Black Lives Matter Enough For A Thread

[bigolsmitty]

Just use some common sense and don't try to turn what people say into something much larger than it is. NYU saying he doesn't have sympathy for someone interrupting Trump in a room full of his supporters getting rouged up does not equal him not having sympathy for protesters who got gunned down. Yes I could follow your "logic" to make a case of NYU looking as bad as you want him to be, but it's simply not what he said and I don't get the impression that it's how he feels.

I don't get why I'm supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe your "common sense" and "impression" tells you that you should, given that he's okay with certain levels of violence by racists against activists that he doesn't like, I'm less inclined to do so.

There are plenty of people defending the shooters, and the arguments they're making are quite similar to the ones NYU made to defend the attacks at the Trump rally.

 

[Twisted Intestine]

There's no difference of someone not feelings sympathy for a man getting roughed up and someone saying that he should have been roughed up.

There's no difference between someone saying that a man should be roughed up and saying he should be shot.

These are the two leaps you are taking from what NYU said and what you're accusing him of saying.

 

[bigolsmitty]

There's no difference of someone not feelings sympathy for a man getting roughed up and someone saying that he should have been roughed up.

Pretty much.

There's no difference between someone saying that a man should be roughed up and saying he should be shot.

He thinks there's a level of violence against activists by racists which is acceptable. I'm just trying to determine where the cutoff occurs.

 

[Big Papa Paegan]

That is definitely quite a leap. Not having sympathy is not the same as having ill will.

 

[Mickey Massuco]

apathy, oppression, etc.

 

[bigolsmitty]

That is definitely quite a leap. Not having sympathy is not the same as having ill will.

As I said above, I think the distinction NYU made between these two things was a meaningless, mealy mouthed distinction without a difference to try to distance himself from Trump supporters while making the same arguments they make. I'm saying there's no real moral difference between "I have no sympathy" and "they deserved it." For example:

Doug gets hit by a drunk driver and is in critical condition:
-I have no sympathy for Doug, because x.
-Doug deserved to get hit, because x.

Tasha gets raped:
-I have no sympathy for Tasha, because x.
-Tasha deserved to get raped, because x.

The police hose down and sic dogs on peaceful protesters:
-I have no sympathy for those protesters, because x.
-Those protesters deserved that, because x.

The Armenians are subject to genocide by the Ottomans:
-I have no sympathy for the Armenians, because x.
-The Armenians deserved to be killed, because x.

Whatever x may be, is there really any meaningful difference in the two statements being made in any of these cases?

 

[Big Papa Paegan]

Yes. One is based on an expected result given certain circumstances and the other is a desire to see that result.

 

[SFH]

I think about this a lot: All these asshole 18-21 year olds in the 60s committing crimes against black citizens during the civil rights movement are in their early 70s. Had they lived a healthy lifestyle, they're still able bodied enough to cause shit. And they're still alive to spread their rhetoric to whoever will listen. Not all racists attend "meetings" or "rallies." They drink coffee in their rocker telling the grandkids about "the good ole days."


Trump is 69. He was a contemporary to the civil rights movement. He was clearly not moved into the sympathetic direction for black lives as a youth.

 

[bigolsmitty]

One is based on an expected result given certain circumstances

What? Something expected can happen to someone based on given circumstances and you can still feel sympathy for them.

Sgt. Billings got his leg blown off by an insurgent IED in Iraq. This was expected, given that he was an infantryman in an area of Iraq that was littered with IEDs. I still feel sympathy for him, even though this was an expected result given the circumstances.

 

[Big Papa Paegan]

Good job not quoting the full statement.

Yes, something can be the expected result and sympathy can be felt. Just as the expected result can happen, sympathy not be felt, but the desire to see said expected result does not exist.

 

[bigolsmitty]

And I'm saying that this

Just as the expected result can happen, sympathy not be felt, but the desire to see said expected result does not exist.

is a pointless distinction without a difference. There's no real moral difference between "I don't feel sympathy for her for getting raped" and "she deserved to get rape." What NYU did was lawyerly posturing.

 

[Big Papa Paegan]

Can't argue that kind of logic, what with the rape and genocide examples and all.

 

[bigolsmitty]

I'm willing to reconsider my position. I just can't think of instance in which there would be any meaningful difference between "not having sympathy" for some bad thing that happened to someone and thinking that person deserved it. If you think a more anodyne example would be helpful, by all means provide one, but remember the initial case in question was racists beating up an anti-racist protester.

 

[Twisted Intestine]

There's a difference between thinking someone deserved something (i.e. got whats coming to them) and wanting that thing to happen to them. Someone swimming with sting rays probably has a stab through the chest coming to them and they are going into the situation knowing that so I don't have sympathy for them. I hope they don't get a stabbed in the xhest though.

