Dubstepforum.com

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 2:06 pm**

nobody wrote:
DJoe wrote:
nowaysj wrote:
When you have a group of people that are so willing to disproportionately use deadly force, I wouldn't be surprised if officers perceived a greater threat when making arrests of black suspects. You can call it right or wrong, but I'm going to take your opinion with a grain of salt until you are the one making those arrests.
this is the bit i have an issue with.

You cannot claim that to judge someone's likelihood to resort to violence on the basis of their skin colour isn't racist.
That suggests that you think that black people naturally are more violent than white people.
which means you think that one race behaves in a different way to another race due to an difference in their biology.
Regardless of whether black people are statistically more likely to be violent or not. to use their colour of their skin to evaluate how likely they are to be violent is racist.
just like if you think a working class person is more likely to be violent, thats classist
you are judging them by their race
This thinking is based on racial theory or prejudice

also
This thinking is incorrect because 'A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it – as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools – did not exist.'

there is no scientific evidence for 'races'
If you have two dogs, they both bite you but one of them bites you a lot more frequently, is it wrong to be more cautious around it?

racist

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:01 pm**

nobody wrote:
DJoe wrote:
nowaysj wrote:
When you have a group of people that are so willing to disproportionately use deadly force, I wouldn't be surprised if officers perceived a greater threat when making arrests of black suspects. You can call it right or wrong, but I'm going to take your opinion with a grain of salt until you are the one making those arrests.
this is the bit i have an issue with.

You cannot claim that to judge someone's likelihood to resort to violence on the basis of their skin colour isn't racist.
That suggests that you think that black people naturally are more violent than white people.
which means you think that one race behaves in a different way to another race due to an difference in their biology.
Regardless of whether black people are statistically more likely to be violent or not. to use their colour of their skin to evaluate how likely they are to be violent is racist.
just like if you think a working class person is more likely to be violent, thats classist
you are judging them by their race
This thinking is based on racial theory or prejudice

also
This thinking is incorrect because 'A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it – as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools – did not exist.'

there is no scientific evidence for 'races'
If you have two dogs, they both bite you but one of them bites you a lot more frequently, is it wrong to be more cautious around it?

i know youre joking.
but yeah if one person was violent then yeah assume theyre violent
if you had a 2 groups of dogs, one that had black fur
the other had white
a white dog bites you
do you assume all the white dogs are more likely to bite you than the black one
you probably would assume
but youd be wrong to.

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:35 pm**

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/i-ha ... -messages/

Of course, all on nice paid vacays whilst someone decides whether a Policeman saying "I just hate niggers, that's all" is enough evidence of racism.

Do any other workers get leashes as long as Police? The army, I guess? What argument is there really to have people that conduct themselves like that in positions of power? All five should be in the stocks.

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:36 pm**

petition to ban die hard with a vengeance

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:37 pm**

see the dude getting choked to death & not indicted should be the burn this bitch down looting

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:39 pm**

if the policeman had choked him in a sexual manner he could have been prosecuted in the uk at least

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:44 pm**

if he had only sat on his face

nah tbh that wouldve just gotten the dude that took the video in more trouble

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:45 pm**

dickman69 wrote:see the dude getting choked to death & not indicted should be the burn this bitch down looting

That one's just bizarre to me... it seems so clean cut. A policeman kills someone using a move that has specifically been banned whilst the guy is trying to tell him he can't breathe... and it's all on video tape... and the coroner agrees it was homicide... how does that not end in a murder charge?!

And all over selling a few cigarettes? Unbelievably pathetic.

I'm amazed NYC isn't currently on fire.

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 4:07 pm**

The Police risk aspect is always brought up in these cases and seems to be a large part of what nowaysj is invoking. Police are supposedly in so much danger of being shot by criminals that shoot-first-talk-later and racial profiling constantly get defended... but I just did a quick check on Police deaths.

In 2013:

30 police officers in the whole of the United States were killed by gunfire (racial split unclear)

45 were killed in traffic accidents.

Some perspective, perhaps? Do we need to have a conversation about the dangers of radio cars? It's amazing these officers are prepared to put themselves into such deathtraps.

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 4:10 pm**

magma wrote:I just did a quick check on Police deaths

it sounds like you have too much time on your hands

have you considered taking up a hobby

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 4:13 pm**

soronery wrote:
magma wrote:I just did a quick check on Police deaths
it sounds like you have too much time on your hands

have you considered taking up a hobby

Yeah, 5 minutes on Wikipedia is a real stretch to find. I never get these posts... if you're not interested, just be quiet and let the grown ups talk. Perhaps you need a better hobby than wasting your life making witless, snarky comments to people trying to have a conversation?

I know you haven't been here long*, but you will grow to learn that I enjoy arguing, especially on a quiet day in the office when I'm getting paid an obscene amount of money for it.

Edit: *Checks join date. Oh, you have. Did you change usernames recently?

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 4:18 pm**

youre the one with the free time

why not read through my post history and find out for yourself

you strike me as the sort of person who enjoys a good puzzle

however irrelecvant the reward

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 4:19 pm**

I think you've misinterpreted my passion for your output. I've enjoyed this little exchange though. Thanks for your valuable inputs!

So are you doing this in time that isn't free? Wow, that's commitment.

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 5:24 pm**

get some bigger pants m8s

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:07 pm**

azealia banks' twitter rampage was ://

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:21 pm**

DJoe wrote:
nowaysj wrote:
When you have a group of people that are so willing to disproportionately use deadly force, I wouldn't be surprised if officers perceived a greater threat when making arrests of black suspects. You can call it right or wrong, but I'm going to take your opinion with a grain of salt until you are the one making those arrests.
this is the bit i have an issue with.

You cannot claim that to judge someone's likelihood to resort to violence on the basis of their skin colour isn't racist.
That suggests that you think that black people naturally are more violent than white people.
which means you think that one race behaves in a different way to another race due to an difference in their biology.
Regardless of whether black people are statistically more likely to be violent or not. to use their colour of their skin to evaluate how likely they are to be violent is racist.
just like if you think a working class person is more likely to be violent, thats classist
you are judging them by their race
This thinking is based on racial theory or prejudice

also
This thinking is incorrect because 'A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it – as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools – did not exist.'

there is no scientific evidence for 'races'

I appreciate you DJoe. I don't know how to respond given your final statement. The mental contortion that you can achieve to believe that, I think prevents us from dialoging.

All the best.

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:59 pm**

charles barkley making most sense tbh

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:13 pm**

You gotta get real to get in the paint.

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:30 pm**

Maybe that can be you the left, phig, gatz? Maintain your illusions, and you've got a shot.

Posted: **Sat Dec 06, 2014 6:18 am**

DJoe wrote:
i know youre joking.
but yeah if one person was violent then yeah assume theyre violent
if you had a 2 groups of dogs, one that had black fur
the other had white
a white dog bites you
do you assume all the white dogs are more likely to bite you than the black one
you probably would assume
but youd be wrong to.

If dogs with white fur were going around biting people a lot more than dogs with black fur it's perfectly normal to want to keep your distance, no?

etc

Dubstepforum.com

Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots

Re: Ferguson riots