Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[Fuzz]

You're being silly. Any one of us can see, quite accurately, that Captain Crunch hates the Liberals. Locke hates Spiderman 3. 4x4 hates crappy drivers. Is that not an honest assessment of someone from their posting history? Can you not apply that to other subjects, like this one, as well?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You're not capable of assessing bias, conscious or otherwise, in another poster over the internet. You just want to be able to call people racist because you don't like what they have to say and have suspicions about the poster. You shouldn't be able to, unless it's just going to be the wild west and anyone can say anything they like.

Of course you are, we’re people having a conversation and in many cases there are dozens of not hundreds of posts to go on. People could fairly and correctly make judgements on any number of things about me, for example, based on my posts. And if they’re wrong, I happily correct them and explain myself. It happens literally all the time.

You want to wait until someone says “kill all Black people, Whites are the superior race” before feeling comfortable using the term ‘racism’? Be my guest. But not everyone needs that level of bluntness to understand a position.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I think forums operate best when all personal attacks result in moderation.

Pointing out racism is not a personal attack. It‘s no more a personal attack than if you say “you’re being rude.” Some White people have miraculously tried to turn it into one, and I guess ask for punishment for those who call out racism. Being frank with racism is being honest, and addressing racism head on is the only way you actually get people to confront their own views of things. You seem to think calling everything you don’t like “tribalism” is perfectly fine. So I guess you’re only worried about people calling out racism, for some reason, and not low level personal attacks, because those two are the same thing. They’re simply describing a way of thinking and actions that result in it.

I confronted Sliver about his homophobic statements a couple weeks ago. What happened? Did he ask for moderation or for someone to be banned? No, he was an adult, thought about what I said, was willing to listen, and later apologised. That’s how you handle when something you’ve said or the actions you take are described in a way you don’t like. You think about it, and respond accordingly. You don’t demand others be punished for your words.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Actually I’m pretty sure you and I both have the same standard for any person with an active warrant who is under arrest. Follow the orders, don’t fight, don’t run, show your hands, get on your knees. If you defend a man wanted for rape, who does not follow these simple commands, you’re condoning his actions.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

he wasn't wanted for rape by the way, his ex accused him of going over to her house, taking her car keys and touching her without her consent, that's 3rd degree sexual assault, it covers slapping her arse on the way on the door or actions like that, 2nd degree would include penetration but we aint talking about that here, we are talking about an ex complaining he took the cat and touched her, prior to the ex's accusations Blake had no prior arrests or convictions, clearly death is the only answer

Fun fact. You can literally be charged with ANYTHING when aressted those are not necessarily the charges that you will be in court for or if you even end up being charged at all.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Of course you are, we’re people having a conversation and in many cases there are dozens of not hundreds of posts to go on. People could fairly and correctly make judgements on any number of things about me, for example, based on my posts. And if they’re wrong, I happily correct them and explain myself. It happens literally all the time.

People don't accuse you of being any type of monster, and if they did, they'd be wrong. That's sort of Cliff's point with the pedophile thing. There's a difference here. If someone is branded as a racist, that's... pretty much it for them. No one has to take them seriously on any topic. They're a pariah. It's one of the worst things you can be. You're unemployable, people don't want to be seen as interacting with you, and so forth. "Racist" is a horrible thing to be accused of being. Which is why it's so effective a rhetorical weapon to use against one's ideological opponents. It's like a cheat code.

You want to wait until someone says “kill all Black people, Whites are the superior race” before feeling comfortable using the term ‘racism’? Be my guest. But not everyone needs that level of bluntness to understand a position.

No, I want to wait until they've said something racist. Even then, the benefit of the doubt is often warranted - for example, using the term "thug" to describe a black man - pointing out the connotations and historical uses of the word is a reasonable response. When we had that discussion in this thread, there were a number of people who had simply missed the memo on the whole "thug" thing, and accusing those people of being racist would have been completely unfair. Now they know, because the response was to explain the context, not simply lob accusations.

