BLM a terrorist organization??

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

This about sums things up.
http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=51f_1474633969

There's much truth in this piece that some on here simply will not accept.

There's definitely a societal problem, but these riots are merely excuses to act like f**king idiots- thugs is the more appropriate term, but I didn't want to use it lest some MT members spit their chai latte all over their trimmed beard and fashionable clothing which they have managed to buy with their privileged spot in society.

I didn't click it, but what's the truth people won't accept?

And also you hit two prejudices in one paragragh: one with the thug usage, and one about a person who might see that as a prejudicial remark. Not bad.

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills, your first paragraph outlines the prejudice, and your second one makes excuses to maintain a certain status quo, and your third one is taking away from the topic at hand, which is police abuse by way of prejudice. Taking the thought of how blacks are arrested for crimes at a higher rate is the root of the prejudice belief that blacks are more prone to violence and crime. This belief is the main starting point for police abusing their power. Under stress, this belief will be more likely to surface and change behaviors, e.g. a white person reaching into their jacket is getting their I.D., and black person reaching into their jacket is getting their gun. The fact that there is no correlation between crime rates in urban areas vs. the rate unarmed blacks get shot by cops reveals that some police departments do a good job with hiring and training in this area so that the individual is more aware of how to not let prejudice factor into the interactions, and other do a bad job in this area and let it fester and grow. Police discrimination is not just an urban issue. It happens in smaller towns and rural areas as well. The black guy on my street is no more prone to illegal behavior than I am, but people think that he is.

No.

I could comment about much of this, but I'll try and limit myself to your claim that my second paragraph is an excuse to maintain the status quo. Give me a f**kibg break.

I spoke to it earlier: the impoverished will remain impoverished until the well offs (I believe I said you were one of these) are prepared to share (more taxes). I spoke to improving social programming in meaningful fashion so that there is hope for people born to poverty. Christ man... inner city kids don't even know what it's like to eat fresh food periodically (given the lack of markets vs fast food chains).

You speak to better training for law enforcement. Well pshew! Maybe... just maybe... that might result in fewer young black men getting shot when they didn't need to be. It doesn't fix the bigger problem though.

Of course, the aforementioned means very little if you are telling me- correctly so- that there is an equitable balance of whites and blacks in America's inner cities. I'm under the impression your country's worst neighbourhoods are reserved for your black population.

Get to the underlying issues and then the point of the problem disappears (in my mind).

Blacks, whites, purples... makes no difference given an equal playing field.

This made me think of a training that I went to a while back; "The Culture of Poverty". It's very hard for someone born into poverty to escape that culture. That's not to say that there are not those that are very successful at breaking the poverty strings that hold others down. It's the mindset of "My parents worked at McDonalds, so I am going to work there too". Not only that, but many families that see a family member becoming successful will intentionally or unintentionally try to sabotage that success based on the fear of being left behind or not being important to that successful person anymore. This may manifest by guilting the successful person for leaving their "values" or heritage behind or by them "disowning" them because they have different financial, moral, or world views. It's not as simple as giving them more money. Escaping poverty often requires individuals to "divorce" those irresponsible people that keep trying to drag them back in...which can be pretty difficult when the underlying relationships are nurturing or loving ones. This can be seen in inner-city neighborhoods, rural low income farming communities, 3rd world countries... When approaching and educating impoverished communities, you must keep in the back of your mind that plenty of them have no interest in change because change=inconsistency, and consistency to an impoverished person is like gold. After school programs that take children beyond the confides of their known worlds are helpful, but there is no switch that you can flick to make a person want to leave loved ones behind, even if those loved ones are sucking the life blood out of them. To change a culture, you must disrupt it. How can these cultures be disrupted to the point that drives people to decide to say "fuck this place, I'm finding something better" in a non-violent, humane way?
Maybe BLM should put their effort into these things instead of standing out in the middle of highways and enticing riots...although burning down these communities may actually be a pretty effective strategy...I kid, I kid.

Are you saying that cops would stop shooting unarmed blacks and respect their rights if they would break the cycle of poverty?

I'm saying that the cops are not the main ones killing unarmed blacks. Are you saying that BLM blocking roadways and burning towns is going to stop cops shooting unarmed black people and respect their rights?

It can initiate change within particular police departments, similar to how other departments have changed.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

This about sums things up.
http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=51f_1474633969

There's much truth in this piece that some on here simply will not accept.

There's definitely a societal problem, but these riots are merely excuses to act like f**king idiots- thugs is the more appropriate term, but I didn't want to use it lest some MT members spit their chai latte all over their trimmed beard and fashionable clothing which they have managed to buy with their privileged spot in society.

I didn't click it, but what's the truth people won't accept?

And also you hit two prejudices in one paragragh: one with the thug usage, and one about a person who might see that as a prejudicial remark. Not bad.

'Prejudices' in your mind the way you see things. Right?

Yah. No.

(except for the really chill hipster descript... I'll admit to that one)

Yeah, yes. There's a reason the term thug is used for someone after certain criteria is met, otherwise people would use the universal 'criminal'.

No you're wrong.

Vancouver rioters were called thugs. There was nary a black person among them.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

This about sums things up.
http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=51f_1474633969

There's much truth in this piece that some on here simply will not accept.

There's definitely a societal problem, but these riots are merely excuses to act like f**king idiots- thugs is the more appropriate term, but I didn't want to use it lest some MT members spit their chai latte all over their trimmed beard and fashionable clothing which they have managed to buy with their privileged spot in society.

