|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Apr 22, 2021 11:22:07 GMT -5
Justice was served. Justice does not equal revenge. When people take to the streets and protest for justice, they don't even know when they get it. They want to get even. I can empathize, and I'm not even against it, but don't bluster about justice and complain when it's had.
My high school theology teacher warned us many times, and I'll paraphrase here: "When you die, if you're fortunate enough to arrive at the pearly gates, don't ask for justice, ask for mercy. Most people don't want justice (meaning they won't like the consequences)."
|
|
|
|
Post by higheredguy on Apr 22, 2021 14:12:02 GMT -5
Justice was served. Justice does not equal revenge. When people take to the streets and protest for justice, they don't even know when they get it. They want to get even. I can empathize, and I'm not even against it, but don't bluster about justice and complain when it's had.
My high school theology teacher warned us many times, and I'll paraphrase here: "When you die, if you're fortunate enough to arrive at the pearly gates, don't ask for justice, ask for mercy. Most people don't want justice (meaning they won't like the consequences)."
I don't believe the thousands of people who protested around the country (including many current HC students) desired to get even instead of justice. |
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Apr 27, 2021 8:31:31 GMT -5
Why, because they said it? Is burning down businesses because they want to balance the scales? Do they feel that's a just outcome? No. They're mad as hell, and they don't want to take it lightly. So if they merely admitted that, I would connect with them on a human level and judge their actions on the merits of their arguments. Instead, I'm told that no matter what "I could never understand," and that whatever they do is just and whatever I do is bigoted. So I'll stay in my hole and wish everyone good luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Apr 27, 2021 9:13:14 GMT -5
Why, because they said it? Is burning down businesses because they want to balance the scales? Do they feel that's a just outcome? No. They're mad as hell, and they don't want to take it lightly. So if they merely admitted that, I would connect with them on a human level and judge their actions on the merits of their arguments. Instead, I'm told that no matter what "I could never understand," and that whatever they do is just and whatever I do is bigoted. So I'll stay in my hole and wish everyone good luck. This thread will probably be gone soon. The overwhelming majority of those who marched and protested were peaceful and respected the law. That has been documented repeatedly. Labelling everyone as violent is a political tactic to discredit the movement. |
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Apr 27, 2021 9:30:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Apr 27, 2021 9:30:07 GMT -5
Why, because they said it? Is burning down businesses because they want to balance the scales? Do they feel that's a just outcome? No. They're mad as hell, and they don't want to take it lightly. So if they merely admitted that, I would connect with them on a human level and judge their actions on the merits of their arguments. Instead, I'm told that no matter what "I could never understand," and that whatever they do is just and whatever I do is bigoted. So I'll stay in my hole and wish everyone good luck. This thread will probably be gone soon. The overwhelming majority of those who marched and protested were peaceful and respected the law. That has been documented repeatedly. Labelling everyone as violent is a political tactic to discredit the movement. You're right on every sentence in your post. I will say that the labeling you mention in the last sentence may have been written in a broad way, but my intention was specifically and only with respect to the bad actors of the group. |
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Apr 27, 2021 12:01:21 GMT -5
Here’s the problem. I believe an overwhelming majority of Americans and virtually everyone here agrees on many issues with regard to racial injustice. Yet, somehow, that agreement never comes to the surface because no one ever wants to give an inch or speak the entire truth because that’s not the way the extremists permit the dialogue to happen. I assume we all agree that looting and burning by those who thrive on chaos and destruction is bad. These elements clearly exist all over the country. In Portland, Oregon, they have permitted nightly violence and destruction for months and the “leaders” just acted like it was all okay because it was being done for the right reasons. It wasn’t. Anyone with two eyes can see that bad elements are out there just seeking chaos and destruction. By doing it under the BLM flag, they get media cover and anyone who suggests they’re doing something wrong is racist. The Portland mayor has finally admitted what he has to have known for a long time but did nothing about. Now he’s trying to take his city back from those whose only agenda is destruction. Good luck to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Apr 27, 2021 12:27:36 GMT -5
/\ Depending on one’s news source, one might not realize the level of extraordinary violence you are accurately referencing.
