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

[SyphenFreht]

Just ignore the whole Know-Nothing movement and the mob torching/killing of Irish and other foreigners because the only races that deserves any kind of historical attention and apology are the ones who are easily identifiable by the colour of their skin right?

I am not trying to defend racism, but if you or anyone thinks that racism is going to be somehow eradicated in our or in any lifetime its clearly never going to be the case. The human race is too much at comfort to sort things in orders mentally to make things easier for themselves. This includes the ordering of people by race, sex and value. Its not at all a thing I like or support, but its something that exists and will continue to exist as the foundation of our society is built on this concept. Even if you eliminated the concept of racism in its existing form you can still order people in groups of class and value, which is just as bad at the end of the day. You will need to rework society as a concept from the ground up, which will never happen in any way.


What I am trying to say is that rather than trying to change the world in impossible ways we can just learn to ignore the small things that should not be causing such outrage and instead just focus on the things that remind us that we are all on the same goddamn boat at the end of the day. We are all dealing with shit, struggling with things in our life and all have our problems. If I had the free time to give two shits about something so non existent as a sticker somehow offending me then that shows just how absolutely removed from reality I am to care about such a first world problem. By the way, meanwhile there are still countries out there where if you are an independent woman or gay you get stoned to death or get taken by the secret police. But lets not focus too hard on the problems in the world and instead focus on how having a sticker supporting the police is the equivalent of supporting racial genocide.

No one's ignoring it, but please tell me how it's relevant to this particular thread. Yes, I might have gone off on a tangent here and there, but it's been to show how current mentality on both sides have evolved and continued from earlier mentality. I, in particular, have yet to see anything in the way of current anti-Irish stances anywhere in the states, and while I'm not saying that it's not as important, it's certainly not as rampant as anti-POC stances. If you provide some current examples of, I'd be glad to go hand in hand with you to be up in arms over it. If anything, you and I should be on the same side, considering the Irish were persecuted against based on the same aesthetic ideal as POC. No one should be discriminated upon because of how they look, white, black, brown, green, or otherwise. That's why every instance of such should be scrutinized. Yes, I said "every", regardless of which race is the aggressor. Yes, every race has the opportunity of being the aggressor.

I doubt anyone here is naive enough to believe racism will eventually end, if not replaced by some other cruelty, but the answer isn't to keep pushing that "everyone is equal". There seems to be this new age mentality that if we just equalize everyone we could move forward. That idea looks great on paper, just like communism, but when applied to the real world it, just like communism, fails at the hands of people who misuse it.

We are not created equal.

I don't care what religion or politics say, we are not created equal.

Genetic markers and DNA individualize every person from inception. Through nature, through nurture, people grow up to become insanely different from one another. Some are overweight, some are under. Some are tall, some are short. Some have defects and limitations, others are smarter. Background makes people different. Some people are born into poverty, some are born never having to worry about money. Some are born into societies that are well built and taken care, some are discarded as soon as they are born.

The answer is not to simply "wash away" our individualism in favor of equality. That erases the history and struggles of every culture, white or otherwise, and sets the tone for complacency and unified idealism, something you anti communists should be adamantly against. No, if we truly want to be "equal" to one another, we need to be open minded in terms of empathy and understanding, not defensive and confrontational. Don't play this game where we decencitize hardships in favor of ease; it makes us easier to control. Look at Christianity, for a brief moment. Look at how they structure their "equality" between members, and then look at how easily swayed they can be to committing atrocities, even something as blazé(/s) as homophobia. No, we need to understand these struggles because it's on the next generation to keep society moving forward, and it's on the previous generation to help teach the newer generations not to make the same mistakes.

 

[Foxi4]

Weird way to respond, but fair enough @SyphenFreht. First of all, none of this has anything to do with decency. The only thing that's indecent in this entire shabam is accosting strangers who are just sitting in what appears to be a study hall and minding their own business. Nobody is forced to "acknowledge" any wrongs that have befallen other groups of people in the past on a whim - if you expect others to kowtow before you because of some past injustice that they personally had nothing to do with, you're setting yourself up for disappointment. They're not responsible for any of those wrongs, and they're not obligated to entertain any ridiculous requests - they're not house pets.

