Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[Firebot]

https://coffeeordie.com/minneapolis-suspects-arrested/

2 arsonists of the Minneapolis 3rd precinct caught, and of course they look like failed frat boys that may have joined in the Vancouver no cup riots. Note how no where in the media was it portrayed that many of the arsons have been done by totally white people? These are anarchists and have nothing to do with BLM, where's the media on this? Doesn't fit the narrative? The Atlanta Wendy's was also burned down by a white woman.

I am glad these tools are getting caught, but the MSM is totally skipping this stuff. Where's the story singling out these anarchists who's sole goals is to cause chaos?

[OMG!WTF!]

It's not a matter of you or I "thinking" if deadly force was justified. It's if his training deemed it justifiable.

We are also assuming once he runs he is no longer a threat. Desperate people (and fleeing police is an act of desperation) do desperate things, does this end when he runs, hops a fence and hides? Or does his escape start with a car jacking and spiral from there?

Well it is a matter of someone...a judge and or jury, deciding if deadly force was justified. Training is a part of it but he already violated his training by using a Taser against a fleeing suspect. So you'd have to assume using a gun would also contradict that training.



But your last thought is completely wrong. People run and get away from cops every single day. Could you imagine if they shot everyone who ran? It would literally be a bath of blood. You can't arrest someone for going on a crime spree when they haven't gone on the crime spree.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Thor

My wife is from Texas, and she has lots of problematic friends who are posting all lives matter, and a fair bit of those getting very defensive over the confederate flags/statues.

There is such a huge problem with these social media bubbles when she shows me her FB wall, the sheer number of all lives matter and blue lives matter mixed in with the confederate stuff is really depressing.

Are people talking the time to explain to them why their takes are problematic or are they just screaming "racist!!!!" at them because sometimes that's where this discourse goes.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

We are also assuming once he runs he is no longer a threat. Desperate people (and fleeing police is an act of desperation) do desperate things, does this end when he runs, hops a fence and hides? Or does his escape start with a car jacking and spiral from there?

True, hypothetically he could have escaped and become radicalized and hijacked a plane and caused another 9/11 so I guess the officer did the right thing by shooting him in the back.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Are people talking the time to explain to them why their takes are problematic or are they just screaming "racist!!!!" at them because sometimes that's where this discourse goes.

She tries, very patiently, but it's at the best of times problematic. Its why I keep telling her to not even bother.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Firebot

https://coffeeordie.com/minneapolis-suspects-arrested/

2 arsonists of the Minneapolis 3rd precinct caught, and of course they look like failed frat boys that may have joined in the Vancouver no cup riots. Note how no where in the media was it portrayed that many of the arsons have been done by totally white people? These are anarchists and have nothing to do with BLM, where's the media on this? Doesn't fit the narrative? The Atlanta Wendy's was also burned down by a white woman.

I am glad these tools are getting caught, but the MSM is totally skipping this stuff. Where's the story singling out these anarchists who's sole goals is to cause chaos?

This is the story in the Star Tribune. How do you know they are "anarchists"?

https://www.startribune.com/feds-cha...ing/571299032/


MPR news:
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/0...is-police-fire


ABC news:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...SgZ?li=BBnb7Kz

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Note how no where in the media was it portrayed that many of the arsons have been done by totally white people? These are anarchists and have nothing to do with BLM, where's the media on this? Doesn't fit the narrative? The Atlanta Wendy's was also burned down by a white woman.

I am glad these tools are getting caught, but the MSM is totally skipping this stuff. Where's the story singling out these anarchists who's sole goals is to cause chaos?

For the life of me, I can't understand why the evidence that much of the rioting is being instigated by white radicals is considered a right-wing talking point and not worth talking about.

Are we pretending anarchists attaching themselves to protests in order to turn them into riots hasn't been a thing since at least the Battle of Seattle? Is it better to assume it's black Americans and other legitimate BLM protestors who are showing up prepared to torch buildings and throw paving stones at police?

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

For the life of me, I can't understand why the evidence that much of the rioting is being instigated by white radicals is considered a right-wing talking point and not worth talking about.

Are we pretending anarchists attaching themselves to protests in order to turn them into riots hasn't been a thing since at least the Battle of Seattle? Is it better to assume it's black Americans and other legitimate BLM protestors who are showing up prepared to torch buildings and throw paving stones at police?

It's entirely the way they talk about it and frame it, which ultimately feeds into deflecting from the issue at hand (which it appears they are all too happy to do). It has also given leaders like Trump a reason to lump the entire movement and riots together to justify ridiculous tactics like clearing out peaceful protests at Lafayette Square for a photo op.

The fact these outlets are more concerned about a group of unorganized, self-interested, and opportunistic criminals breaking stuff rather than innocent people being assaulted and killed by the force trusted to protect them is absurd.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

What should we expect? I mean the guy went to the Pillager Area Charter School. Thankfully the school changed it's name and mission statement from the Raper and Pillager Area Charter school.

[dammage79]

I'd be surprised if they were Anarchists and not Neo Nazis trying to undermine the protests.

I swear during the riots the ones that were smashing things in full riot gear weren't cops, but white supremacists.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by dammage79

I swear during the riots the ones that were smashing things in full riot gear weren't cops, but white supremacists.

