Political Roundtable - Part VI

[Induveca]

How many blatant lies do you have to see before you are convinced that Wilson's defenders are lying?

1) The leak that Wilson had a broken jaw? Absolutely untrue.

2) Wilson is now saying that he knew Brown had robbed the store earlier. Lie.

3) Autopsy report confirms Brown was reaching for Wilson's gun. Lie.

Zonk you should lend your palantir to the MO court system! It would surely save them so much time.

If the kid hadn't roughed up a store owner and robbed a store for marijuana rolling cigars a few minutes before, I'd likely care much more.

As it is, these shootings happens about 400 times a year in the US. A problem that needs to be addressed on a much larger level than the media cashing in on viewership by micro-analyzing a specific case about an unfortunate/avoidable death of a violent, reckless young adult.

What do you mean palantir? Are you saying I'm guessing? Which one of these is baseless speculation?

Facts are annoying things. You can spin them all you want but they remain facts.

Yes, this is one of those mini-battles that will determine the outcome of thousands and thousands and thousands of other interactions with the police.

There are several other police interactions under public discussion right now that are similar, and the police departments are similarly whitewashing what happened.

What we have uncovered this year is that police departments have been executing young black men with impunity and thought they were going to get away with it forever. Ever since Rodney King cops know that it is impossible to be punished for killing a young black man. All you have to do is invoke a few key racist cue words - "marijuana in the bloodstream," "violent thug," and "young black man" and you can basically murder anyone with impunity.

Is this acceptable? Are we going to let them get away with it? Should the police motto be changed to "We serve and protect... white people"?

Agreed Zonk. Only issue I have is there is no video of the incident. Thought cop cars were always recording these days from their dash during "incidents".

Everything else you said I agree with, but I do think things are exponentially better than just 20 years ago.

I was arrested a few years ago for a scuffle, a drunk guy at a restaurant attacked me "for taking his table". I proceeded to rough him up a bit to get away and out of the restaurant. He was a white young Iraq vet (would find that out soon), I am a dark very tall/muscular guy. I knew immediately this could result in bad things for me for a variety of reasons when a cop appeared.

The soldier wasn't even questioned even though he had attacked me (he wasn't in uniform but made sure the cop knew). He declared loudly he didn't want to press charges. Officer was petrified of me, I saw it in his eyes. As soon as he said he wishes to place me under arrest I turned around and assured him I was a peaceful man and the courts would sort it out.

My problem with myself? I was stupid for being at that semi-dive restaurant surrounded by mostly white drunk people at 2 AM in the south. I was more foolish to ignore the obvious bias in the region and touch a local, even when attacked first. Even with being attacked first, and the soldier refusing to press charges the local DA of the tiny area filed charges on behalf of the county. The soldier never cooperated, 20k later in attorney bills and flights charges were dropped.

I am now all about self preservation. Only the best hotels when on business, and maybe a white cloth restaurant are the extent of my outings when in an unfamiliar area.

If I was caucasian american I'm convinced that incident wouldn't have occurred, BUT I was an idiot to go there in general. I'm not solving racism and bias, I'm just trying to make money and stay in more tolerant/open wealthy metropolitan areas whenever possible.

[popper]

As a white conservative I appreciate the candor of those on this thread who have experienced racism both from police and from others. It is sickening and disheartening to hear your stories. I don't see racism much but since I'm white and retired maybe that's to be expected.

Two weeks ago however on my normal hike through Arlington with a retired friend we encountered a white guy in his 40's or 50's sitting on the sidewalk (maybe a pan handler, not sure) and he was yelling the "n" word at a twenty-something, well dressed black man who had walked past him. The streets were full of white passer-byes and they looked horrified and disgusted at the spectacle. I did an about face to confront the guy and my buddy pulled me away and said the Arlington police would handle things.

If it's any consolation to blacks on this thread, 100% of whites that I know personally would be completely disgusted by this guys actions. My millennial aged kids and their generation would be appalled and apoplectic perhaps to even a higher degree.

My point is that I thought this type of behavior died with the last generation. I witnessed it personally two weeks ago for the first time since the 60's.

