charlotte riots

[Snagged]

1 hour ago, Taikugemu said:

 

We humans may be sharing 99 qualities together but if there's just one differing quality of we don't share, like they color of their skin, that can be enough to make us enemies to each other

It's amazing how a little difference can create such a huge divide 

[Troj]

Even if people can ultimately agree that systemic bias exists, and that the courts and law enforcement harbor implicit and explicit racist attitudes, the real question is, how do you begin to untie that Gordian knot?

How do you rewrite implicit, unconscious biases, some of which have lived in the collective consciousness for well over a hundred years?

In the quest to correct for injustices and unfair bias, how do you ensure that you correct enough to heal old wounds, but don't over-correct for them in ways that can foster new biases and new injustices, or potentially lead to clouded or corrupted judgment?

I don't have any easy answers for that one.

[Zeke]

4 hours ago, Troj said:

\

How do you rewrite implicit, unconscious biases, some of which have lived in the collective consciousness for well over a hundred years?

 

In this country, it's like finding a permanent cure to the common cold. I am grateful that my grandfather isn't alive to see this on both ends. 

6 hours ago, Cannakitty said:

This supremacy thread should be locked.

As much as some of the comment urk me, this thread will not be shut down. You can either challenge the opinions in a constructive manner without resorting to obvious pot shots, or just ignore the thread and let it run its course. 

[Cannakitty]

There is absolutely nothing constructive about this thread.

[#00Buck]

7 minutes ago, Cannakitty said:

There is absolutely nothing constructive about this thread.

Sure there is. 

We now know that the man who was shot wasn't sitting under a tree reading a book.

In fact there were no books present at all and the guy had a gun. 

The looting and rioting were completely unjustified. 

All the terrible things that happened were based on lies.

That's pretty constructive. 

[Cannakitty]

You people are giving me exposed veins. I'm going to vape and play video games.

[#00Buck]

Just now, Cannakitty said:

You people are giving me exposed veins. I'm going to vape and play video games.

Don't go!

I'm sure some more uncomfortable truths that shatter your world view are just around the corner.

I don't want you to miss them. 

[Zeke]

3 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Sure there is. 

We now know that the man who was shot wasn't sitting under a tree reading a book.

In fact there were no books present at all and the guy had a gun. 

The looting and rioting were completely unjustified. 

All the terrible things that happened were based on lies.

That's pretty constructive. 

That's only under the assumption that the guy was brandishing his weapon at the police. If not, then it brings up the ol' Jim Crow argument that "Black people shouldn't exercise their second amendment rights because black people are dangerous with guns". I don't know what exactly went on, nor will I pretend to know all the facts. Aside from the racist rhetoric on Facebook and me posting "Low quality bait" pictures in response to "baboons shouldn't have weapons", all I know that a guy was shot.

I will agree that looting and rioting is bad. All forms. 

[Tsuujou]

4 minutes ago, Cannakitty said:

I'm going to vape and play video games.

Yo, see me in Rivals of Aether. First to 5.

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, Zeke said:

That's only under the assumption that the guy was brandishing his weapon at the police. If not, then it brings up the ol' Jim Crow argument that "Black people shouldn't exercise their second amendment rights because black people are dangerous with guns". I don't know what exactly went on. Aside from the racist rhetoric on Facebook and me posting "Low quality bait" pictures in response to "baboons shouldn't have weapons", all I know that a guy was shot.

I will agree that looting and rioting is bad. All forms. 

Yes you don't know what exactly went on.

But the police chief has access to all the car and body camera video that shows exactly what happened. 

Yes rioting and looting are bad. Especially when they are done based upon lies. 

If he had a gun on him and didn't drop it the shooting was totally justified. 

 

[Zeke]

3 hours ago, #00Buck said:

 

If he had a gun on him and didn't drop it the shooting was totally justified. 

 

Holstered or brandishing? 

 

Anyways, my aunt is in Charlotte and I have been debating on contacting her to see if she's okay, but I am still angry at her. 

[Jtrekkie]

3 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Holstered or brandishing? 

 

Anyways, my aunt is in Charlotte and I have been debating on contacting her to see if she's okay, but I am still angry at her. 

 

Just ask her. 

 

Come on. Grudges aren't cool.

[Zeke]

3 hours ago, Jtrekkie said:

 

Come on. Grudges aren't cool.

Fiiinnnneeeee....