Which would make the Mayor’s plea (if one even has heard it) very mysterious.
|
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Apr 27, 2021 12:28:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Apr 27, 2021 12:52:17 GMT -5
No one said this was as simple as ending the Portland violence. It was one example where there’s an issue we should all agree on but no one will say it. And the media won’t cover it. I really wish people would try to engage on the issues in good faith rather than turning to the media for their views. Talk to some real people. I know lots of Republicans. None of them think what Chauvin did was acceptable. When your first thought is “well, 46% of Republicans are racist and I know this because I saw a headline on The Hill that said there was a poll that said that they didn’t think Chauvin should be convicted so that’s the real problem,” the people who want to divide us have already won. Not that I want to engage on every one of these polls designed to help sell a specific narrative, but the devil is, of course, in the details. The question in the poll was whether the jury reached the right verdict when it convicted him of murder. That is a different question than whether what Chauvin did was right or wrong or whether he should be convicted of something other than murder. In response to that question, 309 people who self-identified as Republicans said they reached the wrong verdict. Does that make them racists or bad people? I don’t think so. But the people selling the “Republicans are racist” narrative sure want you to believe it. |
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Apr 27, 2021 13:05:18 GMT -5
Interestingly, there has been no serious allegation (and none at all in the trial) that Chauvin acted with racial animus. Notwithstanding the narrative.
The 60 Minutes interview with the state attorney general (who is more than willing to pursue racial issues, BTW) makes this clear:
Scott Pelley: Was this a hate crime?
Keith Ellison: I wouldn't call it that because hate crimes are crimes where there's an explicit motive and of bias. We don't have any evidence that Derek Chauvin factored in George Floyd's race as he did what he did.
So the fact 10% of Democrats, for example, disagree with the verdict does not imply they are racists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Apr 27, 2021 13:23:12 GMT -5
/\ Depending on one’s news source, one might not realize the level of extraordinary violence you are accurately referencing. t t Coast Which would make the Mayor’s plea (if one even has heard it) very mysterious. I would suggest you access local Portland news sources for relatively accurate information instead of the networks that portray gloom and doom. Neither Oregon live or The Columbian and the three TV stations are reporting the dire information that you mention. Before the pandemic, I spent a lot of time in Portland, as my daughter lives in the area, and is licensed to practice in Oregon and Washington State. The one major issue that all West Coast and Sun Belt cities have is homelessness and panhandlers. You will see that issue in Phoenix as well as Portland. True there are knuckleheads that are self aggrandizing that live for their moment before the camera, but for the average citizen in the Portland area, the real concern are wildfires especially in the Columbia River Gorge and the resulting air quality. At points last summer, my grandchildren could not go outside to play due to the smoke and particulates in the atmosphere. Read the following to get a better prospective instead of sources that are predicated on generating fear, grievance, fragility and anxiety. www.oregonlive.com/#/0www.columbian.comwww.koin.comwww.kgw.comwww.kptv.com |
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Apr 27, 2021 14:02:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Apr 27, 2021 14:06:58 GMT -5
Interestingly, there has been no serious allegation (and none at all in the trial) that Chauvin acted with racial animus. Notwithstanding the narrative. The 60 Minutes interview with the state attorney general (who is more than willing to pursue racial issues, BTW) makes this clear: Scott Pelley: Was this a hate crime?
Keith Ellison: I wouldn't call it that because hate crimes are crimes where there's an explicit motive and of bias. We don't have any evidence that Derek Chauvin factored in George Floyd's race as he did what he did.So the fact 10% of Democrats, for example, disagree with the verdict does not imply they are racists. Ellison was addressing the legal standard. He didn't have actionable evidence of explicit bias. I'm guessing if you asked him whether implicit racial bias played a role in Floyd's killing he would say 100%. |
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Apr 27, 2021 14:51:11 GMT -5
Interestingly, there has been no serious allegation (and none at all in the trial) that Chauvin acted with racial animus. Notwithstanding the narrative. The 60 Minutes interview with the state attorney general (who is more than willing to pursue racial issues, BTW) makes this clear: Scott Pelley: Was this a hate crime?