I don't see anything "underhanded" going on - the sticker looks normal to me, the same as any other bumper sticker for any other cause, there's nothing absurd or particularly "baity" about it. The Karens are reacting the way they are because they've been conditioned to think that in this magical cot they can use their supposed victimhood as leverage in order to impose their will on others - they were taught to be bullies, so they're bullying the guy. You are right in saying that they probably wouldn't act like that in different circumstances, like outside of the school, but you're wrong about why that's the case. They wouldn't do that outside of the school because the possibility of getting punched in the mouth for accosting a stranger is very real. Quality bait, the fishies were all too happy to chow on.

I must've had a thousand conversations about policing, I don't think another one is going to be more productive than the other ones - I've heard it all, and there's always a reasonable explanation besides "oh, it's systemic racism". Police presence is, once again, proportional to the level of criminality in a given area. The higher the police presence the more encounters with the police, and the more encounters you have the higher the number of ones that end in violence. That's not racism, that's statistics. There's a million reasons why that's the case, both in the past and in the present, and a million of ways matters could be addressed, but as you've mentioned, this topic goes beyond the scope of the thread.

Harassment is, once again, an action. Sitting idly is not an action, that's inaction. You might consider your rebuttal strong, but it's actually laughable, and it wouldn't stand in any court of law - the students are not in anybody's face, they're not forcing anyone to interact with them, they're just "there", and they're the ones being approached by strangers. The active party here is the flock of Karens, there's no doubt about that.

This kind of wishy-washy talk about who's right and who's wrong reminds me of a stupid image macro in which two people are standing on opposite sides of a symbol painted on the ground. One guy says that it's a 6, the other that it's a 9, and the moral is supposed to be that the answer depends on your point of view. No, it doesn't - in real life there's a third guy, the person who actually painted the symbol, and that person had something specific in mind when they painted it. It's not either or, it's one or the other. One side is correct, the other is wrong.

People are not entitled to tell others what they can or cannot display in a public setting as long as it's within the confines of the law (this normally covers obscenity and so on). It doesn't matter if you think it's "propaganda" or not, and it doesn't matter if it's "triggering" to you. If you don't like it, you can look the other way. You are not in a position of authority that would allow you to tell anyone to do anything in public. If you think something illegal is taking place, you can call the police, or a wahmbulance, whichever you think is more appropriate.

Your argument that "if the two Karens were discriminating against the students, then that means the two students were discriminating against the Karens" is fallacious. Only one party is making demands of the other and only one party discriminates against the other based on political position. The two students aren't doing anything and they're not engaging with anyone. They're not restricting anyone's access to the space and they're not interrupting anyone's work - they're the ones being interrupted, by a wild flock of Karens. If said Karens are unable to control their own mental state because they saw a sticker they found offensive, perhaps college isn't for them. The students have a laptop, not a crystal ball - they don't know how people will react ahead of time, especially since their sign isn't disparaging a specific group of people, it's in support of the police. If police is triggering to the Karens in the video, they must have it pretty rough just walking down the street and seeing a cop car.

You're absolutely judging by the colour of their skin - re-read what you've posted so far. You've elevated the severity of the situation specifically because the two male students were white. You have to decide if it's the sticker that's triggering you, or the fact that the student brandishing this weapon of mass destruction was white, or both. You can only avoid the original question for so long - do you think it would be equally offensive if the two students were black or not? Or a different minority? They do exist, you know.

Again, there's no "history of triggering" going on here. Your "triggers" are for you to deal with. Besides, it's not even true. If statistics are anything to go by, 12.4% of all police officers are black, which is pretty close to equal representation, considering 13% of U.S. population is black. The same proportionality applies across the board - if anything, Asians are slightly underrepresented as far as minorities go.


Source: DataUSA

Membership in the police force is pretty closely proportional to the racial breakdown of the nation, so each individual race has an equal level of interest in policing, give or take. Conversely, support for Defund the Police is dwindling. If Ipsos is anything to go by, only 28% of black Americans support the movement to cut police funding.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...18-support-defund-police-movement/4599232001/