You seem to think calling everything you don’t like “tribalism” is perfectly fine. So I guess you’re only worried about people calling out racism, for some reason, and not low level personal attacks, because those two are the same thing. They’re simply describing a way of thinking and actions that result in it.

First of all, no they're not. Successfully branding someone as a tribal ideologue does not result in them being a social pariah. Second, feel free to try to find the last time I used the word "tribalism", and what it was aimed at. No, I do not use that in anywhere near every disagreement I have on this board. I almost never do. This reads as a rather desperate "no, you!" attempt.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Philando Castile was a legal gun carrying American that had a license to have a gun on him . He even told the cop that stopped him he had a gun in his car and that he had his license with him . The cop told him to grab it and show it to him. With one hand up and reaching for his wallet the cop still shot him in the chest mutiple times from the passenger side where his gf was sitting. His child was in the back aswell.

Lawful gun owner who was trying to produce his license . We know what happened because his GF filmed the event from the passenger seat.

This is 100% not true. The police officer said the exact opposite in fact. By no means am I suggesting that the Castile shooting was justified, but what are you trying to accomplish when you spread false information like this?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Ark2

This is 100% not true. The police officer said the exact opposite in fact. By no means am I suggesting that the Castile shooting was justified, but what are you trying to accomplish when you spread false information like this?

You made the same mistake I did when I first read his post - I also thought he was saying that the officer told him to grab the gun and show it to him. I think combustiblefuel was saying the officer told him to grab his license and show it to him, which is accurate.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You made the same mistake I did when I first read his post - I also thought he was saying that the officer told him to grab the gun and show it to him. I think combustiblefuel was saying the officer told him to grab his license and show it to him, which is accurate.

Oops, my mistake. Sorry guys.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Second, feel free to try to find the last time I used the word "tribalism", and what it was aimed at.

Had to go back a whole seven days (plus two years, doh!). And of course it was related to a semantic argument about the meaning of a word, one you got wrong.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...postcount=1470

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Ark2

This is 100% not true. The police officer said the exact opposite in fact. By no means am I suggesting that the Castile shooting was justified, but what are you trying to accomplish when you spread false information like this?

He didn't ask him for his license and registration? Because he asks if he has them .

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by New Era

Had to go back a whole seven days. And of course it was related to a semantic argument about the meaning of a word, one you got wrong.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...postcount=1470

I don't normally bother with New Era, but I have to respond to this because it's in line with what I'm saying. Look at the date of that post. Is it seven days ago?

Now, do I assume that New Era said that because he's a liar who will take any opportunity, dishonest or otherwise, to try to disparage a poster he doesn't like, and is trying to mislead everyone? I could go through his history and find plenty of evidence to support that contention... Or is it possible that he simply didn't read the date? I think it's generally best to just avoid speculating altogether.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You made the same mistake I did when I first read his post - I also thought he was saying that the officer told him to grab the gun and show it to him. I think combustiblefuel was saying the officer told him to grab his license and show it to him, which is accurate.

I edited to clarify.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You're being silly. Any one of us can see, quite accurately, that Captain Crunch hates the Liberals. Locke hates Spiderman 3. 4x4 hates crappy drivers. Is that not an honest assessment of someone from their posting history? Can you not apply that to other subjects, like this one, as well?

Fascinating topic.

Yes and no. I’m sure some of my personality traits, likes/dislikes are immediately evident from my posts.

However, discerning meaning, bias and analyzing my thought patterns based on posts on an anonymous Internet forum is likely to yield different results than analyzing what I actually say and think in real life.

Which brings me to my next point, which version of me is the real me? The CP version, where I can, for the most part, post things with little to no real world consequences or judgements. Posting with racist biases on CP won’t cost me any friends or my job the way it would in real life so I imagine many more people show a slightly more raw side of their personality here because of the anonymity.

