Sarah Palin: Black Lives Matter is a 'farce'

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Abner, Jul 9, 2016.

  1. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    I think this is a good example of both sides coming together:

    Police chief joins Black Lives Matter rally in Memphis

    Police chief joins Black Lives Matter rally in Memphis - BBC Newsbeat

    Rational discussion is something that good cops want. It's time to root out the bad cops, and stop the systemic racism that occurs in some police departments. The good cops and the community can come together on this, and forge new policies that do not protect racist police views (some) too long protected by police unions. It is next to impossible to fire some cops because of the unions, and I say that as a union man. If you are going to work in diverse neighborhoods, you need to be NOT racist, it's that simple, and the taxpayer should expect non racisim in police.

    This is way off topic, but I am reminded of the Rodney King incident. The cops would routinely refer to blacks as "guerillas in the midst", and other choice terms. Nothing bad happened to the cops saying those things. It was harmless after all, right! :(
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 18, 2016
  2. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Kizmet sent me a PM asking me to tone it down.


    I'm not tolerating personal attacks, even if they're perpetrated by moderators, egged on by assholes like Levicoff, or tamped down by the likes of Kizmet.

    Rather, stop the ad hominem where it begins, not at the response. It's a simple concept.

    I don't start these things. But I'm sick of abiding by them.
  3. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    ....aaaand now we've gone full nervous breakdown. As the concerned onlookers wonder if he needs a hug or an ambulance, he revels in the likelihood that they are far too distracted to take note of the rational dialectic he decided to abandon.

    I'm in awe.

    I would have thought that the most effective way to confound an issue enough to avoid having to address the ideological opposition would a strawman. I see now that your plan B is even stronger. You have, with impressive expediency, caused this discussion to become so bitterly poisonous that it can not possibly continue.

    Congrats. Great job! But that's not all!

    You have both expressed and demonstrated that you believe that personal attacks warrant personal attacks in retaliation. Right? Right! So, this gets so much better!

    It wasn't I who attacked YOU. It was YOU who attacked ME by falsely attributing an uneducated and downright evil point of view to me. Even if my pointing out your fallacy in logic was a personal attack (It was not. Rather, it was a sound inference based upon direct observation.), you might do well to consider to what I was referring. By your own system of morals (of which I do not agree, but to which you are entitled), since YOU started the ad hominem, your tit was responded to by my tat and we'd therefore be all even. Right?

    Well, that's IF I had attacked you personally (which I didn't) and IF your response to it was equal (which, it wasn't). Your response was, in fact, so absurdly disproportionate, mean spirited and vile that you have already far surpassed whatever minor offense I may have already caused you.

    You're the aggressor. Your the personal attacker. You're in the wrong. Yet, the amazing thing is, I'm still not angry, still not offended and still not responding to your personal attacks with more personal attacks of my own. That's not how I roll.

    If you had simply, calmly, informed me that you had taken sincere offense to anything I said I would have gladly apologized, clarified my intent, and invited you to continue with the discussion we were having...

    ...but that's just it, isn't it? We are so far off course that anyone who has read this far might have forgotten the points that you are not addressing or are too exacerbated to give them any consideration.

    I guess that means Rich wins after all.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 18, 2016
  4. Steve Levicoff

    Steve Levicoff Well-Known Member

    Okay, who are you, and what have you done with Rich? (Sounds like Kizmet was being quite diplomatic, and you blew a private communication into a public issue.)

    Seriously, Rich, you should lighten up. And not take all of this so seriously. And not take yourself so seriously. And not take me so seriously.

    Normally, I'd recommend that you learn how to drive a tractor-trailer. It's a neat challenge, great therapy, and a wonderful lifestyle. On the other hand, at the moment you seem like a proverbial danger to self and others, so it's probably best that you leave trucking to real men and women.

    Hey, that's it! Put on a dress and go to the ladies room. It's very P.C. these days. Then, as you're touching up your lipstick, you can look in the mirror and repeat to yourself, "I am happy being mediocre. I am happy being mediocre..."

    For what it's worth, Rich, I do take you seriously. Seriously disturbed. But funny, albeit in a pathetic sort of way.

    Now stop making it so easy for the rest of us.
  5. 03310151

    03310151 New Member

    Back to the topic at hand.

    Here's the reading list for the Cop killer in Baton Rouge.

    MAN-datory Reading List

    Quite enlightening.

    The only one on that list that I've read is the number 2 book. And that was one of the most inane books of drivel I've ever laid my eyes on. Anyway perusing this young losers website provides a good point/counterpoint to the actual discussion at hand. And I'll quote from the website (It'll be down real soon). From his review of The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander;

    "This is the title I immediately and robotically recite anytime someone is looking for a book recommendation. By far the most infuriating book I’ve read, but vital for anyone that’s looking to understand why the #BlackLivesMatter movement exists. Why Black people are angry. And why the black father is absent in most Black homes (done so intentionally via the system of White Supremacy)"
  6. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    There is a bit of irony in Sarah Palin trying to call out BLM for being "racist."