As far as trampling goes, if the space is multicultural and embraces everybody then it must necessarily embrace things the flock of Karens doesn't like. If it doesn't then it's neither multicultural nor tolerant. I also like how you point out that the students were white, again, thus solidifying my theory that you have some kind of problem with their race that you don't want to properly vocalise. To reiterate, and this will probably be my last response since we're going in circles here, the only people in the video that were intolerant were the Karens, they're the ones who discriminated against the two students with the laptop and eventually forced them to leave. If you expect people to be tolerant of your beliefs, it is generally a good idea to return the favour and be tolerant of theirs. The correct course of action was to engage in a discussion or to leave these two students alone, the Karens picked the only wrong course of action - throwing an aggressive, hissy fit. With some luck, a complaint was filed with the dean and appropriate action was taken, although this event is far too small to hold my interest for long. What does interest me is the degree of mental gymnastics on display trying to excuse two Karens behaving like literal children over a sticker - now that's entertaining to me.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Weird way to respond, but fair enough @SyphenFreht. First of all, none of this has anything to do with decency. The only thing that's indecent in this entire shabam is accosting strangers who are just sitting in what appears to be a study hall and minding their own business. Nobody is forced to "acknowledge" any wrongs that have befallen other groups of people in the past on a whim - if you expect others to kowtow before you because of some past injustice that they personally had nothing to do with, you're setting yourself up for disappointment. They're not responsible for any of those wrongs, and they're not obligated to entertain any ridiculous requests - they're not house pets.

I don't see anything "underhanded" going on - the sticker looks normal to me, the same as any other bumper sticker for any other cause, there's nothing absurd or particularly "baity" about it. The Karens are reacting the way they are because they've been conditioned to think that in this magical cot they can use their supposed victimhood as leverage in order to impose their will on others - they were taught to be bullies, so they're bullying the guy. You are right in saying that they probably wouldn't act like that in different circumstances, like outside of the school, but you're wrong about why that's the case. They wouldn't do that outside of the school because the possibility of getting punched in the mouth for accosting a stranger is very real. Quality bait, the fishies were all too happy to chow on.

I must've had a thousand conversations about policing, I don't think another one is going to be more productive than the other ones - I've heard it all, and there's always a reasonable explanation besides "oh, it's systemic racism". Police presence is, once again, proportional to the level of criminality in a given area. The higher the police presence the more encounters with the police, and the more encounters you have the higher the number of ones that end in violence. That's not racism, that's statistics. There's a million reasons why that's the case, both in the past and in the present, and a million of ways matters could be addressed, but as you've mentioned, this topic goes beyond the scope of the thread.

Harassment is, once again, an action. Sitting idly is not an action, that's inaction. You might consider your rebuttal strong, but it's actually laughable, and it wouldn't stand in any court of law - the students are not in anybody's face, they're not forcing anyone to interact with them, they're just "there", and they're the ones being approached by strangers. The active party here is the flock of Karens, there's no doubt about that.

This kind of wishy-washy talk about who's right and who's wrong reminds me of a stupid image macro in which two people are standing on opposite sides of a symbol painted on the ground. One guy says that it's a 6, the other that it's a 9, and the moral is supposed to be that the answer depends on your point of view. No, it doesn't - in real life there's a third guy, the person who actually painted the symbol, and that person had something specific in mind when they painted it. It's not either or, it's one or the other. One side is correct, the other is wrong.

People are not entitled to tell others what they can or cannot display in a public setting as long as it's within the confines of the law (this normally covers obscenity and so on). It doesn't matter if you think it's "propaganda" or not, and it doesn't matter if it's "triggering" to you. If you don't like it, you can look the other way. You are not in a position of authority that would allow you to tell anyone to do anything in public. If you think something illegal is taking place, you can call the police, or a wahmbulance, whichever you think is more appropriate.

Your argument that "if the two Karens were discriminating against the students, then that means the two students were discriminating against the Karens" is fallacious. Only one party is making demands of the other and only one party discriminates against the other based on political position. The two students aren't doing anything and they're not engaging with anyone. They're not restricting anyone's access to the space and they're not interrupting anyone's work - they're the ones being interrupted, by a wild flock of Karens. If said Karens are unable to control their own mental state because they saw a sticker they found offensive, perhaps college isn't for them.

You're absolutely judging by the colour of skin - re-read what you've posted so far. You've elevated the severity of the situation specifically because the two male students were white. You have to decide if it's the sticker that's triggering you, or the fact that the student brandishing this weapon of mass destruction was white.

Again, there's no "history of triggering" going on here. Your "triggers" are for you to deal with. Besides, it's not even true. If statistics are anything to go by, 12.4% of all police officers are black, which is pretty close to equal representation, considering 13% of U.S. population is black. The same proportionality applies across the board - if anything, Asians are slightly underrepresented as far as minorities go.