But on the other hand, because it’s CP and not “real life” I feel like many posters are inclined to post with exaggeration, lack of clarity and posts that are frequently of a more attention grabbing nature, due to the medium we’re using to communicate.

So while I think it’s probably fair to make some conclusions based on post history, I feel like there are too many variables that set online posting apart from real life that I’d take issue with any assessment that tries to establish that all online postings are equivalent in weight with meaningful real life thoughts and opinions.

Or maybe that’s just my own bias based on how I post online.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

People don't accuse you of being any type of monster, and if they did, they'd be wrong. That's sort of Cliff's point with the pedophile thing. There's a difference here. If someone is branded as a racist, that's... pretty much it for them. No one has to take them seriously on any topic. They're a pariah. It's one of the worst things you can be. You're unemployable, people don't want to be seen as interacting with you, and so forth. "Racist" is a horrible thing to be accused of being. Which is why it's so effective a rhetorical weapon to use against one's ideological opponents. It's like a cheat code.

No, I want to wait until they've said something racist. Even then, the benefit of the doubt is often warranted - for example, using the term "thug" to describe a black man - pointing out the connotations and historical uses of the word is a reasonable response. When we had that discussion in this thread, there were a number of people who had simply missed the memo on the whole "thug" thing, and accusing those people of being racist would have been completely unfair. Now they know, because the response was to explain the context, not simply lob accusations.

First of all, no they're not. Successfully branding someone as a tribal ideologue does not result in them being a social pariah. Second, feel free to try to find the last time I used the word "tribalism", and what it was aimed at. No, I do not use that in anywhere near every disagreement I have on this board. I almost never do. This reads as a rather desperate "no, you!" attempt.

No, nobody becomes a social pariah just because they're called racist. Racists become social pariahs on their own by being repeatedly racist. Donald Trump is a racist and he's the President and might win again, on the other hand. Calling out racism, even casual racism, is important and you're the perfect example of why. By reserving racism for only the most extreme examples, we effectively ignore or condone many of the much smaller forms and examples of racism. People like yourself begin to think it's the great boogeyman, and not some unfortunate yet changeable part of who we are. I've said racist things and held racist ideas. And maybe I would today, but I've been called out and thankfully had some life experience that rocked that dumb way of thinking into submission. If nobody had ever told me my thinking or actions were racist, I don't know that I ever would have paused to think about them that way.

Regarding the thug thing, considering I was one of the ones who explained the context and highlighted it's racist usage by pointing out how a poster only used it to refer to Black people and Black athletes, even those who did not fit any "criminal" description, I would think you'd at least give me the benefit of the doubt for not jumping to conclusions based on a single post or whatever. I choose my words carefully most of the time, and I apologise when I don't. I've chosen my words carefully here. I've also explained what, exactly, is racist in this situation. Agree or disagree! That's great! That's what discussion is for! Cliff calling for the word "racism" to be a bannable offence is certainly not opening up discussion any more than identifying racism is.

The last part also wasn't directed to you. So I'm not sure why you took it personally. Successfully branding someone as a tribal ideologue may not cause them to be a "social pariah," I guess, but it is a funny way of using a "personal attack" to discredit their thinking. I'm not sure it's any better than calling out racism, but it certainly isn't used any more nobly.

The point of this all, to get back on topic. Is that both the vast and brutal differences in the way both the cops and some as observes treat and address Jacob Blake vs Kyle Rittenhouse is a shining example of racism at work. No, it doesn't meet your threshold of saying "heil Hitler," but racism isn't always the most extreme example.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Ark2

This is 100% not true. The police officer said the exact opposite in fact. By no means am I suggesting that the Castile shooting was justified, but what are you trying to accomplish when you spread false information like this?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/us/ph...cam/index.html