[Red Lion]

One of the biggest problems with the riots is that aside from turning a whole town upside down it took away any visibility from the community leaders and peaceful protesters trying to hold their own demonstrations. While the local black community leaders have tried to make it clear that they do not approve of the rioting, making repeated calls for peace and order, the actual #BLM movement has remained disturbingly silent. Even so all of the destruction was done in the name of BLM there hasn't been any attempts from followers of the movement to distance the group from the violence. 

As stated before riots, violence and shit like this isn't unusual for charlotte, this is just the first time it's happened on such a large scale and it was done in the name of an organization and not just a bunch of angry drunks who got mad their favorite bar was closed on Saturday. 

I don't buy that most of the people participating in the riots were actually assed about the guy who got shot. They went straight for the stores and started grabbing cash and luxury items while others started beating people up and setting things (and cameramen) on fire. Thing about rioters is that most of them are opportunistic scavengers. That's not a race exclusive thing either, every time any kind of thing goes down you have a group of people that use the ensuing chaos and high emotions to try and get away with busting up businesses and stealing shit. The problem is that because this particular riot was done under the name of an organization it appears to be an "organized riot" with a united mindset. 

 

[MalletFace]

36 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

If he had a gun on him and didn't drop it the shooting was totally justified. 

The NC Supreme Court has made it clear that this is a state of morals defined by law, so the law decides if it is justified for law enforcement to do that here. Here's the law.

While a person is prohibited from actually using force against a law enforcement officer under NC General Statutes § 14-51.3,there is no law - common or otherwise - that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm in the presence of an officer in NC. While a case in 1843 stated that "[one] shall not carry about this or any other weapon of death to terrify and alarm, and in such manner as naturally will terrify and alarm a peaceful people," it also confirmed that "the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun."

As it is the manner one carries the gun that determines what the officer may do in NC, one has to return to the G.S. to see when an officer may reasonably use force against an individual carrying a firearm. I mentioned the second half of this part of the statute in an earlier post, but NC law says

• Subject to the provisions of subdivision (2), a law-enforcement officer is justified in using force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary:
  • To prevent the escape from custody or to effect an arrest of a person who he reasonably believes has committed a criminal offense, unless he knows that the arrest is unauthorized; or
  • To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force while effecting or attempting to effect an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent an escape.
• A law-enforcement officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection only when it is or appears to be reasonably necessary thereby:
  • To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;
  • To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; or
  • To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon him as a result of conviction for a felony.

For an officer to have been justified in using deadly force against Scott under NC law, the officer would have had to have believed that Scott had committed a criminal offense during the entirety of the encounter, the officer would have had to have exhausted the intermediate uses of force required by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Directives, the officer would have had to have reasonably believed Scott was about to use deadly force either through a threat or reasonable display, and the officer would have had to have exhausted the use of intermediate weapons as required by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Directives before using a weapon of death and destruction.

As that's the case, if it ever came into question during the event that

1. Scott was actually the individual they were intended to arrest by warrant,
2. that Scott was able to reasonably respond to their verbal commands,
3. that they had attempted to use intermediate degrees of force, or
4. that Scott actually intended to use deadly force,

the use of deadly force by the officer could reasonably called unjustified.

[#00Buck]

5 hours ago, Zeke said:

Holstered or brandishing? 

 

Anyways, my aunt is in Charlotte and I have been debating on contacting her to see if she's okay, but I am still angry at her. 

It it's in your holster you can't "drop it" because you are not holding it. 

[Gamedog]

There is no such thing as a peaceful BLM protestor

[#00Buck]

2 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

There is no such thing as a peaceful BLM protestor

Take a look at all the "legitimate forms of peaceful protest" that are going on in Charlotte. 

 

[Gamedog]

I remember when people said Mike Browns parents were holding peaceful protest and then video emerged of them inciting violence 

 

good times 😊

[#00Buck]

15 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

I remember when people said Mike Browns parents were holding peaceful protest and then video emerged of them inciting violence 

 

good times 😊

You mean the one where they incite violence by encouraging people to burn portions of the city to the ground?

 

[Victor-933]

10 hours ago, Cannakitty said:

This supremacy thread should be locked.

 

6 hours ago, Cannakitty said:

There is absolutely nothing constructive about this thread.

 

6 hours ago, Cannakitty said:

You people are giving me exposed veins. I'm going to vape and play video games.

[#00Buck]

9 minutes ago, Victor-933 said:

 

 

I legit LOL'd at this.

Well played indeed!

