police kill unarmed black man

muskydan said:

Cliffy6745 said:

People are saying that facts don't matter in a thread that was started about 2 separate situations combined into one. Can't make this stuff up.

The guy "reaching" into the car was

Am I missing something?

where's your sensitivity man !...be carful or the train crew will call you the "R" word. HAHAHHAHAHHA

Godfather.

Cliffy6745 said:

People are saying that facts don't matter in a thread that was started about 2 separate situations combined into one. Can't make this stuff up.

The guy "reaching" into the car was Tulsa

The riots referenced are Charlotte

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Cliffy6745 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Cliffy6745 said:

People are saying that facts don't matter in a thread that was started about 2 separate situations combined into one. Can't make this stuff up.

The guy "reaching" into the car was Tulsa

The riots referenced are Charlotte

He wasn't "reaching" into his car (parked in the middle of the highway no less)?

I don't know what he was doing and that's not the point. People are referencing "facts" yet the thread was started without and ounce of thought combining tulsa and Charlotte into one situation .

Bunch a fucking geniuses, I tell ya

Well I was wondering what you were implying by placing quotation marks around 'reaching'.

HughFreakingDillon said:

Stickman12 said:

Go Beavers said:

PP193448 said:

People are just too sensitive nowadays... Where's Dave Chappelle when you need him

What's interesting is what group people think are too sensitive.

Stickman12 said:

Words are words and in America you have the right to use them freely even if other find them offensive. You can use any adjective you want to describe a group or persons behavior. Get over it. Savage can apply to an animal as well. No need to differentiate the color of fur to determine if it's offensive or racist.

Yes, words are words. And as you pointed out, savage also applies to animals, and in this case (and historically) racial minorities. If you say something, expect hearing something in response.

It comes down to intent. If you can prove to me that the word was intentionally used as a racist reference then you have something. If not then the word is just an adjective(fierce, violent, uncontrolled), noun(primaries and uncivilized), or verb(attack or maul). The word can describe a group or people or a person regaurdless of their skin color. Appearently in your world if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then calling it a duck is offensive and racist.

historical context also matters. if the duck was named a duck by a bunch of oppressive geese 200 years ago because of the colour of its feathers and the shortness of its neck, then yeah, calling it a duck is offensive and racist.

Go Beavers said:

Stickman12 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Stickman12 said:

Go Beavers said:

PP193448 said:

People are just too sensitive nowadays... Where's Dave Chappelle when you need him

What's interesting is what group people think are too sensitive.

Stickman12 said:

Words are words and in America you have the right to use them freely even if other find them offensive. You can use any adjective you want to describe a group or persons behavior. Get over it. Savage can apply to an animal as well. No need to differentiate the color of fur to determine if it's offensive or racist.

Yes, words are words. And as you pointed out, savage also applies to animals, and in this case (and historically) racial minorities. If you say something, expect hearing something in response.

It comes down to intent. If you can prove to me that the word was intentionally used as a racist reference then you have something. If not then the word is just an adjective(fierce, violent, uncontrolled), noun(primaries and uncivilized), or verb(attack or maul). The word can describe a group or people or a person regaurdless of their skin color. Appearently in your world if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then calling it a duck is offensive and racist.

historical context also matters. if the duck was named a duck by a bunch of oppressive geese 200 years ago because of the colour of its feathers and the shortness of its neck, then yeah, calling it a duck is offensive and racist.

"Boy" was also used to talk down to slaves back in the day. Didn't know I was calling my three male offsprings a derogatory racist name all these years.

Relationship context also matters.

dignin said:

Everyone is soooooo politically correct when all I'm trying to do is tell it like it is, calling a spade a spade...... I thought republicans would appreciate that, but apparently they are very sensitive and easily offended. Wear your racism with pride, we are in Trumps new america after all. Make America Racist Again!!