Ferguson Riots

[Balta1701]

Lot of arrests last night. Protestors are getting more aggressive. Holding a sit in front of a place of business and preventing people from people going in is not a good idea. St. Louis police chief says rocks were thrown at cops. That's another good way to have mass arrests happen.

I know. Could you imagine preventing a business from being able to serve customers just because of unfair treatment? How horrible that would be. That's totally un-American.

 

[greg775]

I know. Could you imagine preventing a business from being able to serve customers just because of unfair treatment? How horrible that would be. That's totally un-American.

 

Thing is, once the protestors start doing stuff to impede other people's rights ... that's when the protestors are gonna get maced and beaten with clubs, etc. You can't block entrances to stores, and prevent traffic from going through lights, etc. Seems like the protestors are getting antsy and causing some commotion rather than being peaceful.

[Balta1701]

Thing is, once the protestors start doing stuff to impede other people's rights ... that's when the protestors are gonna get maced and beaten with clubs, etc. You can't block entrances to stores, and prevent traffic from going through lights, etc. Seems like the protestors are getting antsy and causing some commotion rather than being peaceful.

I agree. Those people at that counter should be maced and beaten with clubs. That's america.

[greg775]

I agree. Those people at that counter should be maced and beaten with clubs. That's america.

I'm slow tonight. I have no idea what your last two posts meant.

[caulfield12]

I'm slow tonight. I have no idea what your last two posts meant.

 

 

Satire about the sit-ins/protest movement of the 1960's Civil Rights movement juxtaposed with the apparently unchanged racial climate in America nearly 50 years later.

[Balta1701]

Yes. These people have no legitimate gripes and race pays no part in it.

[Y2HH]

Yes. These people have no legitimate gripes and race pays no part in it.

 

What do you mean, "these people"?

 

Some do have legitimate gripes, but they don't need you (nor want you) bringing up stuff from the 1960's on their "behalf". "These people" are living in 2014 dealing with 2014. They can eat at diners with white people now, and in case you missed it, they can also drink out of the same water fountains, use the same bathrooms, own property, vote, sit at the front of buses, hold jobs, and a whole mess of other things.

 

Doing what you're doing does nothing but cheapens anything they're dealing with in 2014, and it also cheapens anything they've dealt with in the past by lightly passing it off as some sort of internet meme/joke comparison by pretending the US, as a whole, has made absolutely no progress, when in reality we've come a long way.

 

We get it, you're an official SoxTalk white "guilter", but you don't have to keep trying to prove how you aren't a racist over and over.

[Balta1701]

What do you mean, "these people"?

 

Some do have legitimate gripes, but they don't need you (nor want you) bringing up stuff from the 1960's on their "behalf". "These people" are living in 2014 dealing with 2014. They can eat at diners with white people now, and in case you missed it, they can also drink out of the same water fountains, use the same bathrooms, own property, vote, sit at the front of buses, hold jobs, and a whole mess of other things.

 

Doing what you're doing does nothing but cheapens anything they're dealing with in 2014, and it also cheapens anything they've dealt with in the past by lightly passing it off as some sort of internet meme/joke comparison by pretending the US, as a whole, has made absolutely no progress, when in reality we've come a long way.

 

We get it, you're an official SoxTalk white "guilter", but you don't have to keep trying to prove how you aren't a racist over and over.

I think that the thing which cheapens both of them is what just happened here, a person who has absolutely no understanding of the history of his own country and the history of the very acts he is complaining about. Go read the words. If these people are shutting down the businesses of unrelated people just because they put up with the system in place they're going to have bad things happen to them, they're going to be beaten.

 

You may not agree with these protestors that this is a civil rights issue. You told us why you don't. That's a heck of a step up from having no idea of the history of sit ins and why the people don't care if the police rough them up in this case.

[Y2HH]

I think that the thing which cheapens both of them is what just happened here, a person who has absolutely no understanding of the history of his own country and the history of the very acts he is complaining about. Go read the words. If these people are shutting down the businesses of unrelated people just because they put up with the system in place they're going to have bad things happen to them, they're going to be beaten.

 

You may not agree with these protestors that this is a civil rights issue. You told us why you don't. That's a heck of a step up from having no idea of the history of sit ins and why the people don't care if the police rough them up in this case.

