?

 

[Deleted member 546149]

Thank God for that because as you said the evidence was clear.

Probably so, but I have stolen before and been caught as well and have resisted arrest before too in my much younger days. I'm still still alive because the arresting cop must have believed my life mattered. Why didn't Chauvin think George Floyd's life mattered?

George Floyd was resisting at first and you have to remember they used to work with each other.
Guess he was just a bad officer
Also if you check George Floyd's criminal record it isn't anything good

 

[Zajumino]

either you deliberately missed the point or you're both dumb as rocks
which is it

I am as dumb as a rock, obviously.

Foxi4's point is that as organizations, the police and the Confederacy have very different purposes. Supporting one of the two is much more understandable than the other. So while bringing a "confederate lives matter" sticker into the multicultural room would more clearly indicate their intentions, having a "police lives matter" sticker may not have been intended for any particular purpose besides showing support for police.

Here are the facts. A white police officer chose to take actions in which he became judge, jury, and executioner of an innocent black man. Based on the history in America I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking there was racism involved on some level. That said, I do NOT believe it was a hate crime, because there is no (that I know of) evidence to support that. But nobody goes around saying "I'm racist!" Other than some far right bozos. Most people generally believe they aren't racist, but sadly due to history, culture, and learned behavior, most people actually are to varying degrees. Even if they don't want to admit nor aspire to it. Its sorta like being an addict in the sense of, admitting it is the first step to progress.

I am pretty sure there were no facts here. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you did say "here are the facts"

I'm still still alive because the arresting cop must have believed my life mattered. Why didn't Chauvin think George Floyd's life mattered?

Usually, people don't kill others just because they don't think their life matters. Was it ever proven that Chauvin killed him intentionally? All I know is that he was found guilty of something, but not the details.

 

[Benja81]

I am pretty sure there were no facts here. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you did say "here are the facts"

Do you know what facts are?

A white police officer (fact) chose to take actions in which he became judge, jury, and executioner (fact) of an innocent black man (fact).

"Usually, people don't kill others just because they don't think their life matters."

Usually people don't kill others if they think their life mattered.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Xzi]

All hospital visits matter! Sorry buddy I know you bleeding out and might die any minute, but I broke my finger and got here first.

All knife wounds matter! You were stabbed in the heart?!....Ahh geee wizz I cut my finger chopping veggies....we equal bro...All knife wounds matter!

This is probably where the thread should've ended, Velorian does a great job of demonstrating what "all lives matter" and "police lives matter" are really all about. Translated they mean, "but what about MY problems?" It's completely tone deaf at best, outright insulting at worst to imply that COPS of all people are treated worse in America than the very citizens they constantly brutalize and murder.

"Police spouse lives matter" would make far more sense, as 40% of cops openly admit to being domestic abusers. Or hell, even "retail/fast food lives matter" would make more sense, since they have to deal with the very same assholes all day, and they don't get to hide behind qualified immunity when they overreact during a confrontation.

 

[notimp]

BLM is the equivalent of "Men Lives Matter". Men kill women at a much higher rate, but do not want to be killed by police at a higher rate.

You are correct, POC are abused and killed everyday, namely Asian-Americans by African-Americans. If you look at FBI statistics, you arrive at an insane number (of how likely it is the former attacks the latter vs the other way around).

BLM, the media and elites in the US have done a great job to manipulate public perception. 44% of liberals believe that 1.000 or more unarmed* African-American men are killed by police per year.
[*does not mean innocent, just as armed does not mean guilty]

 

[Zajumino]

Do you know what facts are?

A white police officer (fact) chose to take actions in which he became judge, jury, and executioner (fact) of an innocent black man (fact).

Can you explain what you mean by this? I considered it to be an opinion based on the middle part, where you interpreted his actions as him becoming "judge, jury, and executioner." If by this you simply meant he killed him, then yes, it is a fact, but it seemed to me that there were also some connotations as well.

Also, I don't think that this is the only fact regarding the death of George Floyd.

Usually people don't kill others if they think their life mattered.

Fixed it for you.

Usually, people don't kill others.

My point was that there was probably some other reason why Floyd was killed. Perhaps it was unintentional. Like I said before, I don't know the details, so please inform me.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

So? The video constantly makes to per capita comparisons, thereby assuming that all races commit the same amount of crimes per person, which is simply false. The number of unarmed African-Americans more or less mirrors their overpresentation in crime. In terms of the total number of people killed by police (which is about 1000 per year), African-Americans are actually underrepresented (25% in recent years) when crime levels are taken into consideration.

 

[Foxi4]

either you deliberately missed the point or you're both dumb as rocks
which is it

Oh, I got your point - it was silly point, so I twisted it around a bit for you for our mutual entertainment. The implication of your post is that the police is deliberately hunting minorities like a Confederate death squad chasing runaway slaves to get’em back in chains, which is downright ridiculous, or as you put it, “dumb as rocks”. The fact that you’re even suggesting police officers sit around in bushes like Jimbo and Ned, shouting “it’s coming right for us!” and aiming their shotguns as soon as they see something brown on the horizon shows complete separation from reality, so I’m not sure what you were expecting. Showing support for law enforcement is just that - showing support for law enforcement. If that’s triggering to people, life must be pretty rough seeing that you can’t walk one city block without encountering an officer in most cities.