Keith Ellison: I wouldn't call it that because hate crimes are crimes where there's an explicit motive and of bias. We don't have any evidence that Derek Chauvin factored in George Floyd's race as he did what he did.So the fact 10% of Democrats, for example, disagree with the verdict does not imply they are racists. Ellison was addressing the legal standard. He didn't have actionable evidence of explicit bias. I'm guessing if you asked him whether implicit racial bias played a role in Floyd's killing he would say 100%. Along the same lines my first reaction to Fr. B’s letter (beyond pointing out that one of the four he names (Adam Tolefo) was not black) was that there is no evidence the officer who shot Adam Toledo knew his race. Neither actually, nor implicitly, nor subconsciously, nor magically. None at all. I’m sure there is some new type to be invented to sustain the narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Apr 27, 2021 14:58:19 GMT -5
Have we ever been a healthy society.....
Rampaging and chaos in the streets has occurred since mankind gathered in cities and towns with their respective tribes and decided there will always be a “we thus they”. Subsequently armed conflict ensued.
In the US, since the founding of the republic.......Boston Tea Party, New York City Draft Riots in 1863, Wiskey Rebellion from 1791 to 1794. In Worcester, Springfield and Western Massachusetts..... there was Shays Rebellion in 1786 and 1787.
Of note, we are approaching the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa Massacre that occurred on May 31 and June 1, 1921. Prior to Tulsa, there was the Wilmington Insurrection of 1898. History is telling. One should always study and not be swept up in the moment of current events.
Hope they identify the license plates of the people causing the damage and determine their demographic information as Ted Wheeler mentioned. Wonder how many people are actually from Portland and the immediate vicinity, or are they from Boise, or Spokane or Coeur d’Alene. What sinister motives are underway when you peel the onion for their provocation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Apr 27, 2021 16:01:47 GMT -5
I stand corrected about reporting regarding the Columbia and Oregon Live. I read both sources on an ongoing basis and the recent incident reported appears to be isolated. Nothing mentioned in today’s Portland media.
Based on direct conversations with my friends in the Portland area, there is a select cadre of people that likes to cause mayhem and chaos for the sake of chaos. Some people like to cause bad trouble and they should face the consequences. Others.....at times find it necessary to cause “Good Trouble”. Again, I question where are their original domicile....Boise, Spokane, Coeur d’Alene.For those familiar with the Pacific Northwest, you will understand the reference.
When I am in Portland area, where I spend almost a month each year, I am more concerned about air quality, getting trapped by a wildfire, a 5 plus richter earthquake, a Tsunami when I am in Astoria or Cannon Beach or the possible eruption from one of the volcanos in the Cascadia Subduction Zone, than a group whose identity and specific cause is questionable in a confined area.
There are equality issues that must be addressed. The group that appears to be causing the occasional chaos is not one of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Apr 27, 2021 16:09:04 GMT -5
I think one could divide protesters into several groups:
(1) honest citizens who object to a police action or court decision
(2) "adventurers/curiosity seekers"-- people who see a "happening" and want to be close to the action
(3) opportunists--these people, who may come from one of the other groups, see an opportunity for grabbing "free stuff" and thake advantage of it
(4) agitators/insurrectionists/nihilists/haters--these people look to agitate the crowd, cause chaos and destruction, anything that will cause harm tp the USA . They don't really care about the issue at hand, they just want to cause destruction and foment discord.