View attachment 279743
Source: DataUSA

Membership in the police force is pretty closely proportional to the racial breakdown of the nation, so each individual race has an equal level of interest in policing, give or take. Conversely, support for Defund the Police is dwindling. If Ipsos is anything to go by, only 28% of black Americans support the movement to cut police funding.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...18-support-defund-police-movement/4599232001/

As far as trampling goes, if the space is multicultural and embraces everybody then it must necessarily embrace things the flock of Karens doesn't like. If it doesn't then it's neither multicultural nor tolerant. I also like how you point out that the students were white, again, thus solidifying my theory that you have some kind of problem with their race that you don't want to properly vocalise. To reiterate, and this will probably be my last response since we're going in circles here, the only people in the video that were intolerant were the Karens, they're the ones who discriminated against the two students with the laptop and eventually forced them to leave. If you expect people to be tolerant of your beliefs, it is generally a good idea to return the favour and be tolerant of theirs. The correct course of action was to engage in a discussion or to leave these two students alone, the Karens picked the only wrong course of action - throwing an aggressive, hissy fit. With some luck, a complaint was filed with the dean and appropriate action was taken, although this event is far too small to hold my interest for long. What does interest me is the degree of mental gymnastics on display trying to excuse two Karens behaving like literal children over a sticker - now that's entertaining to me.

Yeah, I think I got halfway through my response before I realized how I did it. By then it was too late to go back lol.

No, but to the people concerned, they were invading. To you that might seem a stretch, and that's fine, everyone reacts differently to the same scenario. That's what the point is. Seeing it from both sides, and an objective point of view, to come to a conclusion in the end that things escalated over something that shouldn't have happened in the first place, on both accounts.

Maybe, maybe not, but anything after what we know is conjecture. What we know is A) some people find the sticker and what it promotes as racist B) the students were asked to put away or hide their propaganda and C) both sides escalated what should have been an otherwise peaceful manner. At no point did the students have to comply one way or another, just as at no point the other students had to be decent about it, one way or another.

I wish I could agree, but intent is just as much a mitigating factor in the court room as action itself. If the students can prove there was no intent behind their presence, then this should be a slam dunk in their favor. However, once they started confronting back, they became just as guilty as what the POC are purported to be.

If everything was black or white we wouldn't need an extensive legal system in place to sort out how much of any given perspective is right vs what's wrong. You have a great mentality there, but it's not blanket worthy.

Unless, of course, you have jurisdiction over what can and cannot be presented there, such as if you were an organizer to the event, space, whatever you may call it, as was pointed out in one of think links I posted earlier.

On the other hand, it can be argued that by simply showing up to a place where something you brazenly display triggers the people there, that would be antagonistic. It's not a Walmart, it's a place where antagonists are not meant to be.

At no point have I judged on color of skin. A descriptor is not judgment. You seem to also not understand that you cannot have a discussion in a thread about race without racial identifiers. I have not stated that they were antagonizers because they were white, or that they were wrong because they were white. That's judgment. I stated that you had students, who happen to be white, who antagonizes students who happen to be POC. If you were to take out all racial identification, you'd have "students antagonize other students" which yes, is a constant problem, no not news worthy because the news sensationalizes everything, and yes, should still be scrutinized regardless because antagonizing people for the sake of response is not ok. Of course, if race wasn't made a prominent factor, this wouldn't have even been posted and none of us wild be here.

You can provide statistics all you want, it doesn't dissuade the idea that people believe otherwise. Ridicule the idea all you want, it doesn't invalidate the idea to those who hold it. You've already stated the conversing over this does not interest you. If I've brought it up, it's to reinforce the idea that some people are triggered by it. My ideas of its validity are best left in another thread.

I can tell it's entertaining, it's the one thing we keep coming back to. The point is, you don't have to understand or agree with it, but this is how society is going to move forward. Neither of us have the interest or commitment to try and persuade the other into believing differently, however one of us may still be somewhat surprised as these things keep happening. POC have been discriminated against for more than ~300 years, and yes that includes the Irish and Jewish as well as many others. We've agreed that the POC involved may have escalated what happened, but to find only one party guilty of anything opposed to the other party's complete innocence is absurd.

 

[Darth Meteos]

this is like going to the multicultural room with "confederate lives matter"
they came to get kicked out, fuck off

 

[Foxi4]

this is like going to the multicultural room with "confederate lives matter"
they came to get kicked out, fuck off

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.