Seems combustiblefuel was correct based on the video. The officer asked for ID and registration to which Castile complied. At that time Castile notifies the officer that he has a weapon in the vehicle and then attempts to produce his CCW as you are trained to do. The officer took the action of reaching for his wallet as an attempt to reach for the gun and opened fire. The officer screwed up, especially since he had another set of eyes on the opposite side of the vehicle who never made a move for his weapon. This stop procedure was so egregious that Minnesota changed the drivers manual to codify practices of a traffic stop when you have a weapon in the vehicle so there is clarity for all.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/us/mi...rnd/index.html

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You're being silly. Any one of us can see, quite accurately, that Captain Crunch hates the Liberals. Locke hates Spiderman 3. 4x4 hates crappy drivers. Is that not an honest assessment of someone from their posting history? Can you not apply that to other subjects, like this one, as well?

I don't hate Liberals, I hate this current government and the people in charge of the Liberal Party, I certainly have a dislike for the Trudeau family. I liked Paul Martin, I thought the Liberals had a chance to get the right leader in the more centrist elements of the party, but they went with a personality cult instead and we're paying for that. I certainly thought that Chretien was a corrupt vindictive man who tried to destroy his party on the way out.


Liberals are fine, politics is and should be about balance, the Liberal Party of Canada is not fine, and not Liberal.


Anyways this is the wrong thread for discussion of that sort.



In terms of what's happening in the States, its heartbreaking and horrifying and what we've seen is something that I never expected to see in my lifetime.


I don't even know where things go from here anymore. I mean for sure Trump and his cabal need to go, but I'm not even sure anymore if Biden is the guy that's going to fix this, I don't know if I know of any leader that's going to fix this and has the drive to force a teardown at a Federal, State and Municipal level that is going to change what's there now, and address the grevious wrongs that are happening down there.


Every Empire tumbles eventually, and maybe its time for the United States to be torn down and be forced to find a new vision that involves everything.


Its gross to see Cops shooting people in the back, its sickening seeing some 17 year old moron with a gun believing that he has the right to "Solve a problem". Its sickening that the United States has a leader who seems to be feeding on this.

[combustiblefuel]

An armed underage white militia member not even from Wisconsin who was minutes before paling around with the cops mintues before openly murders 2 people on film and tries to surrender when police with people telling the police he was the shooter was told to " get out of the way" by cops in the film was essentially let go to flee back home without arrest. Yet, we have posters arguing if the police have a bias towards race.

Instead of handing those white militia members water maybe they should have done a quick check to make sure they were permitted to open carry. Had they done there jobs they would have been able to determine that this killer was not legally allowed to have the weapon. He was underage and not even a citizen of Wisconsin. The police faclicated these events because they didn't do there jobs there. They saw white men with guns and just assumed they were legal.They even said "We appreciate you guys being here, We really do"

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't normally bother with New Era, but I have to respond to this because it's in line with what I'm saying. Look at the date of that post. Is it seven days ago?

Now, do I assume that New Era said that because he's a liar who will take any opportunity, dishonest or otherwise, to try to disparage a poster he doesn't like, and is trying to mislead everyone? I could go through his history and find plenty of evidence to support that contention... Or is it possible that he simply didn't read the date? I think it's generally best to just avoid speculating altogether.

I do apologize for the error on the date.

Looking at the full posting history I find that you don't use "tribalism" as a term that often, and it is more in response to the use of the term rather than bringing it up as a point of argumentation. It is more a defense mechanism IMO and probably related to your chosen profession and approach to rhetoric. I won't bother at responding to your little jab, as you're very guilty of the same. Again, spillover.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

An armed underage white militia member not even from Wisconsin who was minutes before paling around with the cops mintues before openly murders 2 people on film and tries to surrender when police with people telling the police he was the shooter was told to " get out of the way" by cops in the film was essentially let go to flee back home without arrest. Yet, we have posters arguing if the police have a bias towards race.