I didn't click it, but what's the truth people won't accept?

And also you hit two prejudices in one paragragh: one with the thug usage, and one about a person who might see that as a prejudicial remark. Not bad.

'Prejudices' in your mind the way you see things. Right?

Yah. No.

(except for the really chill hipster descript... I'll admit to that one)

Yeah, yes. There's a reason the term thug is used for someone after certain criteria is met, otherwise people would use the universal 'criminal'.

No you're wrong.

Vancouver rioters were called thugs. There was nary a black person among them.

I gather it's not the same or comparable just because there are hardly any black people in Vancouver or most of the rest of Canada outside of Toronto, and there is no big racist problem in general. This whole thug thing just isn't relevant north of the border. Apparently the word has a lot of context in the USA alone. Which makes a lot of sense. Why would it have such strong racial overtones in a place where none of the issues or factors that created the racism exist?

Yes, here, in Canada, thugs are still just any random asshole, whatever the colour of their skin, who are acting like aggressive, destructive, criminal, and/or violent dicks for no good reason (and 99.9% or the time they're guys, obvi).

Because idiots assert that the word has a special meaning in their world and try to convince others the same.

A thug is a thug whether they are black, white, red, or lavender. The word is not discerning: it is bestowed upon anyone who acts like one.

dignin said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

This about sums things up.
http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=51f_1474633969

There's much truth in this piece that some on here simply will not accept.

There's definitely a societal problem, but these riots are merely excuses to act like f**king idiots- thugs is the more appropriate term, but I didn't want to use it lest some MT members spit their chai latte all over their trimmed beard and fashionable clothing which they have managed to buy with their privileged spot in society.

I didn't click it, but what's the truth people won't accept?

And also you hit two prejudices in one paragragh: one with the thug usage, and one about a person who might see that as a prejudicial remark. Not bad.

'Prejudices' in your mind the way you see things. Right?

Yah. No.

(except for the really chill hipster descript... I'll admit to that one)

Yeah, yes. There's a reason the term thug is used for someone after certain criteria is met, otherwise people would use the universal 'criminal'.

No you're wrong.

Vancouver rioters were called thugs. There was nary a black person among them.

I gather it's not the same or comparable just because there are hardly any black people in Vancouver or most of the rest of Canada outside of Toronto, and there is no big racist problem in general. This whole thug thing just isn't relevant north of the border. Apparently the word has a lot of context in the USA alone. Which makes a lot of sense. Why would it have such strong racial overtones in a place where none of the issues or factors that created the racism exist?

Yes, here, in Canada, thugs are still just any random asshole, whatever the colour of their skin, who are acting like aggressive, destructive, criminal, and/or violent dicks for no good reason (and 99.9% or the time they're guys, obvi).

Because idiots assert that the word has a special meaning in their world and try to convince others the same.

A thug is a thug whether they are black, white, red, or lavender. The word is not discerning: it is bestowed upon anyone who acts like one.

You sure are on a roll tonight. Calling us idiots is uncalled for. I'm done "debating" with you tonight. You are all kinds of nasty, you should take a break.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

This about sums things up.
http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=51f_1474633969

There's much truth in this piece that some on here simply will not accept.

There's definitely a societal problem, but these riots are merely excuses to act like f**king idiots- thugs is the more appropriate term, but I didn't want to use it lest some MT members spit their chai latte all over their trimmed beard and fashionable clothing which they have managed to buy with their privileged spot in society.

I didn't click it, but what's the truth people won't accept?

And also you hit two prejudices in one paragragh: one with the thug usage, and one about a person who might see that as a prejudicial remark. Not bad.

'Prejudices' in your mind the way you see things. Right?

Yah. No.

(except for the really chill hipster descript... I'll admit to that one)

Yeah, yes. There's a reason the term thug is used for someone after certain criteria is met, otherwise people would use the universal 'criminal'.

No you're wrong.

Vancouver rioters were called thugs. There was nary a black person among them.

I gather it's not the same or comparable just because there are hardly any black people in Vancouver or most of the rest of Canada outside of Toronto, and there is no big racist problem in general. This whole thug thing just isn't relevant north of the border. Apparently the word has a lot of context in the USA alone. Which makes a lot of sense. Why would it have such strong racial overtones in a place where none of the issues or factors that created the racism exist?

Yes, here, in Canada, thugs are still just any random asshole, whatever the colour of their skin, who are acting like aggressive, destructive, criminal, and/or violent dicks for no good reason (and 99.9% or the time they're guys, obvi).

Because idiots assert that the word has a special meaning in their world and try to convince others the same.

A thug is a thug whether they are black, white, red, or lavender. The word is not discerning: it is bestowed upon anyone who acts like one.

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

I'm always surprised when people talk about "thug" as though it only refers to black people. Merriam Webster still defines "Thug" simply as "a violent criminal".

Language changes. It always has but I'm not so sure the rapid fire changes taking place in language today is a wise move. It makes communication less precise and more open to misunderstanding and imprecision. And this doesn't even touch upon how it relates to dumbing down. I know people who actually think "prolly" is the correct word meaning "likely" as is probably.

I don't think the apparent change in the US meaning of the word thug has anything to do with ebonics and/or whatever the word might be for the non-African-American-specific application of such, like you see with what all the texting and tweeting is doing to the written language, such as "prolly" for probably. Totally different issue (and yes, I agree that's disturbing).