I wish I could agree, but intent is just as much a mitigating factor in the court room as action itself. If the students can prove there was no intent behind their presence, then this should be a slam dunk in their favor. However, once they started confronting back, they became just as guilty as what the POC are purported to be.

Total gibberish. The students don't have to prove anything, they're the ones standing accused in your hypothetical scenario. You're the one who would have to demonstrate guilt and malicious intent, in a manner that wouldn't leave a shadow of doubt. Everything else you've mentioned, from how people felt to the purpose of the spot is immaterial - the students are not obligated to care about any of it. Paradoxically, they'd have less of a right to do so in a Wal-mart than in the setting we're discussing right now. I don't have to try hard to prove guilt on the part of the Karens - I have video evidence of them accosting fellow students. Over a sticker. That they could've simply ignored.

I can tell it's entertaining, it's the one thing we keep coming back to. The point is, you don't have to understand or agree with it, but this is how society is going to move forward. Neither of us have the interest or commitment to try and persuade the other into believing differently, however one of us may still be somewhat surprised as these things keep happening. POC have been discriminated against for more than ~300 years, and yes that includes the Irish and Jewish as well as many others. We've agreed that the POC involved may have escalated what happened, but to find only one party guilty of anything opposed to the other party's complete innocence is absurd.

Not if we can help it. It's not like we haven't been through this before - we've dealt with PC culture in the 90's, people eventually became exausted with constantly walking on eggshells, mocked it out of existence and we've returned to a semblance of normality. History is cyclical like that, this is no different. It's also not at all absurd to call one party guilty, and I don't see why you'd say otherwise. One side is guilty, demonstrably so. We don't know if it was tricked into behaving improperly or not, what we do know is that they behaved inappropriately, and that's what we're trying to establish - the rest is immaterial.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Total gibberish. The students don't have to prove anything, they're the ones standing accused in your hypothetical scenario. You're the one who would have to demonstrate guilt and malicious intent, in a manner that wouldn't leave a shadow of doubt. Everything else you've mentioned, from how people felt to the purpose of the spot is immaterial - the students are not obligated to care about any of it. Paradoxically, they'd have less of a right to do so in a Wal-mart than in the setting we're discussing right now. I don't have to try hard to prove guilt on the part of the Karens - I have video evidence of them accosting fellow students. Over a sticker. That they could've simply ignored.

Not if we can help it. It's not like we haven't been through this before - we've dealt with PC culture in the 90's, people eventually became exausted with constantly walking on eggshells, mocked it out of existence and we've returned to a semblance of normality. History is cyclical like that, this is no different. It's also not at all absurd to call one party guilty, and I don't see why you'd say otherwise. One side is guilty, demonstrably so. We don't know if it was tricked into behaving improperly or not, what we do know is that they behaved inappropriately, and that's what we're trying to establish - the rest is immaterial.

When does the accused not have to prove anything? They're being accused. There might not be much evidence against them, but if they're in the right, it should be easy, right?

Yeah, and if exhaustion of the intolerant is how this will go, so be it. Ignorance isn't bliss, regardless of what one is ignorant of. Even if the white students are ignorant, that's still something that should be held against them, is it not? In what right in this day and age can someone be that ignorant? Even if it was total disregard and apathy, that's still a problem. There's no excuse for turning a blind eye

 

[Foxi4]

When does the accused not have to prove anything? They're being accused. There might not be much evidence against them, but if they're in the right, it should be easy, right?

Yeah, and if exhaustion of the intolerant is how this will go, so be it. Ignorance isn't bliss, regardless of what one is ignorant of. Even if the white students are ignorant, that's still something that should be held against them, is it not? In what right in this day and age can someone be that ignorant? Even if it was total disregard and apathy, that's still a problem. There's no excuse for turning a blind eye