[FlamesAddiction]

I'd be surprised if a lot of the people even know what they stand for. Some people just want to cause a ruckus.

[Matata]

Here's a handy guide for identifying agent provocateurs:

> 150 lb = Anarchists + Antifa
< 200 lb = Alt Right + Police

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Matata

Here's a handy guide for identifying agent provocateurs:

> 150 lb = Anarchists + Antifa
< 200 lb = Alt Right + Police

I think you got your signs wrong, > 200 lb = Alt Right. Some of those guys look like if your thumb dressed in olive drab and carried an AR-15.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by dammage79

I'd be surprised if they were Anarchists and not Neo Nazis trying to undermine the protests.

I swear during the riots the ones that were smashing things in full riot gear weren't cops, but white supremacists.

The police attacks in California were done by Boogaloo Boys who say they aren't right wing but are mega gun people who hate the police and other authorities.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Spoiler!

And here I thought Jonathan Brandis was dead. He was....well, he was in Seaquest DSV...which is a shame in and of itself.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Christ centrists love slippery slope arguments that miss the point.

It's not an issue of being offensive because some rando finds it offensive.

It's an issue of offensive because it makes light of/unflatteringly depicts/punches down on something that someone is.

Literally everything you listed is a choice and/or learned behavior, not an inborn trait.

While I'm typically very attuned to logical fallacies I think the slippery slope argument is very prescient here. I'm not saying its a bad thing, but the goal post has been repeatedly moved over and over again on issues of political correctness. And sometimes in calling out a logical fallacy you are opening yourself up to criticism since you're already stuck arguing in a place with weak logical foundations.

In the case of Offensive/Unflattering language/symbols/brands, I don't think there is an objective standard, and consensus is basically unattainable. There are obviously clear cases of offense or punching down, but the there is also a very big grey space. Most people who are actively advocating for these changes are not arguing for a factual interpretation of history, but some kind of noble savage myth, where we protect these delicate societies from all of the harm and oppression that has been inflicted upon them by colonialist powers. I think burying the history of racist institutions and not giving the opportunity to evolve or change will almost certainly have a backfire effect on these advocates, setting unattainable standards on topics that people will not agree upon is doomed to inflame problems.

As for something like the Blackhawks, I think if done well and being careful not propagate obvious negative stereotypes, it is probably a positive thing to have an institution with the reach of the NHL to highlig]ht and honour their history and culture. Guarding and hiding their heritage and symbols from the popular imagination has to be the opposite of what they are looking for. But the Blackhawks would have to do this accepting that going forward there will always be some loud voice that doesn't like their treatment of the symbol.

In the case of Aunt Jemima, I think many ways the brand has outstriped its origins in cultural awareness, and that could have been seen as a good thing. It is important that people are aware and reminded of the institutions that this caricature grew out of. But I think proper treatment of the character in the future, guided by the people she represents could have been a great way to turn these institutions around on themselves. Removing a black face from everyones pantry shelf so we don't have to think about these things in the future just seems counter productive.

Allot of this conversation should be boiled down to just generally making an effort to be respectful, and honestly engaging with history, rather than whitewashing or censoring it. So like most things if you find yourself falling strongly on one side of the conversation, you are hastily missing half the point.

My prediction is there will be a day they come for the Name Blackhawks or Eskimos. These things will not have the concessous of even the people who are "harmed", and they will continue find new things to come after, because we are really bad at nuanced conversations, we are really bad at reminding ourselves of historic context, and we are really bad at accepting that you can't make everyone happy.

[indes]

Very well said. Am I racist for never once thinking aunt Jemima was a racial issue?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by indes

Very well said. Am I racist for never once thinking aunt Jemima was a racial issue?

No, you're not racist, just ignorant of the history behind the brand...and that's fine! Nobody can reasonably be expected to know everything.

That said, if you were to learn that the Aunt Jemima brand mascot was inspired by a character from a racist 19th century minstrel show, and that this character was a black mammy caricature played by a white performer wearing blackface, and that Aunt Jemima's namesake song in the show contained a lyric that called black people "monkeys", and then, after learning all that, you still thought there was nothing inappropriate about the Quaker Oats company using the Aunt Jemima branding, yeah, then you'd be racist. But if you didn't know the history of the brand, nobody can fault you for not realizing it was a negative racial stereotype until now.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

No, you're not racist, just ignorant of the history behind the brand...and that's fine! Nobody can reasonably be expected to know everything.

That said, if you were to learn that the Aunt Jemima brand mascot was inspired by a character from a racist 19th century minstrel show, and that this character was a black mammy caricature played by a white performer wearing blackface, and that Aunt Jemima's namesake song in the show contained a lyric that called black people "monkeys", and then, after learning all that, you still thought there was nothing inappropriate about the Quaker Oats company using the Aunt Jemima branding, yeah, then you'd be racist. But if you didn't know the history of the brand, nobody can fault you for not realizing it was a negative racial stereotype until now.

I think what I'm saying is the brand as it exists along with knowledge of the historic context is probably far more valuable to Black Americans then censorship and white washing. It may feel great to get this win, but sometimes you need something beyond the short game.