[Zeke]

1 hour ago, Gamedog said:

There is no such thing as a peaceful BLM protestor

Pictures from my local area's protest:

 

 

They host local meetings at my library branch to better assist in the community, like patrols and community relations with the police like a community town hall. The police also run after school programs at my branch for kids. 

Such thugs. Loom at them. :V

[DevilishlyHandsome49]

14 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Pictures from my local area's protest:

 

 

They host local meetings at my library branch to better assist in the community, like patrols and community relations with the police like a community town hall. The police also run after school programs at my branch for kids. 

Such thugs. Loom at them. :V

The fuck are you doing? Actually showing the peaceful side of things instead of JUST looking for the bad stuff? Stop being so fair

[Zeke]

3 minutes ago, DevilishlyHandsome49 said:

The fuck are you doing? Actually showing the peaceful side of things instead of JUST looking for the bad stuff? Stop being so fair

I am showing "bias leftist" propaganda. How dare I do such a thing. 

Mind you, BLM's what I'd consider a "Hydra group". Each area runs itself differently and each "chapter" should be looked at differently. You may have one state that turns their movement into like a community outreach and neighborhood town center with the occasional protests in the park. Others may turn into an NWA video.

[FenrirDarkWolf]

2 hours ago, Victor-933 said:

 

 

Dev?

@DevilishlyHandsome49 I hope your ass gets better fren :c

[TrishaCat]

On 9/23/2016 at 6:35 PM, Another Ampers& said:

please understand that I am asking this sincerely

what is the functional difference between malice, ignorance, stupidity, greed, fear, willful obliviousness

like I'm not going to say "wow this service that abled people are entitled to doesn't have accommodations for the disabled, but it's not because they WANT to be mean, it's because they make more money otherwise" and then I tilt my head and wag my finger @ the concept of capitalism, the studio laughtrack plays

I'm not going to say "gee I would feel angry about my disability making me dangerous in the eyes of ppl who are fully willing to shoot ppl they percieve as a threat but my murder wouldn't be an act of malice, it'd be because recognizing disability as A Thing is too upsetting for the poor police officers"

like I really don't care to differentiate between the "mean" ableists who have hitler posters hanging up in their room and try to push against laws that help disabled ppl / push for our segregation and that "nice" ableists who just want the world to be a happy place and that means making me invisible

I believe its extremely important to make a distinction as to why someone reacts the way they do something. Not because the end result is different functionally as in the end, someone still gets hurt, but rather, because how one responds to these situations should be different. Intent plays a critical role in criminal cases, for example.

To explain, an ignorant person can be corrected and taught. If one does not know something, one can teach them something and they can improve as a person as a result, thus resulting in more positive results and less negative ones. To punish these people and treat them with the same kind of frustration as people who do things out of malice or some other evil way of acting so to speak is bad as the people who are attacked due to their ignorance will not understand why they are being attacked and cannot correct themselves as long as they are treated in this manner. Contempt doesn't cure ignorance; it just confuses people and makes people feel as if they are being wronged, as they would not know why they are on the receiving end of such frustration.

However, people who act out of malice know they are doing something wrong or are in the belief that they are in the right not because of ignorance, but because of some blind hatred. While negative results come from both of these groups, one can learn and improve through being taught while the other is being directly harmful to society in a way that is much more difficult to correct. A reaction of contempt towards these people makes some level of sense as its pressure on them to become better people. As they already understand what they're doing, the contempt and punishment both seem more fitting. 

As Troj said, how one reacts to people should very much depend on the intent and reason for what they do. It is why Manslaughter is not considered as bad a crime as 1st degree murder; one is planned and a result of malice. The other is an accident, perhaps a result of a lack of knowledge or foresight.

If you are not properly accommodating for disability then you are participating in eugenics

I would consider eugenics more of a result of an intent or belief in something. A lack of an accommodation is not necessarily the result of someone wanting a group of people to have a lower quality of life and/or die and/or keep from reproducing.

[Gamedog]

In a week there will be pics/tweets/videos of those people inciting violencw

just watch

happens every single time

like the video of that "innocent gun carrier" who turned out to be an illegal gun owner who smoked pot with his girlfriend while his daughter was in the car 

[Butters]

15 hours ago, Socketosis said:

He also liked dogs.