 

I do know the summarized history of things like this, but I won't, however, pretend to be a history professor. IMO, you pointing back to something I feel was far more legitimate (that picture) and comparing it to what they're right now is absurd. We need to learn from our history, not point to it at every opportunity to pretend "nothing has changed", when quite a lot has indeed changed. These are opportunists looking to agitate, nothing more. They not only expect the system to "react" that way to them doing this, it's exactly what they want.

 

And no, I DON'T agree that this is a civil rights issue in the same vein as that picture you posted. It's not even close. But that's NOT to say we're a perfect country and no more progress needs to be made, just as it's not to say some people today don't have legitimate gripes with the system.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

I do know the summarized history of things like this, but I won't, however, pretend to be a history professor. IMO, you pointing back to something I feel was far more legitimate (that picture) and comparing it to what they're right now is absurd. We need to learn from our history, not point to it at every opportunity to pretend "nothing has changed", when quite a lot has indeed changed. These are opportunists looking to agitate, nothing more. They not only expect the system to "react" that way to them doing this, it's exactly what they want.

 

And no, I DON'T agree that this is a civil rights issue in the same vein as that picture you posted. It's not even close. But that's NOT to say we're a perfect country and no more progress needs to be made, just as it's not to say some people today don't have legitimate gripes with the system.

See now you're putting words in my mouth. No where did I say "nothing has changed". Of course things have improved, but that doesn't mean that people cannot have civil rights issues in the modern day. We're a society where African Americans, especially African American men, are hugely overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Studies have shown that African Americans are arrested for Marijuana possession at a rate hugely beyond that of whites even though whites use it as often or more often. A study just out 2 days ago suggests that black men are shot by police roughly 21 times as often as white men. That's literally what this issue is about...this community feels completely disconnected from the police, feels that the police are basically at war with them, and to them it is a civil rights issue.

 

You may disagree with that claim, you may think they're wrong, you may think those things are completely ok. But you're not bewildered about what a sit-in is and you don't sit here thinking "oh well if they do that they're going to be maced and beaten". That's exactly the point and that's why I went to the most blatant example...because the person posting that clearly seems to have no clue about the history of sit ins, business disruption, and police beatings in reply.

[Y2HH]

See now you're putting words in my mouth. No where did I say "nothing has changed". Of course things have improved, but that doesn't mean that people cannot have civil rights issues in the modern day. We're a society where African Americans, especially African American men, are hugely overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Studies have shown that African Americans are arrested for Marijuana possession at a rate hugely beyond that of whites even though whites use it as often or more often. A study just out 2 days ago suggests that black men are shot by police roughly 21 times as often as white men. That's literally what this issue is about...this community feels completely disconnected from the police, feels that the police are basically at war with them, and to them it is a civil rights issue.

 

You may disagree with that claim, you may think they're wrong, you may think those things are completely ok. But you're not bewildered about what a sit-in is and you don't sit here thinking "oh well if they do that they're going to be maced and beaten". That's exactly the point and that's why I went to the most blatant example...because the person posting that clearly seems to have no clue about the history of sit ins, business disruption, and police beatings in reply.

 

To clarify how you came across (to me), when you posted that picture you compared one to the other. That insinuates they're the same and thus, nothing has changed.

 

As for our criminal justice system, I'm sure there is a degree of racism causing those numbers, but I don't think it's the only reason. Geography has a lot to do with it, not to mention community, family, etc. Also, I'm sure areas like Chicago and LA skew those numbers to a large degree. Police are probably shooting black men 21 times as often as whites, because black men are carrying guns 21 times more often in areas like that...if you'd like to see for yourself, travel on down to 80th and Halsted and take yourself a survey. Do you see the murder rate in the greater Chicago area? How many of those are whites shooting whites in Deerfield? Maybe 1, out of how many hundreds?

Edited October 13, 2014 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

I think that the thing which cheapens both of them is what just happened here, a person who has absolutely no understanding of the history of his own country and the history of the very acts he is complaining about. Go read the words. If these people are shutting down the businesses of unrelated people just because they put up with the system in place they're going to have bad things happen to them, they're going to be beaten.