Because it's not a witch trial, that's why. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to demonstrate guilt, not on the accused to prove their innocence. Your train of thought is how society ended up tying rocks to people and tossing them into rivers to check if they'll float - not a very effective way to detect witchcraft, as it turns out. From the perspective of the accused, if they're not guilty then they're simply not - they cannot prove a negative, and shouldn't be expected to do so. In the ridiculous hypothetical court scenario they're guilty of nothing, other than owning a cheeky sticker, which they're entitled to own. As for the latter part of your post, living in a distopian future where you can't have any opinion since *something* is always "triggering" to *someone* is the definition of a nightmare, and must necessarily be opposed. What you're effectively saying is that you're free to have any opinion you want, as long as it is the "approved" opinion - nice one. Thankfully, if history is anything to go by, so far ridicule has proven to be very effective against such wannabe-tyranny of crybabies. These kinds of outbursts are childish, absurd, and they deserve to be ridiculed. It doesn't take much effort to ridicule them either, the jokes write themselves. You're assuming that people are "turning a blind eye" to some kind of perceived injustice - in reality they might be in disagreement with you on whether any injustice at all is taking place. More importantly, the specific message on the sticker had nothing to do with any particular injustice anyway - it was a simple statement. "Police Lives Matter" - do they not? If not, why? That's the core mechanic behind other slogans of this nature, is it not? When do we get to the part where we have to recite magic spells, and if we refuse, we get a special brand, like a scarlet letter? Of course, you and I both know that trick (not a very good one either, but then again, I'm not the one who invented it), but that's besides the point.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Because it's not a witch trial, that's why. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to demonstrate guilt, not on the accused to prove their innocence. Your train of thought is how society ended up tying rocks to people and tossing them into rivers to check if they'll float - not a very effective way to detect witchcraft, as it turns out. From the perspective of the accused, if they're not guilty then they're simply not - they cannot prove a negative, and shouldn't be expected to do so. In the ridiculous hypothetical court scenario they're guilty of nothing, other than owning a cheeky sticker, which they're entitled to own. As for the latter part of your post, living in a distopian future where you can't have any opinion since *something* is always "triggering" to *someone* is the definition of a nightmare, and must necessarily be opposed. What you're effectively saying is that you're free to have any opinion you want, as long as it is the "approved" opinion - nice one. Thankfully, if history is anything to go by, so far ridicule has proven to be very effective against such wannabe-tyranny of crybabies. These kinds of outbursts are childish, absurd, and they deserve to be ridiculed. It doesn't take much effort to ridicule them either, the jokes write themselves. You're assuming that people are "turning a blind eye" to some kind of perceived injustice - in reality they might be in disagreement with you on whether any injustice at all is taking place. More importantly, the specific message on the sticker had nothing to do with any particular injustice anyway - it was a simple statement. "Police Lives Matter" - do they not? If not, why? That's the core mechanic behind other slogans of this nature, is it not? When do we get to the part where we have to recite magic spells, and if we refuse, we get a special brand, like a scarlet letter? Of course, you and I both know that trick (not a very good one either, but then again, I'm not the one who invented it), but that's besides the point.

That's the problem with antagonistic behavior: more often than not, it comes across as complete innocence. In a perfect society where all people were actually innocent into proven guilty, we wouldn't even be having this discussion of antagonism. However, we both know this isn't the case, at least in the states. Someone accuses you of something, you're jailed until you prove it. Do I wish any of these students jail time? No. Honestly, I perceive it as a couple of students that wanted to cause some drama and a couple other students who immediately fought back with emotion, over logic. I don't think either one should be punished in this scenario, but I still stand by my statement that, if accused and innocent, then the two white students should have admitted ignorance. At that point, they could have filed a complaint against the students of color and had them reprimanded in some form. But just as some of us criticize POC for not being the bigger person in situations like these, the white students should also be held to the same accountability.

I never stated nor implied, purposely, that people shouldn't have an opinion or be allowed to voice it. However, if everyone is allowed to have an equal voice, and their opinions respected, then triggers should be respected as well. I don't mean hide your voice in favor of others, I mean respect that their triggers are voices too. What you do after that acknowledgement leads to your distinguishment of character, and society will sort out how you're to be dealt with afterward. It's about respect and decency. Neither party had either in this scenario

 

[Deleted member 532471]

in the these things are only pitting people against each other while the true problem remains unsolved. hooray! /s

 

[Deleted member 546149]

I'll admit at first did not see the harm in "all lives matter." But think about it, did you ever hear about that crap before BLM came about? Here we have a group of human beings screaming at us for help saying we are being abused and mistreated, and then instead of supporting them and believing them we are correcting their statement and then doing fuck all to help. I could see why it pisses them off. And plus if someone loves the police so much to start a movement for them, they should make up their own catch phrase. But the reason for blue lives matter is not to support police, its to belittle and oppose the black lives matter movement. They made that obvious with the name choice. Plus if racist cops didn't fuck w/ POC so much, they wouldn't have had to start the movement in the first place. Yes I know perfectly well all cops are not bad, but the bad ones did more than enough damage for the lot and there is an old saying that all it takes for evil to endure is good people/good cops doing nothing. And while I don't know that they "did nothing" the good ones evidently did not do nearly enough to make a difference according to POC.