Not as much as the furries on this forum. ;3

[Another Ampers&]

2 hours ago, Battlechili said:

To explain, an ignorant person can be corrected and taught. If one does not know something, one can teach them something and they can improve as a person as a result, thus resulting in more positive results and less negative ones.

have you been reading my posts in this thread because I have been

very patient lmao like I feel like there is concrete evidence within this thread that "correcting and teaching" an ignorant person does not always work and in some cases gets reinterpreted as malice in itself

like for "correction and teaching" to work the person has to A) value your insight and B) respect you on the level of being a person with autonomy and I think the responses to my patience with "well you're too disabled to know what being disabled is like" is kind of demonstrable of that

[Falaffel]

6 hours ago, #00Buck said:

I legit LOL'd at this.

Well played indeed!

your text is too excited

calm your text pls

[Red Lion]

Thing is there WERE peaceful demonstrations in charlotte. There were attempts by the black community to reach out and be civil and discuss the issue of police brutality. Agree or disagree with their point those people went about it the right way and tried to actually address the problem. There is a large part of NC's black community that cares about people and tries to stick together for the  black and white citizens who live there. They called repeatedly for the rioting to stop. They were IGNORED. 

Peaceful demonstrations were pretty much lost under the swarm of  idiot rioters who only want to spread destruction and get their hands on money and goods. If the rioters had cared one bit about injustice, police brutality or anything else they wouldn't have trashed a city and senselessly tried to hurt people who had nothing to do with the problem. I still believe BLM needs to vocally condemn them because it's a very very large scale of destruction and it's being done in the name of that movement. When you're a movement you stand, on some degree, together, when you don't speak out against members of your organization when they commit crimes then you are, by your silence, condoning their actions. 

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kristine-marsh/2016/09/21/cnn-guest-justifies-violence-charlotte-blm-protesters-are-burning

Or you could, go on the public news and try to justify the violence as "Burning down the plantation".

I've also recently heard that most of the rioters who have been rounded up aren't even from here. 70% of them had out of state IDs. 

Folks, these people aren't even OUR people (not that our people are great, especially in fucking charlotte). They came in from other states to stir shit up. "Burning down the plantation" indeed. I'm sure that's easy to do when you don't even have to live there, when you don't make your home in the place your destroying or work at the businesses you're looting.

Just..fuck rioters. Black, white, whatever. Fuck rioters, they do more harm than good and there is nothing anyone can say that convinces me what went on on Charlotte was justified. 

Stuff like this is important. But it loses a lot when people set the highway on fire and kill each other. People who don't even fucking live here coming in in the name of BLM and fuck everything up.

I'm probably not going to post more tonight. I did something kinda bad and fell off the wagon after 4 years of sobriety so tomorrow I probably won't feel great about myself but I'm still kinda tipsy right now so I'm in "fuck it" mode. No inhibitions bby. 

[Socketosis]

If the sensible people want to do peaceful protests and not be grouped in with the rioters or the crazies, they should probably start another movement that publicly condemns all of the shit that has tainted whatever good that came from BLM. Or if one exists, join that one. It obviously won't get as much attention because the media won't care about it, but it might create a drift in the black community much like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X did. Honestly BLM is doing more damage than good at this point.

[Another Ampers&]

20 minutes ago, Socketosis said:

If the sensible people want to do peaceful protests and not be grouped in with the rioters or the crazies, they should probably start another movement that publicly condemns all of the shit that has tainted whatever good that came from BLM. Or if one exists, join that one. It obviously won't get as much attention because the media won't care about it, but it might create a drift in the black community much like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X did. Honestly BLM is doing more damage than good at this point.

ppl were saying this about mlk at the time but also if we're going to hold mlk up as the posterchild for peaceful racial discourse and black patience we should mention that he was shot by the gov't anyway

[MuttButt]

5 hours ago, Another Ampers& said:

 also if we're going to hold mlk up as the posterchild for peaceful racial discourse and black patience we should mention that he was shot by the gov't anyway

daaamn, that's fucking crazy, how come I've never heard of this?

[Another Ampers&]

12 minutes ago, MuttButt said:

daaamn, that's fucking crazy, how come I've never heard of this?

media informs public knowledge and ideas

It's like how everyone has heard about the woman who sued mcdonalds for millions because her coffee was too hot but no one knows the actual context behind the case

There's just certain things that people in charge of media Don't Talk About for one reason or another and it only enters public consciousness thru alternative means

[MuttButt]

3 minutes ago, Another Ampers& said:

media informs public knowledge and ideas

It's like how everyone has heard about the woman who sued mcdonalds for millions because her coffee was too hot but no one knows the actual context behind the case

There's just certain things that people in charge of media Don't Talk About for one reason or another and it only enters public consciousness thru alternative means

Yeah, I remember looking into that myself, and the pictures of her burns were absolutely fucking horrid. 