 

[notimp]

So? The video constantly makes to per capita comparisons, thereby assuming that all races commit the same amount of crimes per person, which is simply false. The number of unarmed African-Americans more or less mirrors their overpresentation in crime. In terms of the total number of people killed by police (which is about 1000 per year), African-Americans are actually underrepresented (25% in recent years) when crime levels are taken into consideration.

Thats wrong and a highly problematic approach.

Its not race that makes you more or less criminal (see international comparisons).

It might be socio-demographic factors ("slums") and its already proven to be police targeting. (In short - police aimed for "higher action rate" - partly using systems (predictive modeling) that are similar to a machine learning approach. So they produced self fulfilling trends. If more crimes in black neighborhoods, computer says, move more people into black neighborhoods, where they are then reporting more crimes (reporting structure, and incetives for that) -- thats targeting). To solve that issue - you have to get rid of slums - i.e. sectors where only people of a low/poor socio economic outlook live.

Long story short - there are no "clean" statistics, that simply would show that black people - even without guns, would need to be guned down more often - how about with 17 bullets.

Also your interpretation is aggitative, and racist in argument - someone needs to point that out as well.

And yes, we are presuming "somewhat" equal rate of violent crimes between races (see other countries). Which is the right thing to do -- at least compaired to your model which is "lets take absolute numbers".

That would produce more problems than lets say a slight variation that would indicate that "black people are more aggressive" or whatever (potentially very racist) proxy you need to make your argument congruent.

Issue - when you end up at "its genetic", chances are that you arent trying to solve systemic problems (like the aformentioned systemic racism). "Its genetic", has some of the same qualities as "its god given"... you finish that sentence.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Its not race that makes you more or less criminal (see international comparisons).
[...]
And yes, we are presuming "somewhat" equal rate of violent crimes between races (see other countries).

Yes, let´s look at international comparisons: East-Asians commit the least violent crimes in every country. You will have a hard time to even find the exception to the rule, as long as you compare average citizens, not e.g. student populations or foreign workers with average citizens.

Sociological factors play a role, poor people tend to commit more crimes within races. But when you compare poor people between races, you see the same pattern: poor East-Asians commit the least amount of violent crimes. Furthermore, poverty is often the result of criminality. We saw this in an impressive way last summer: BLM riots destroyed businesses in many neighborhoods. Crimes below a certain dollar amount are not prosecuted. Stores close. Poverty spreads. Let´s not forget about the "racist" policy of some stores to lock beauty products for black skin. Is this also a self-fulfilling prophecy or were store owners simply reacting to reality? It is true to an extent that more cops means more detected crimes, but rape and murder will not increase in Chinatown, no matter how much police you send there. It is like saying "more traffic cops in a neighborhood increases speeding". In fact, African-American neighborhoods need more police, considering the staggeringly low number of solved murder cases.

 

[notimp]

How about political systems? If on the other side of "violent action" stands you being abused by an authoritative system - this probably results in a lower violent crime rate (to a point).

Culture also is a point (talking about the Japanese and having learned to live in somewhat conjested areas without conflict).

That for you its mainly race is... strange.

My point mainly being - you are selling causal theories of racial character differences, that the scientific community really is not. So where do you get your certainty from...

And on the statistical point - you have to divide through "as a percentage of population" otherwise you wouldnt ever realize problems in those ethnic groups (as per 2015 at lease), so that you used that as a rectification for "your point of view" is extremely disturbing...

So is the point you are trying to make - which borders on "black people are at least 100% more aggressive (violent crime rates) than the largest comparative group (white people)".

If thats your answer for the issue at hand, something is not right.


edit: Here - this should basically shatter all your racial theories:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
(if you start factoring out countries, with a civil war history in the recent past.)

Also your point as to "east asians are the least violent", is well taken, but the difference is a fraction of a percent, compaired to other working western societies, so... Hmm... Not that good to differenciate in your racial classification scheme, you are selling. Also because variance is that high.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

Read again. I said the STATEMENT "black lives matter" is not inherently political. As a STATEMENT, not as an ORGANIZATION. Of course the organization is politically involved and politically active, its purpose is advocating positive change via local and federal government. Considering the alternative, I'd think you'd be okay with that.


"SIT DOWN AND STFU!" Not exactly a compelling argument for how you're trying to avoid provocation and confrontation. If you're viewing "black lives matter" or BLM as an attack on you personally from the outset, of course you're going to try to find a slogan which counters or dismisses them. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of their purpose, however, unless you happen to be a crooked, racist cop.