 

You may not agree with these protestors that this is a civil rights issue. You told us why you don't. That's a heck of a step up from having no idea of the history of sit ins and why the people don't care if the police rough them up in this case.

 

People protesting the killing of a criminal who attacked a cop is not the same as people protesting the treatment of people for the color of their skin.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

See now you're putting words in my mouth. No where did I say "nothing has changed". Of course things have improved, but that doesn't mean that people cannot have civil rights issues in the modern day. We're a society where African Americans, especially African American men, are hugely overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Studies have shown that African Americans are arrested for Marijuana possession at a rate hugely beyond that of whites even though whites use it as often or more often. A study just out 2 days ago suggests that black men are shot by police roughly 21 times as often as white men. That's literally what this issue is about...this community feels completely disconnected from the police, feels that the police are basically at war with them, and to them it is a civil rights issue.

 

You may disagree with that claim, you may think they're wrong, you may think those things are completely ok. But you're not bewildered about what a sit-in is and you don't sit here thinking "oh well if they do that they're going to be maced and beaten". That's exactly the point and that's why I went to the most blatant example...because the person posting that clearly seems to have no clue about the history of sit ins, business disruption, and police beatings in reply.

 

The marijuana study is kind of dumb if it's just looking at usage rates and arrest rates. Pot isn't a drug that cops are investigating thoroughly. You have to be doing it in front of them and/or driving with it and/or being dumb with it to get caught.

 

And as Y2HH pointed out, what's the comparison to whites and blacks shooting or threatening police? If the news is any indication, you've got a lot of black teens being morons with cops and getting killed because of it. And I admit it's a pretty terrible cycle because often times they're doing so because they've been told not to trust cops.

[Balta1701]

To clarify how you came across (to me), when you posted that picture you compared one to the other. That insinuates they're the same and thus, nothing has changed.

 

As for our criminal justice system, I'm sure there is a degree of racism causing those numbers, but I don't think it's the only reason. Geography has a lot to do with it, not to mention community, family, etc. Also, I'm sure areas like Chicago and LA skew those numbers to a large degree. Police are probably shooting black men 21 times as often as whites, because black men are carrying guns 21 times more often in areas like that...if you'd like to see for yourself, travel on down to 80th and Halsted and take yourself a survey. Do you see the murder rate in the greater Chicago area? How many of those are whites shooting whites in Deerfield? Maybe 1, out of how many hundreds?

I posted that picture because the person I replied to had no clue why it appeared. That alone shows my motivation for posting it. You got why it appeared. You disagreed, but you at least understood.

[Balta1701]

The marijuana study is kind of dumb if it's just looking at usage rates and arrest rates. Pot isn't a drug that cops are investigating thoroughly. You have to be doing it in front of them and/or driving with it and/or being dumb with it to get caught.

 

And as Y2HH pointed out, what's the comparison to whites and blacks shooting or threatening police? If the news is any indication, you've got a lot of black teens being morons with cops and getting killed because of it. And I admit it's a pretty terrible cycle because often times they're doing so because they've been told not to trust cops.

2 problems.

 

1. Marijuana arrests are incredibly common in the African American community. From your perspective it's really difficult to be caught. That's not the case for everyone, the comment you just made is one of those "Check your privilege" kind of comments where you aren't realizing what benefits you get for being you. You don't get an arrest rate 4x as high for one race over the other by that race just using it out in the open more often.

 

On the latter part, I partially agree with you...there's a lot of depth to that number of course, but it absolutely feeds into the community's perception here that it is under siege from an out of control police department. One good way to understand that would be for the country to actually keep solid statistics and reports on when police-involved shootings happen, but for some reason police departments nationwide do not produce that data, which is a hint in itself.

[Jenksismyhero]

2 problems.

 

1. Marijuana arrests are incredibly common in the African American community. From your perspective it's really difficult to be caught. That's not the case for everyone, the comment you just made is one of those "Check your privilege" kind of comments where you aren't realizing what benefits you get for being you. You don't get an arrest rate 4x as high for one race over the other by that race just using it out in the open more often.