    The Tea Party, the only movement that seems to enjoy seeing her face and hearing her voice, followed a similar pattern of development. It started out small. Remember when the Tea Party was just a bunch of disgruntled people protesting outside of the post office? Then they were criticized because a few people at Tea Party rallies were saying some very racist things. Then the leaders of various TP factions came out and said "That's not us! This isn't an organized entity this is just a movement of individuals and they don't speak for the majority of us!" Then it evolved into a political force of its own.

    The irony, of course, is that we could accuse the movement that gave rise to Sarah Palin of racism for many of the same reasons she criticizes BLM.

    As for BLM I think the answer to a lot of the police accountability issues is actually a fairly straightforward piece of legislation. South Carolina has a Law Enforcement Division (SLED) which is a statewide agency that investigates, among other things, suspected crimes involving police officers. Rather than each department conducting their own internal investigation and either clearing or charging the officer this is a statewide, third party that can act outside of the sphere of influence of local politics.

    Here is a list of their activities. Look at how many former and current police officers were charged by this agency. Even if the number itself isn't particularly staggering the fact that it is all here on the web for public scrutiny does a lot for transparency.

    New York took a similar, but not as comprehensive step, when Gov. Cuomo signed an executive order that gives the state AG authority to investigate any police involved shooting in NYS (including NYC which is often exempt from this sort of thing). But the AG isn't a law enforcement officer and doesn't have the resources of a police agency. If every state had a similar process I think we'd see some different outcomes (but not always) to these investigations and give the public a greater sense of transparency.
  7. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    The SLED program seems like a good tool to keep the cops accountable, and the investigation process seems more efficient.
  8. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    There's already similar processes in place in most states. Here in MA, every police use of deadly force has to be investigated by the county district attorney, by statute.

    Have you noticed that almost every (if not every, I don't have the energy to look them all up now) police use of deadly force since the BLM foolishness started has eventually been ruled justified? As long as the President, other opportunistic politicians, and especially the media fan the flames whenever the police are forced to shoot someone of color, the riots and attacks on police will continue unabated.

    "Hands up, don't shoot" in regards to Michael Brown? A complete fabrication, proven false by an exhaustive investigation. That hasn't stopped the opportunistic race hustlers and vulture-like media from perpetuating the false narrative to this day.

    A society that makes enemies of its police had damn well better make friends with its criminals.
  9. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    Indeed, all of the questionable NYPD related deaths were investigated internally by the NYPD's Internal Affairs Division and then forwarded to the county (borough) DA who is required to present it to a grand jury. There are two major problems with that system:

    1. IAD officers are recruited from amongst the regular rank and file. Your loyalties might very well follow you into your new job like they did with this woman.

    2. The District Attorney maintains a close relationship with the police department doing the investigation. The best way I can illustrate this is the fact that one of the ADAs with whom my father worked with regularly attended my high school graduation party.

    The SLED system takes it out of the local level. The state investigates agencies at the local and county level. Even if the results of the investigation were exactly the same it eliminates, or at least minimizes, any appearance of cops taking care of one another.

    Well, that's not accurate. The officer who was caught on video allegedly planting a weapon next to a corpse after shooting him in the back ended with a murder indictment. Perhaps coincidentally, or perhaps not, this case occurred in SC.

    I think we could easily place equal blame on police unions for trying to blame the victim and trying to skirt police accountability by trying to paint any criticism of police as an "attack."

    I think there is considerable room for disagreement on Michael Brown. Differing accounts and no video evidence.

    Eric Garner was not violently resisting but was violently taken down. The press conference following the death of Tamir Rice indicated that officers commanded him to drop his weapon three times and he responded only by raising the weapon toward officers. Video evidence contradicted that version of events. Indeed it showed the police pulling up within feet of Rice and Rice going down within seconds. Alton Sterling was pinned on the ground when he was shot. Officers also allegedly seized the CCTV equipment BEFORE getting a warrant (the affidavit for the warrant includes the make and model of video recorder).

    Michael Brown was a straw that broke the camel's back. It isn't really about Michael Brown. It is about the treatment of people who are able to identify with Michael Brown as a concept.

    Look, let's stop the "most cops are good" narrative. It's bunk. You and I both know it. The only way a person can keep saying that with a straight face is if they fully and truly believe that the myriad small things that police officers get away with are an earned privilege for a dangerous line of work. The knowledge of this world existed well before BLM. It came from the ticket fixing scandal. It came from the speed traps in Florida. There is a lot of stuff that a good many cops get away with because there is really no one policing the police in most parts of the country. And minorities have historically received a disproportionate share of heavy handed policing.

    Actually I think the more apt warning is that if the police are willing to suppress constitutional rights, such as the freedom to assemble, they have violated their constitutional mandate and we, as a society, have an obligation to disarm them and replace them with a more civil body that is held accountable to the same law. Perhaps we can bring in some cops from Sweden to teach those cops who remain how to do their jobs.