 

[Big Papa Paegan]

That. Swap out sting rays with heroin/cocaine/etc. and you get what I would have said. This is a complete derailment of the thread's purpose, though, so...

 

[devo]

https://www.instagram.com/p/-z3eBvPopx/

The gentleman is apparently still alive, somehow. Still pretty disturbing.

Edit: Scratch that, he's died. Much as with the McDonald video, don't watch if you have no desire to see a man murdered.

 

[NoCalMike]

https://www.instagram.com/p/-z3eBvPopx/

The gentleman is apparently still alive, somehow. Still pretty disturbing.

Edit: Scratch that, he's died. Much as with the McDonald video, don't watch if you have no desire to see a man murdered.

Was just about to post this. I am sure the police union will say "had his hands in pocket, credible threat to lives of officers" even though he obviously seemed like a mentally disturbed homeless man, surrounded by about 5-6 cops with their guns. Why did none of them have a taser out? He didn't need to be shot.

 

[Big Papa Paegan]

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!

 

[bigolsmitty]

There's a difference between thinking someone deserved something (i.e. got whats coming to them) and wanting that thing to happen to them.

You just changed the two options. NYU's argument was specifically that the anti-Trump protester didn't deserve to be attacked, just that NYU didn't feel sympathy.

So the original question was:
-don't feel sympathy
VS
-deserved it

And now you have shifted it to:
-deserved it
vs.
-wanted it to happen

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

please...make...it...stop

 

[Big Papa Paegan]

The implication when you say that somebody deserves something is that you desire to see them get it. Neither of these words were used by NYU in relation to the Trump protester's assault and, in fact, he has stated the opposite, thus your leap toward wondering if he'd prefer the protester shot is illogical and that it's been reduced to little more than semantics shows how little water your own argument on that aspect holds.

 

[Brooklyn Zoo]

please...make...it...stop

I'm trying to figure out what point you wanted it to stop. This argument has been going on for days, and you just decided now as if something different actually happen. There's a difference between a counterclaim after the first point but you waited until they continued to attempt to dispute multiple counterarguments. So when was it? Why now? What's the difference between one and two counterarguments?

 

[bigolsmitty]

The implication when you say that somebody deserves something is that you desire to see them get it.

I'm not sure why you're directing this at me. I wasn't the one who raised this new distinction between "deserving" and "desiring," that was Tigger.

There's a difference between thinking someone deserved something (i.e. got whats coming to them) and wanting that thing to happen to them.

 

[bigolsmitty]

please...make...it...stop

I agree that this is derailed and I'm partially to blame, so I'll stop arguing.

The disagreement over the goals and effectiveness of BLM was way more relevant and interesting (and worthy of argument) than the disagreement over NYU's view of the attack on the protester.

 

[Big Papa Paegan]

It was directed at you because your argument (that part of it, anyway) seemed to ignore intent. The actual discussion of the BLM movement, though, was on point, which would be my guess as to why NYU didn't try to counterpoint what you and devo said.

 

[Mickey Massuco]

please...make...it...stop

I'm trying to figure out what point you wanted it to stop. This argument has been going on for days, and you just decided now as if something different actually happen. There's a difference between a counterclaim after the first point but you waited until they continued to attempt to dispute multiple counterarguments. So when was it? Why now? What's the difference between one and two counterarguments?

if this board had traffic and a real potd thread i'd put it in there.

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

That made me laugh incredibly hard. Also that wasn't an order as a mod but a joke/cry from my soul.

 

[devo]

No indictment in the shooting of Tamir Rice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/12/28/tamir-rice-grand-jury-announcement-expected-monday/

This should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with some of the things the DA has said regarding this incident.

@JuanMThompson: Prosecutor says straight up: "We don't second guess police officers." "It's clear the officers were not criminal."

@hash_said: Prosecutor: "It would be unresponsible & unreasonable to require a police officer to wait & see if gun is a real."

@KateAronoff: Prosecutor McGinty says Rice should have known better before playing in the park, because he "looked older"

 

[NoCalMike]

Isn't that state an open carry state? So technically even if Tamir had an actual gun, he wasn't doing something illegal? My eyes may have been playing tricks on me but I've seen many "guns rights activists" walking around with assault rifles over their shoulders without the inconvenience of the cops rolling up and shooting them on sight.

I also just heard that the cop who shot Tamir was dismissed from his previous police department and was said to be unfit for the job.

WTF.

 

[devo]

'Tis. I'm an Ohioan myself (live just south of Cleveland, in Akron), so I've been abreast of this whole thing since day one. If there was ever a case where the facts (twelve-year-old victim, unstable cop, purposefully incompetent DA, etc., etc.) were rendered irrelevant by the victim's race, this is it. The only possible silver lining is that the Cleveland police department is undergoing reform as we speak (for this and countless other incidents), so hopefully this'll allow the reformers to go scorched earth on the motherfuckers.