Well the truth is there was no racism in the George Floyd Death
Yes I said it
Looks up the facts
Don't just trust the news

 

[notimp]

Lets talk about intent for a little while also.

A: We have a massive problem of police discrimination and racial profiling against black people in the US. People are dying because of it. Thats not nothing. Black lives matter.

B: Police lives matter also!

Its pretty obvious that the intent of the answering statement in this case is to disrupt people following the logic, or the intent of the first statement.

At best it is a "they get attention, we want attention as well" statement, at its worst its literally subverting the intent of the first statement by opening up a false equivalency. ("Some bad people are hurt, but also some police people are hurt - so lets call it quits").

The question to ask now becomes - were the people wearing those shirts utter idiots, that actually thought they were fighting for police protection.

Or were they instigators that literally baited a response of someone calling them insigators to then say - no, no, we are idiots, and you discriminated against human rights on behalf of police officers.

The far right isnt that dumb... so - now we have a discussion in place of the original discussion about police discrimination and overreach.

Without any data that would support the "there is need to fight against violence against police, people should watch more teletubbies, and play Spongebob games instead of GTA" but by a simple inversion on the original slogan.

BLM? Yes, but police lifes matter as well! No one said they wouldnt, you are just trying to move people away from the initial problem where activism was employed to get public recognition.

Its the same logic as with pepe memes. We tell everyone, that its "commedy" or "sarcastic humor" - and then you cant censor racism. We tell everyone, that there is a false equivalency - where police officers lives should also matter more in the public discussion, and you cant censor it, because "dont police lives matter?" - us pulling the humanist card.

Thats not trolling btw (because trolling (done correctly) is aimed, at pulling truths out of inconsitancies), this is aimed at creating logical fallacies, that cover up issues, so nothing is, or can be done about them.

Its "adbusting" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvertising ), just for racists. They studied the left. Then applied their protest principles against them. Now they are private sector/establishment financed AND edgy..

 

[notimp]

Well the truth is there was no racism in the George Floyd Death
Yes I said it
Looks up the facts
Don't just trust the news

Thats aggitation propaganda.

You cant look up racism.

Its interpretation by default.

A court for example will never "pronounce" someone racist, in a high profile case, if they maintain they are not. Thats not how it works, "The court of public opinion" is different from how the legal system works.

And how do you prove a thought, or an emotion, or a motivation that would lead to a character classification in front of court? You dont.

So if you have to "objectify racism" you end up with something like that:

"George Floyd’s killing not a hate crime because it was systemic not ‘explicit’ racism, says official"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/george-floyd-killing-hate-crime-b1837419.html

Meaning: He didnt scream out the N-word while crushing his throat. Thereby its not explicit racism.

Systemic racism meaning - that him targeted the individual and seeing in them a "bigger threat", and that others not doing anything, looking at the police officer killing a man - had underlying racial motives. Now lets call them "structural" and its no specific persons fault. Horray.

 

[Zajumino]

It's about respect and decency. Neither party had either in this scenario

I agree that ideally, people should always behave respectfully and decently. In practice, however, I think that it can sometimes be difficult. Because the sticker people did not forcefully initiate an encounter, some lenience could be given towards their behavior.

Perhaps rather than blaming the individuals here, we should look at the fault of those who caused them to behave this way. In other words, society is to blame to a certain degree when this kind of stuff happens. I'm pretty sure people didn't act like this (as often?) back in the day. I might be wrong, though.

this is like going to the multicultural room with "confederate lives matter"
they came to get kicked out, fuck off

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

 

[Benja81]

Honestly I feel this is more of a person to person view or opinion of its purpose. Some see it as that while some see it as a response to all Police being classified as racist automatons without any humanity or life outside of the badge. People forget that not all police are bad people but in the same way a racist person can try to convince you that all POC's are bad, the alternate side is trying to do the very same with saying that all Police are bad.