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah, I thought I was an enlightened white liberal too, until I moved to Anacostia and my communist party card carrying Mom pointed to some Anacostia residents walking on the streets and pointed out that in order for the neighborhood to improve "those people" would have to go.

It really opened my eyes to a lot of things I had been taking for granted. There's layers and layers of racism and it's hard to really see yourself doing it, even though it can be pretty evident to people on the outside observing you.

For example. When you walk down a street in, say, Anacostia, and you see a young black male walking toward you, do you meet his eyes? What do you feel as you walk by him? Fear? Or neighborly camaraderie? Are you surprised when a young black man politely returns your greeting?

When you hear someone has moved to Anacostia, do you ask "Is it safe?" Even if you've never been there?

Indu stop blaming the victim. What you describe is white privilege and is not acceptable. You have every right to go drink booze at 2 am in the morning.

[Nivek]

What's called "white privilege" is really just basic human rights. In Indu's case, it's the assumption that the black guy is in the wrong and that the white guy was the victim. Or in Allen Iverson's case, how the police went into a brawl with a reasonably even racial breakdown and managed to arrest 6 black guys (including Iverson), but no whites.

Or, MANY other examples that could be provided. The data on cop interactions is disturbing.

[popper]

Would like to get some of your opinions on the following youtube video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUSRZo1BE5o

[Zonkerbl]

Only recently has the Democratic Party been a "safe" place for African American politicians to go represent.

In 1964 Stokely Carmichael was denied voting representation in the Democratic Convention - "The MFDP delegates were refused voting rights by the Democratic National Committee, who instead chose to seat the Jim Crow delegation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokely_Carmichael

The basic idea of the Black Power movement is for AAs to organize themselves. The basic problem being that institutionalized racism had denied AAs political freedom - you don't go begging to the masters in charge of that institution to have your rights returned to you. You destroy that institution and replace it with one that represents you.

So that's what they were in the process of doing in the late sixties and early seventies, until (ok, conspiracy alert, but it kinda sounds true) the CIA discovered heroine in Vietnam and started distributing it like crazy in Harlem and other hotbeds of Black Power rebellion. Heroine killed the Black Power movement. Well, at least according to the Black Power mixtape documentary I just watched. Maybe it didn't need more than a nudge from the CIA. At any rate the result seems pretty straightforward - heroine turned brother against brother, while whitey just stood on the sidelines and laughed. And that was it for Black Power. Well whitey didn't just stand on the sidelines and laugh - whitey instituted the "War on Drugs" which was really just a war on black people who were caught using drugs. You could argue that the War on Drugs in the seventies was basically a war on Black Power. Dope up all the young male black folks and then throw 'em in jail.

So yeah, I can see how relying on the Democratic party may not be the best solution. But that doesn't mean the Republicans are any better. What really needs to stop is the war on drugs. Legalize heroine and cocaine and stop using drug use as an excuse to throw black people in jail.

[nate33]

How many blatant lies do you have to see before you are convinced that Wilson's defenders are lying?

1) The leak that Wilson had a broken jaw? Absolutely untrue.

2) Wilson is now saying that he knew Brown had robbed the store earlier. Lie.

3) Autopsy report confirms Brown was reaching for Wilson's gun. Lie.

1) There was a leak that he had a broken eye orbital (not a broken jaw). It ended up being merely a black eye. I wouldn't characterize that as a "blatant lie". It's an incorrect detail. The point is that there is clear physical evidence that Brown attacked Wilson.

2) Wilson is saying that he did not know Brown had robbed the store when he first encountered Brown jaywalking in the street, but realized as he was pulling over his vehicle that these guys matched the description. That's not a lie. It's consistent with what Police Chief Tom Jackson has said previously.

3) Autopsy report confirms that Wilson fired shots at Brown while inside his police vehicle. While that doesn't directly prove that Brown was reaching for Wilson's gun, it certainly corroborates Wilson's story the Brown attacked him in his vehicle. (And please, don't tell me that Wilson could have grabbed Brown and pulled his head into the vehicle. That makes no sense at all. Why would a police officer try to attack a giant man like Brown in broad daylight in front of eyewitnesses from a position with so little leverage.)