[#00Buck]

Police body cam video is up on all the major news networks now. 

Man was not sitting reading a book.

He was standing next to his truck and when told to stop and put his hands up he reaches into his pants to pull something out and the pant let comes up as he's pulling something out. That's when officers shoot. Again a gun was found at the scene by the police. 

[Socketosis]

7 hours ago, Another Ampers& said:

ppl were saying this about mlk at the time but also if we're going to hold mlk up as the posterchild for peaceful racial discourse and black patience we should mention that he was shot by the gov't anyway

Well yeah, racism was a lot more common and accepted back then. Of course he was going to get a lot of backlash for it. Difference being, the sensible, open minded people are more likely to support your cause when you aren't proving that the racists are right. I understand the whole anger thing and pushing back against your oppressors, but these violent outbursts are targeting people that aren't even involved.

[Red Lion]

13 minutes ago, Socketosis said:

Well yeah, racism was a lot more common and accepted back then. Of course he was going to get a lot of backlash for it. Difference being, the sensible, open minded people are more likely to support your cause when you aren't proving that the racists are right. I understand the whole anger thing and pushing back against your oppressors, but these violent outbursts are targeting people that aren't even involved.

I wouldn't even say the riots prove racists are right. But it doesn't make the BLM movement look good when they fail to separate themselves from it and actively try to justify the looting.

Which again, the looters "burning down the plantation" weren't even locals. They don't have to stick around clean up the mess when they get done destroying everything.

[Socketosis]

5 minutes ago, Red Lion said:

I wouldn't even say the riots prove racists are right. But it doesn't make the BLM movement look good when they fail to separate themselves from it and actively try to justify the looting.

Yeah, bad wording on my part. I should've said it gives more support to what the racists say.

[Troj]

16 minutes ago, Red Lion said:

I wouldn't even say the riots prove racists are right. But it doesn't make the BLM movement look good when they fail to separate themselves from it and actively try to justify the looting.

Which again, the looters "burning down the plantation" weren't even locals. They don't have to stick around clean up the mess when they get done destroying everything.

Yep--which is why it's not entirely accurate to tsk-tsk at people for "destroying their own neighborhoods."

But yes, from a PR standpoint, I always root for movements and groups to distance themselves from the shits, because detractors and critics inevitably use the shits to discredit the whole movement.

Of course, the other consideration here is that people have definite blind spots when it comes to which groups they expect to justify themselves, and which they don't. Whites as a whole race are rarely asked to answer for the behavior of bad whites or individual groups of bad whites, for instance.

[willow]

10 hours ago, Gamedog said:

like the video of that "innocent gun carrier" who turned out to be an illegal gun owner who smoked pot with his girlfriend while his daughter was in the car 

and this justifies shooting him because...?

2 hours ago, #00Buck said:

He was standing next to his truck and when told to stop and put his hands up he reaches into his pants to pull something out and the pant let comes up as he's pulling something out. That's when officers shoot

initially he was in his car. the police footage only shows the moments leading up to him being shot and after. that being said, deadly force is only justified if officers believe the person poses an imminent threat to them or others. the video they released only shows Scott walking away from them with his hands at his sides before being shot. so if he had a gun, it wasn't being pointed at anyone

in other words, he wasn't posing much of a threat

Quote

Again a gun was found at the scene by the police. 

But was it his gun? that's the real question. both the video released by the family and the police show that there was no gun near him. as a matter of fact, in the video released by the family, you can see a gun fall out of an officer's holster twice. yet there's a gun lying at his feet in the initial photos released to the news with his prints on it supposedly

one could argue that they kicked it away, but it still doesn't explain where it came from

[Socketosis]

8 minutes ago, Troj said:

Whites as a whole race are rarely asked to answer for the behavior of bad whites or individual groups of bad whites, for instance.

Nope, but it does happen with other groups of oppressed people.

[MalletFace]

1 hour ago, #00Buck said:

Police body cam video is up on all the major news networks now. 

So is the blunt they could apparently see from across the road.

1 hour ago, #00Buck said:

Man was not sitting reading a book.

He was apparently burning the devil's leaf.

1 hour ago, #00Buck said:

He was standing next to his truck and when told to stop and put his hands up he reaches into his pants to pull something out and the pant let comes up as he's pulling something out.

I'm glad you say that, as chief Putney, the rest of the department, and the family couldn't see what you described. We'll have to get you down here to say something to the public.