 

On the latter part, I partially agree with you...there's a lot of depth to that number of course, but it absolutely feeds into the community's perception here that it is under siege from an out of control police department. One good way to understand that would be for the country to actually keep solid statistics and reports on when police-involved shootings happen, but for some reason police departments nationwide do not produce that data, which is a hint in itself.

 

Not that alone, but it's about where those people live and what they're doing. If you live in a poor neighborhood with more crime the cops are going to patrol it different than an affluent area with no crime. That means more traffic stops, more car searches, etc. and the result is going to be more arrests. To me that shows it's not about race, it's about income class and geography.

 

Sitting in my ivory tower on the internet, that's why I think the race-baiting in these national stories like Ferguson are actually counter-productive. Screaming "it's because we're black and you're all racist" doesn't sit well with whites and other minorities, so nothing is done. If it was more of an economic argument, or even a power-hungry, militarized police argument, maybe there'd be more progress.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Y2HH]

2 problems.

 

1. Marijuana arrests are incredibly common in the African American community. From your perspective it's really difficult to be caught. That's not the case for everyone, the comment you just made is one of those "Check your privilege" kind of comments where you aren't realizing what benefits you get for being you. You don't get an arrest rate 4x as high for one race over the other by that race just using it out in the open more often.

 

On the latter part, I partially agree with you...there's a lot of depth to that number of course, but it absolutely feeds into the community's perception here that it is under siege from an out of control police department. One good way to understand that would be for the country to actually keep solid statistics and reports on when police-involved shootings happen, but for some reason police departments nationwide do not produce that data, which is a hint in itself.

 

This highlights why it's often hard to have a solid conversation with people via text and why we have to be careful when doing so -- you can often miss subtle overtones and misread the context in which something was said or meant.

[greg775]

I don't understand all your repsonses so I'll make the point again and try again. If a group of protestors are going to sit in the middle of the street and not let traffic pass and sit in the front of Quik Trip and not let people in, I think a.) they should be warned they have to move via loudspeaker. b.) be warned that in 10 minutes they will be arrested with the possibility of mace. And c.) ultimately get arrested and if they fight, they must get cuffed or maced.

You can't block traffic like that. It's not safe for anybody.

[EvilMonkey]

I think that the thing which cheapens both of them is what just happened here, a person who has absolutely no understanding of the history of his own country and the history of the very acts he is complaining about. Go read the words. If these people are shutting down the businesses of unrelated people just because they put up with the system in place they're going to have bad things happen to them, they're going to be beaten.

 

You may not agree with these protestors that this is a civil rights issue. You told us why you don't. That's a heck of a step up from having no idea of the history of sit ins and why the people don't care if the police rough them up in this case.

One difference may be between the passive resistance offered then vs the armed-to-the-teeth (and probably not legally) looking for trouble aspect of the protesting now.

[Rowand44]

I was in the Soulard/downtown St. Louis area all day and night on Saturday and didn't see any protests or anything crazy going on, so there's that.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Rowand44

[Balta1701]

One difference may be between the passive resistance offered then vs the armed-to-the-teeth (and probably not legally) looking for trouble aspect of the protesting now.

Since when do you have a problem with more guns? Even at protests? More guns = everything's always better. The tea party definitely taught me that one, guns are absolutely necessary at protests.

[EvilMonkey]

Since when do you have a problem with more guns? Even at protests? More guns = everything's always better. The tea party definitely taught me that one, guns are absolutely necessary at protests.

You left out the word LEGAL. And not NECESSARY, but ACCEPTABLE.

[Balta1701]

You left out the word LEGAL. And not NECESSARY, but ACCEPTABLE.

I can fathom no potential problem of protestors being tear gassed or having flash-grenades used while armed with semi-automatic assault rifles. Cause you know, we can tell that these guys aren't possessing guns legally. They don't look like legal gun owners somehow.

[EvilMonkey]

I can fathom no potential problem of protestors being tear gassed or having flash-grenades used while armed with semi-automatic assault rifles. Cause you know, we can tell that these guys aren't possessing guns legally. They don't look like legal gun owners somehow.

We all know guns make you wet your pants. You never know when one might jump out at you and go 'bang'. How an assault rifle slu g over a shoulder is going to suddenly go off when someone throws tear gas is beyond me. But you are off on a tangent again.

[caulfield12]

Balta's last line was funny at least.