Based on my personal experience, I have a very positive view of cops. Now that I'm older I realize this is probably at least partially because I'm white and grew up in an "affluent" area. Or very least was just lucky and had decent cops around my area. When I was younger I couldn't understand why POC had a bad perception of cops. When you don't understand something or haven't experienced things the same way, it can be easy to assume its not true. But in reality that has been their personal experience. I'll probably never be able to relate to that in my current circumstances/skin, but I choose to believe them and support them where I can. Same thing happens to women who report rape. If I were going through a terrible ordeal, I know I would want support and would want to be believed, even if others did not experience the same thing I did. It would hurt for people to tell me my personal experience wasn't true or it didn't matter cause of who I am or I was exagerating the truth etc. We've also seen the many clips in our modern age to know they aren't making it up. I'm not at all against a movement to support good police officers, they are sacrificing their lives and safety for us I get that and appreciatte that. However, if they didn't want to get dragged they should have made up their own name instead of morphing the name of an existing movement.

 

[Benja81]

Well the truth is there was no racism in the George Floyd Death
Yes I said it
Looks up the facts
Don't just trust the news

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.

 

[Deleted member 546149]

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.

Let me stop you right there
That wasn't fully what I was referring too
The two knew each other which gives them experience
https://www.newsweek.com/derek-chauvin-george-floyd-worked-together-relationship-1579431 https://www.newsweek.com/derek-chauvin-george-floyd-worked-together-relationship-1579431
Also remember George stole from a store so HE ISN'T INNOCENT
Of course killing someone over a few cigarettes' is ridiculous
but just correcting you
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14493782/what-drugs-did-george-floyd-have-system/
https://www.the-sun.com/news/2657009/derek-chauvin-trial-george-floyd-too-many-drugs
He did drugs during the crime
I FULLY AGREE THAT DEREK CHAUVIN IS AN EVIL HUMAN BEING but it feels as though everything is now racist

 

[Foxi4]

That's the problem with antagonistic behavior: more often than not, it comes across as complete innocence. In a perfect society where all people were actually innocent into proven guilty, we wouldn't even be having this discussion of antagonism. However, we both know this isn't the case, at least in the states. Someone accuses you of something, you're jailed until you prove it. Do I wish any of these students jail time? No. Honestly, I perceive it as a couple of students that wanted to cause some drama and a couple other students who immediately fought back with emotion, over logic. I don't think either one should be punished in this scenario, but I still stand by my statement that, if accused and innocent, then the two white students should have admitted ignorance. At that point, they could have filed a complaint against the students of color and had them reprimanded in some form. But just as some of us criticize POC for not being the bigger person in situations like these, the white students should also be held to the same accountability.

I never stated nor implied, purposely, that people shouldn't have an opinion or be allowed to voice it. However, if everyone is allowed to have an equal voice, and their opinions respected, then triggers should be respected as well. I don't mean hide your voice in favor of others, I mean respect that their triggers are voices too. What you do after that acknowledgement leads to your distinguishment of character, and society will sort out how you're to be dealt with afterward. It's about respect and decency. Neither party had either in this scenario

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.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Antagonizing someone by bringing triggering propaganda into a well known triggered space to get them to act a certain way is assault.

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.

 

[Foxi4]

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.

You better be careful with that “drawing the prophet” business - last time someone did that in France a bunch of people got triggered and it ended with a shooting. Oh wait, you did specify “Muslim country”, nevermind.

Tasteless jokes aside (even though I’m pretty sure Charlie Hebdo writers would get a good chuckle out of that one, given the nature of their work), “provocation” is no excuse for violence anyway. Thankfully here it didn’t come to blows, but the principle remains the same. If you’re not free to use provocative speech, you don’t actually have free speech.

 

[Benja81]

Let me stop you right there
That wasn't fully what I was referring too
The two knew each other which gives them experience
https://www.newsweek.com/derek-chauvin-george-floyd-worked-together-relationship-1579431 https://www.newsweek.com/derek-chauvin-george-floyd-worked-together-relationship-1579431
Also remember George stole from a store so HE ISN'T INNOCENT
Of course killing someone over a few cigarettes' is ridiculous
but just correcting you
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14493782/what-drugs-did-george-floyd-have-system/
https://www.the-sun.com/news/2657009/derek-chauvin-trial-george-floyd-too-many-drugs
He did drugs during the crime
I FULLY AGREE THAT DEREK CHAUVIN IS AN EVIL HUMAN BEING but it feels as though everything is now racist

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