3 minutes ago, Socketosis said:

Well yeah, racism was a lot more common and accepted back then. Of course he was going to get a lot of backlash for it. Difference being, the sensible, open minded people are more likely to support your cause when you aren't proving that the racists are right. I understand the whole anger thing and pushing back against your oppressors, but these violent outbursts are targeting people that aren't even involved.

The problems Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out that he said cause this kind of thing still seem to be around, and MLK considered those individuals doing things like rioting to be pretty sensible and reasonable.

Quote

The policymakers of the white society have caused the darkness; they create discrimination; they structured slums; and they perpetuate unemployment, ignorance and poverty. It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society. When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, let us also demand that the white man abide by law in the ghettos. Day-in and day-out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; and he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provisions for civic services. The slums are the handiwork of a vicious system of the white society; Negroes live in them but do not make them any more than a prisoner makes a prison. Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.

MLK also felt that it was impossible to convince the masses - people he contested were foolish and of a closed mind as a result of accepting their conditions - and the oppressors - a people he says will not willingly make concessions - without some type of crisis.

Quote

The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation...Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily... We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

In the absence of an individual or a unified movement that seeks a middle ground between doing nothing and violently disassembling society, MLK suggested that violence may be better than doing nothing. He does speak against riots, but he condemns the violence of government as being more morally corrupt and the origin of violent resistance.

Quote

It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.

MLK also believed that everybody is involved in the issue, and anybody not acting to change the system - even those oppressed - is inherently benefiting and promoting the system. He was pretty clear in how he felt about those people, too.

Quote

To accept passively an unjust system is to cooperate with that system; thereby the oppressed become as evil as the oppressor. Non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. The oppressed must never allow the conscience of the oppressor to slumber. Religion reminds every man that he is his brother's keeper. To accept injustice or segregation passively is to say to the oppressor that his actions are morally right. It is a way of allowing his conscience to fall asleep. At this moment the oppressed fails to be his brother's keeper. So acquiescence - while often the easier way - is not the moral way. It is the way of the coward.

All of this is general communist/socialist/anarchist theory that he took and tied a 1940s' Christian ribbon on. If he wasn't a Christian, I do not doubt MLK would have had his hand in the lot of violent rebellion. MLK even admitted that violent action lends itself to negotiation - or even a lack of a need to negotiate - but he condemned it on Christian principles of his time.

[Onnes]

2 hours ago, Troj said:

...

Of course, the other consideration here is that people have definite blind spots when it comes to which groups they expect to justify themselves, and which they don't. Whites as a whole race are rarely asked to answer for the behavior of bad whites or individual groups of bad whites, for instance.

This year we're living through a very interesting case study on this topic with the Trump nomination. Quite a few people seem to expect loosely organized movements such Black Lives Matter to behave coherently, with a shared message and shared responsibility. With Trump, we've seen many extreme alt-right groups emerge as highly visible supporters of a major political campaign. He, and his surrogates especially, actual employees of his campaign, have pandered to this new base of support instead of distancing themselves. I feel there's quite a large gap between how people react to Black Lives Matter, and how they react to the dominant right-wing political movement.

[Gamedog]

"And this justifies killing him??"

yes because he was a fucking suspect caught in an armed robbery earlier that dat

[Another Ampers&]

7 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

"And this justifies killing him??"

yes because he was a fucking suspect caught in an armed robbery earlier that dat

this reminds me of that one popular anime from a few years ago where a kid gets a weapon that can kill people and decides to use it "for good" by killing known criminals but then he gets hyped up on the power trip and starts being more lenient in his definition of criminals as he runs out of prison population just to keep his status and eventually starts killing suspected criminals

anyway I think he was meant to be a bad guy because in the end he's killing the elderly for being "useless" but I can understand how some people might be mistaken in their interpretation

[Tsuujou]

Death is not a very fitting punishment for robbery, imo. 

[Socketosis]

6 hours ago, MalletFace said:

...

Welp, I'm ignorant.

3 hours ago, Another Ampers& said:

this reminds me of that one popular anime from a few years ago where a kid gets a weapon that can kill people and decides to use it "for good" by killing known criminals but then he gets hyped up on the power trip and starts being more lenient in his definition of criminals as he runs out of prison population just to keep his status and eventually starts killing suspected criminals

anyway I think he was meant to be a bad guy because in the end he's killing the elderly for being "useless" but I can understand how some people might be mistaken in their interpretation

Uh, Death Note?