That event is kind of the canary in this coalmine IMO. A white person strapped with an AR-15 across his chest, and being chased by people screaming he just shot and killed people, is given a bottle of water and sent on his merry way. If that guy was black, being chased by a mob, and had an AR-15 slung across his chest, he would have been put down with extreme prejudice. It truly is a black and white issue on display right there.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, nobody becomes a social pariah just because they're called racist. Racists become social pariahs on their own by being repeatedly racist.

Then don't call them that until they've done so. This is tantamount to saying that people who aren't successfully branded as racists don't become pariahs. Obviously a post on a message board isn't going to do it. The point was that it is, in fact, a really bad thing to accuse someone of being, because if it were true, it's a completely horrible thing to be.

Calling out racism, even casual racism, is important and you're the perfect example of why. By reserving racism for only the most extreme examples, we effectively ignore or condone many of the much smaller forms and examples of racism.

I'd like you to be careful with your wording, as you (later in your post) claim is important to you. By phrasing it this way - "you're the perfect example of why calling out racism is important" - you've connoted that I am, if not racist myself, somehow culpable, or in league with people who are racist. In fact, I'm expressing a moral view about the evidence required before applying a label that would, if true, be a horrible and harmful label to be applied to someone.

Second, I agree that talking about racism, including the ways we might be exhibiting biases against other races without even realizing it, is important. I don't agree that "calling out" racism is the right way to approach that conversation, because the accusatory nature is not only not productive, but it suggests something about the person on the other end that often isn't true.

I've said racist things and held racist ideas. And maybe I would today, but I've been called out and thankfully had some life experience that rocked that dumb way of thinking into submission.

I don't think this is the best way to approach it in most cases.

Regarding the thug thing, considering I was one of the ones who explained the context and highlighted it's racist usage by pointing out how a poster only used it to refer to Black people and Black athletes, even those who did not fit any "criminal" description, I would think you'd at least give me the benefit of the doubt for not jumping to conclusions based on a single post or whatever.

I'm more than happy to. I also know that you sometimes get frustrated and worked up and cross the line, and the reason I know that is because on more than one occasion, you've said so. I'd like to think you make an effort to be constructive here. On some occasions, though, you do just skip right to the personal stuff, and that's what I'm objecting to here.

If you'd like an example, look back at post 4449 in this thread, which is a post you made. I didn't comment on it, but I remember thinking, that GGG was doing absolute yeoman's work in the posts preceding and following yours and was getting nowhere near enough appreciation for his efforts. In the midst of that, the personal stuff you posted there (in spite of the number of "thanks" it received, which is switfly becoming an inverse indicator of whether something actually was a good post) was pretty unfortunate, in my view.

I choose my words carefully most of the time, and I apologise when I don't.

I appreciate that. When you do that, I've no issue with your posts beyond potential (alright, let's be fair, likely) disagreement with their content. Sometimes you don't. Those instances are the only instances I'm objecting to. And of course, my posts on this subject are not directed at you specifically - far from it. There are plenty of other posters who do it. I was mostly talking to Psycnet because he was the one responding to me.

The last part also wasn't directed to you. So I'm not sure why you took it personally.

Really? I'm confused, then... when you said, "You seem to think calling everything you don’t like “tribalism” is perfectly fine" after quoting my post, who was the "you" that you were directing that statement at? I don't know how else you'd think I would take that besides personally.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Really? I'm confused, then... when you said, "You seem to think calling everything you don’t like “tribalism” is perfectly fine" after quoting my post, who was the "you" that you were directing that statement at? I don't know how else you'd think I would take that besides personally.

Cliff, who I quoted and was directly responding to.

I'm not sure why you'd take it personally. If I quote someone's post I'm responding to them, if I then add someone else's quote, I've switched to responding to them. Multi-quoting to respond to two different posts and people at once (just for clarification).

Regarding everything else in your post, I see your point and disagree with a lot of it but respect all of it, but I've said what I needed to say on it.