I make no estimate of the % of each group that constitutes the Portland protests cohort or those elsewhere. I do think those who do not believe there is a solid percentage in Group 4 are naive.
|
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Apr 27, 2021 16:47:35 GMT -5
I stand corrected about reporting regarding the Columbia and Oregon Live. I read both sources on an ongoing basis and the recent incident reported appears to be isolated. Nothing mentioned in today’s Portland media. Based on direct conversations with my friends in the Portland area, there is a select cadre of people that likes to cause mayhem and chaos for the sake of chaos. Some people like to cause bad trouble and they should face the consequences. Others.....at times find it necessary to cause “Good Trouble”. Again, I question where are their original domicile....Boise, Spokane, Coeur d’Alene.For those familiar with the Pacific Northwest, you will understand the reference. When I am in Portland area, where I spend almost a month each year, I am more concerned about air quality, getting trapped by a wildfire, a 5 plus richter earthquake, a Tsunami when I am in Astoria or Cannon Beach or the possible eruption from one of the volcanos in the Cascadia Subduction Zone, than a group whose identity and specific cause is questionable in a confined area. There are equality issues that must be addressed. The group that appears to be causing the occasional chaos is not one of them. There is a group in Portland that causes some amount of destruction almost every night. Some nights are worse than others. Some nights involve fires or smashed windows or serious injuries. This has been going on for a long time. I suspect many of them are not from Portland but I don’t know that it really matters to my point. This behavior has been ignored by most of the media and excused/encouraged by local officials for months. Those involved are routinely not prosecuted. Why? These people should be prosecuted and roundly condemned by every sane person. But they’re not. Just like people who stormed the capitol should be universally condemned but they’re not. They’re idiots who caused a dangerous situation and should be prosecuted for whatever is out there. These are things we should all agree on but people are very selective in what outrages them and what is reported depending on who is doing the thing in question. My whole point in all of this that all of the people in between the crazies at both ends of the spectrum should be unified on so many things but we’re not. And the crazies are winning the day. |
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Apr 27, 2021 16:55:38 GMT -5
The problem is there are politicians out there who are calling for protesters to get more confrontational and that language is tolerated. Not to mention, in places such as NYC, there is a growing thought that the police have the handcuffs on their hands when it comes to enforcing order, so chaos has largely ensued -- just look at how violent crime has skyrocketed over the past year or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Apr 27, 2021 19:24:09 GMT -5
Remember the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Eastern Oregon in 2016 that was a 41 day occupation on federal property. The organizers were identified and prosecuted, but not convicted. Still trying to understand why they thought they were exempt and could graze their cattle without paying the fee to the Bureau of Land Management.
In each case being discussed, Portland and Malheur the participants behavior is unacceptable and should be considered an anathema to a civilized society.
I am still not sure how this thread went off track to Portland Oregon.
|
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Apr 27, 2021 20:58:23 GMT -5
I Remember the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Eastern Oregon in 2016 that was a 41 day occupation on federal property. The organizers were identified and prosecuted, but not convicted. Still trying to understand why they thought they were exempt and could graze their cattle without paying the fee to the Bureau of Land Management. In each case being discussed, Portland and Malheur the participants behavior is unacceptable and should be considered an anathema to a civilized society. I am still not sure how this thread went off track to Portland Oregon. The Portland detour was my fault. I was trying to use that as a simple example of an issue where there should be broad agreement and condemnation of the actions in question but we’re so lost for a number of reasons that we can’t even generally agree on that (though I appreciate you engaging and trying to have a rational discussion). |
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Apr 28, 2021 7:23:06 GMT -5
From this morning's WSJ. Some may agree and others disagree with the writer's perspective but these facts included by Mr. Riley are funny things. The WSJ was free when I was on campus. I wonder if it still is and even more so whether it is read within selected offices on the hill. Hmm . .
Race Relations in America Are Better Than Ever
Obsessed with theories of ‘systemic racism’ and ‘unconscious bias,’ the media ignores good news.
By Jason L. Riley
April 27, 2021 6:15 pm ET
You wouldn’t know it from recent headlines, but there’s good news about race in the U.S. today. The pessimism peddled on the left by pundits and elected officials is in the service of an ideological agenda, and it’s probably doing more real harm to race relations than any actual racism.
A big part of the problem is that the political press has never come to grips with Donald Trump’s election in 2016. The media didn’t anticipate it, refused to accept it, and have been willfully misinterpreting the reasons for it. Their preferred narrative is that racists, sexists and xenophobes put Mr. Trump in the White House, thus demonstrating that hatred and bigotry in the U.S. are ascendant. But is it true?