    But if all of these cops are bound to be cleared then why resist a third party investigation and transferring the prosecution of police officers to the state, rather than the county, level? If you've done nothing wrong then you should have nothing to fear.
  10. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Thank you.
  11. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator Staff Member

    Rich has taken a Personal Message and made it public. This is generally considered to be bad form but since that particular genie is out of the bottle I feel like it's OK, or even necessary, to respond publicly as well.

    Sometimes things get a little out of hand, tempers flare and things get said that should not get said. The actual words you use to express yourself make a difference. Because DegreeInfo is "lightly moderated" we don't always catch these things as soon as they occur and nasty conversations can get a ways down the road before a Moderator steps in and takes action. That is what occurred in this case. At that point I sent PMs to the parties involved. A request to cool off. Typically when I send out such requests I get no direct response but I note that either the person takes a little vacation from the board or the character of their posts shifts in a positive way. We're all good either way. This is not what occurred in this most recent case.

    Now I believe that I understand Rich's philosophy. He feels that if someone takes a shot at him then he damn well is going to shoot back. There's nothing wrong with that so far. We've seen some passionate debates unfold on these pages and generally I think that's a good thing. What is not OK is to violate the TOS. It's not OK even if it's in self-defense. My thinking is like this: If someone burns down my house it's not OK for me to go to their house and burn it down in response. The impulse is understandable but it's not OK. If someone violate the TOS there is a process for addressing that problem. You may not always like the result but in these matters someone is always unhappy in the end.

    So Rich doesn't like it when someone behaves badly and he is committed to fighting fire with fire. If he had simply accepted my request and backed off a bit then we'd all see that the sun would come up and we'd all get another day to make a bit of progress on the Eightfold Path. But instead, he chose to tell me, and all of you, that he has no intention of following the TOS unless every other member is perfectly behaved. That is not acceptable. In order to be a member in good standing you have to agree to the TOS. All members are required to make this agreement in order to post, etc. By stating his intention to violate the TOS Rich has, essentially, opted out of his membership. Therefore, as of right now, Rich is banned. Normally this would have occurred privately and no one except the Mods would have known. As it is, it's public.

    One more thing. People who have been around this board for a while know that Rich has quit this board more than a few times. He always comes back. Because of this and because his offense was not really that big of a deal, his banning is for just one month. At that point he can rejoin our happy, mildly dysfunctional world on condition that he agrees to the TOS. Further problems will be dealt with similarly. Other members having similar problems will be dealt with in the same manner. Finally, I'd like to thank my fellow Mods for their consultation and I'd like to thank the other members who brought this matter to my attention.
  12. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Wow! Kiz, seems a little harsh, but then again, I am not a mod, and you know that I respect authority, so that is that. Rich is a good guy and has been a pioneer in this industry. He has a CONSTANT set of eyes on him just waiting in the dark, and I imagine that must get kind of weird sometimes. I am not trying to stir up the pot, just sayin.
  13. Phdtobe

    Phdtobe Well-Known Member

    I am with Abner. We got to start respecting our elders:lol:
  14. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    I've taken breaks from DI before as well. Sometimes you just need to get out and remember there is a whole wide world out there. Start using your DI time on Code Academy or Duolingo. Maybe download Pokemon Go and get some exercise.

    I hope Rich comes back after his month of vacation. I know he can get worked up. I know that when we mix Rich and Levicoff there is some sort of chemical reaction that kills all vegetation within 10 miles but Rich does have some absolutely interesting things to say. Though I've fought with him myself I have said, both in public and privately, that I respect him.

  15. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    He said no such thing. His position, clear even just from what has been presented so far, is not that he has a problem with the TOS, but that if moderators aren't going to say or do anything to enforce it when he's attacked, he feels justified in responding in kind. I'm not defending or supporting that position, but it's very different from what you said.

    In other words, since Rich broke custom first, you feel justified in responding in kind -- which is exactly what you just banned Rich for doing.

    Given that you've publicly misrepresented his position while simultaneously stopping him from being able to respond, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't come back, and this community would be the worse for it.

    Now I suppose I'll find out whether disagreeing with moderators' decisions is also grounds for banning.
  16. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    "I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't come back, and this community would be the worse for it."

    I sure hope he comes back, he has helped an awful lot of people. And as others have said, he is a very interesting fellow. Two doc degrees for gosh sake! That is quite a feat, and I don't recall him ever coming on here and bragging about it either.
  17. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Actually, we're in the process of setting up our own political prisons.
  18. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    You guys need any HR support? It's always been a sort of dream of mine to provide mid-level administrative support to a repressive regime.
  19. Phdtobe

    Phdtobe Well-Known Member

    Neuhaus you can't leave now. Rich is a great man. Please come back to Dl.
    Duolingo is awesome. I just finished the French tree. It took me over a year.
  20. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member Staff Member

    Nope, disagreement with the mods is not an excuse for banning.

Share This Page