How many people do you personally know that refer to BLM as a statement outside of the organization? I'll put $ down on a big fat zero.

Where did I ever insinuate that BLM was an attack on me personally? You pulled that shit out of thin air. Yay for baseless assumptions and then using them for your argument. Clap clap. And again, the other slogans are absolutely dismissive of nothing whatsoever. Because you or anyone else feels that that are, does not make it so.

I'm playing the race card, in a discussion, about race. You do understand what race and racism is, right? Like, there's no way you can be this oblivious. Or I guess maybe you can. God forbid I make a blind assumption solely on your method of argument. You do realize what constitutes a blind assumption, right? You have the entirety of the internet at your fingertips, and yet you still choose to be unintelligent in your arguments. At least you're fun.

I didn't read the rest of what I'm sure was another screenplay for a Lifetime movie, so I'll only comment on what I did read. You're not going to tell me that you didn't fully understand what was being said & that I actually need to be told there's a difference between race and racism. What a complete line of bs. But wait....like, there's no way you can be this oblivious. Or I guess maybe you can. In which case it appears I will literally need to rephrase things for you because you're choosing to be unintelligent in your arguments.

You're a hypocritical closet racist and the only one playing the racist/racism cards.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

Edit: Sorry, double post.

 

[SyphenFreht]

No, at best it is a provocation like bringing a Bible to North Korea, stripping in public or drawing the prophet in a Muslim country. All three cases are a clear provocations (and whether it would be wrong to do them is up to personal opinion), while the one we are discussing is not.

Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to. Whether you provoke or antagonize, you're still trying to illicit a response that may have not happened otherwise. Regardless of outcome, it should've never happened in the first place.

I didn't read the rest of what I'm sure was another screenplay for a Lifetime movie, so I'll only comment on what I did read. You're not going to tell me that you didn't fully understand what was being said & that I actually need to be told there's a difference between race and racism. What a complete line of bs. But wait....like, there's no way you can be this oblivious. Or I guess maybe you can. In which case it appears I will literally need to rephrase things for you because you're choosing to be unintelligent in your arguments.

You're a hypocritical closet racist and the only one playing the racist/racism cards.

"Hypocritical closet racist". Why, because I didn't immediately defend myself by providing examples of times I was around POC? It sounds like you're projecting again; you add nothing to the conversation besides attacks and try to belittle your way out of an argument you're obviously losing. I can't stop you from being who you are, but I don't need to add to it either. As I've said before, when you got something that's actually worth saying, hmu. Fox and I shouldn't be the only ones having fun.

I’m not entirely sure what your expectations are here. Let’s say that the students kowtowed to the whims of the Karens (they shouldn’t, their response was correct, and their only mistake was eventually leaving) - what next? They acknowledge that the sticker “triggered” some crazy girls, now what? They remove the sticker? Stop working and hide the laptop? What exactly do you want them to do that doesn’t result in them having to leave? I’m a “stand your ground” kind of guy - if you have a problem with something I’m wearing, or something I have on my person in general, I’m sorry that you feel that way, but I’m not changing my schedule for you. The correct response is “jog on”, if the sticker is “triggering” to you, stop looking at it. It’s actually very simple, all you have to do is turn approximately 180 degrees and your issue will disappear from your field of vision. I’m not telling you what stickers you can put on your stuff, you should extend the same courtesy to me if you purport to be tolerant of different points of view. I understand that you’re trying to sell me on the girls being “genuinely concerned about the mental health of other users of this space” line, but it’s pretty clear to me that they were on a power trip, so I’m afraid that I can’t sympathise. If it moos, it’s a cow. That right there was a cow, mooing. At the very least you do acknowledge that the girls with complainonitis went way overboard, and that’s an agreeable enough outcome to me.

My expectations? Education. Discussion. If both parties kept a cool head and reached an agreement, they could've both shared that space. They could've presented their argument for why, the other party could have presented their argument, and voila! multicultural learning occurs. It got way too heated way too quickly over what *could be considered* a misunderstanding at minimum, which I again will state (more for others than you), which I feel is still far fetched. It doesn't even have to be that one party is guilty over the other; the POC acted at what could be considered antagonistic behavior, and if the other students explained themselves, then only the POC would be at fault. Should they have to? Probably not. But why escalate? Same question for the POC.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

"Hypocritical closet racist". Why, because I didn't immediately defend myself by providing examples of times I was around POC? It sounds like you're projecting again; you add nothing to the conversation besides attacks and try to belittle your way out of an argument you're obviously losing. I can't stop you from being who you are, but I don't need to add to it either. As I've said before, when you got something that's actually worth saying, hmu. Fox and I shouldn't be the only ones having fun.

Says the person attacking and belittling their way out of an argument with a comment that has nothing actually worth saying. You just proved an example of your hypocrisy all on your own. As I've said, can't even make this up. Smfh.

And the reason you're a hypocritical closet racist isn't because you "blah blah blah blah blah". It's because you're actually a hypocritical closet racist.