First, it’s worth clarifying (yet again) that former supporters of Barack Obama, not white nationalists, were the voters responsible for Mr. Trump’s election. Only occasionally did the establishment media acknowledge this in its reporting. “It’s clear that large numbers of white, working-class voters shifted from the Democrats to Mr. Trump,” reads a New York Times dispatch from 2017. “He flipped millions of white working-class Obama supporters to his side. The voter file data makes it impossible to avoid this conclusion.”
If journalists haven’t avoided this conclusion entirely, they’ve spent far more time pushing an alternative explanation that cites supposed racial retrenchment in the U.S. as the main driver of Mr. Trump’s political success. The fruits of this effort are laid bare by political scientist Eric Kaufmann in a compelling new report from the Manhattan Institute. Using survey data, Mr. Kaufmann notes that racial attitudes have been trending toward more tolerance for well over half a century, even as black politicians (Mr. Obama, Kamala Harris ), professional polemicists (Ta-Nehisi Coates, Ibram X. Kendi ) and major media organs (the New York Times’s “1619 Project”) continue to insist otherwise.
According to Mr. Kaufmann, “at a time when measures of racist attitudes and behavior have never been more positive, pessimism about racism and race relations has increased in America.” Terms like “systemic racism” and “unconscious bias” are increasingly common, but white racist views have been in steady decline, whether with regard to having black co-workers, classmates or neighbors.
Intermarriage trend lines also undermine the notion that racial bigotry in America is a growing problem. “Approval of black-white intermarriage rose among whites from around 4% in 1958 to 45% in 1995 and 84% in 2013,” Mr. Kaufmann writes. “In 2017, fewer than 10% of whites in a major Pew survey said that interracial marriage was a ‘bad thing,’ ” and the “actual share of intermarried newlyweds rose from 3% in 1967 to 17% in 2015.” In fact, intermarriages involving Asians, Hispanics and Jews have all risen sharply over the decades, yet progressive intellectuals want to lecture the rest of us on how to be “antiracist.”
What explains the wide perception of racial retrogression at a time when surveys show that racial attitudes and behaviors have never been better? Mr. Kaufmann cites ideology, partisanship and the media’s ability “to frame events and social trends.” The political left has a stake in overstating both the existence and effects of racism so that it can advocate for more and bigger programs to combat it. And the media has long been willing to do the left’s ideological bidding. Social media allows for wide publicity of statistically rare incidents that are in reality getting even rarer, giving the impression that isolated and infrequent events “happen all the time.”
This research goes a long way toward explaining last summer’s street protests and why the nation was on pins and needles last week while awaiting the George Floyd verdict. The media has fed the public a story line about race and policing that serves the interests of activists and liberal politicians but that cannot be supported by facts and data.
Fatal encounters between police officers and black suspects are always unfortunate and sometimes tragic, but they’re also exceedingly rare. Nor is it rational to conclude, without supporting evidence, that these encounters are driven by racial animus. As Mr. Kaufmann notes, “police killings of African-Americans declined by 60%-80% from the late 1960s to the early 2000s and have remained at this level ever since.” According to a Washington Post database, police shot and killed 999 people in 2019, including 424 whites and 252 blacks. Twelve of the black victims were unarmed, versus 26 of the white victims. In a country where annual arrests number more than 10 million, if those black death totals constitute an “epidemic” of police use of lethal force against blacks, then the word has lost all meaning.
It’s becoming clearer by the day that journalism’s cavalier disregard for providing the necessary context in its coverage of racial controversies, and the willingness of so many in the media to play down or ignore the truth about America’s racial progress, is not simply wrong but also dangerous.
Navigate accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Apr 28, 2021 9:30:52 GMT -5
I believe Jason Riley's father-in-law is Holy Cross professor David Schaefer
|
|
|
|
Post by alum on Apr 28, 2021 9:40:32 GMT -5
I believe Jason Riley's father-in-law is Holy Cross professor David Schaefer He is. Riley is an open borders kind of guy (i.e. more, much more legal immigration.) |
|