If you want to talk about blatant lies, there's definitely some out there worth mentioning. How about Brown being a "gentle giant" when he is obviously a thug and a criminal. How about the claim that Brown was shot with his hands up saying "don't shoot" when three different autopsy reports contradict this?

[Zonkerbl]

Kill whitey.

[montestewart]

Kill whitey.

But not Withey.

[fishercob]

If you want to talk about blatant lies, there's definitely some out there worth mentioning. How about Brown being a "gentle giant" when he is obviously a thug and a criminal. How about the claim that Brown was shot with his hands up saying "don't shoot" when three different autopsy reports contradict this?

I'd be lying if I said I didn't find this statement chilling. Even if it is true, what does it have to do with a man's right to live and not be gunned down in cold blood?

[Zonkerbl]

How many blatant lies do you have to see before you are convinced that Wilson's defenders are lying?

1) The leak that Wilson had a broken jaw? Absolutely untrue.

2) Wilson is now saying that he knew Brown had robbed the store earlier. Lie.

3) Autopsy report confirms Brown was reaching for Wilson's gun. Lie.

1) There was a leak that he had a broken eye orbital (not a broken jaw). It ended up being merely a black eye. I wouldn't characterize that as a "blatant lie". It's an incorrect detail. The point is that there is clear physical evidence that Brown attacked Wilson.

Blatant lie used to appeal to racist sentiment among white audience

2) Wilson is saying that he did not know Brown had robbed the store when he first encountered Brown jaywalking in the street, but realized as he was pulling over his vehicle that these guys matched the description. That's not a lie. It's consistent with what Police Chief Tom Jackson has said previously.

Absolutely a lie and inconsistent with what was stated previously. Obviously everyone in that police station is colluding to try and fabricate a new story that makes Wilson look like the good guy

3) Autopsy report confirms that Wilson fired shots at Brown while inside his police vehicle. While that doesn't directly prove that Brown was reaching for Wilson's gun, it certainly corroborates Wilson's story the Brown attacked him in his vehicle. (And please, don't tell me that Wilson could have grabbed Brown and pulled his head into the vehicle. That makes no sense at all. Why would a police officer try to attack a giant man like Brown in broad daylight in front of eyewitnesses from a position with so little leverage.)

Proves nothing.

If you want to talk about blatant lies, there's definitely some out there worth mentioning. How about Brown being a "gentle giant" when he is obviously a thug and a criminal. How about the claim that Brown was shot with his hands up saying "don't shoot" when three different autopsy reports contradict this?

Autopsy reports DO NOT contradict this. That was exactly the point made in the article I posted. The doctor who those statements were attributed to flatly denies it

This is why these blatant lies are so insidious, because they've been repeated enough throughout the conservative blogosphere that people whose confirmation bias falls on Wilson's side automatically accept the lies as gospel truth.

[pineappleheadindc]

Not just about this issue, but using it as a microcosm for contemporary political discussion.

The thing that bothers me most lately (last 10 years or so), is the proliferation of multiple fact sets. Honestly, there really should be only one set of facts, but in just about any issue, I can google a completely and contradictory set of "facts".

In many/most instance, one set of supposed "facts" is completely made up to support somebody's predetermined position on something. But that doesn't matter. Because there apparently is no logical consequence these days for lying -- out-and-out baldfaced lying -- about anything. You still get paid, probably get paid more handsomely by proponents of on side or another, for being the purveyors of the lies.

Then, your lie ricochets around the media and internet echo chamber. (Though sometimes picked up by an increasingly lazy MSM). And, again, nobody pay any credibility price for repeating the lie.

So, ultimately, what happens is that you have sides who cannot communicate because there is no commonly-accepted foundation from which to build a conversation.

Grf.

[Nivek]

In addition to pine's lament about the proliferation of dueling "facts," there's the proliferation of needless nastiness. Labeling people as thugs or racists or sexists or 'hos or whatever is demeaning, dismissive and -- in virtually every case -- just plain wrong. Nobody is one thing. Nobody is merely the worst thing they've ever done. Or the best.

[nate33]

If you want to talk about blatant lies, there's definitely some out there worth mentioning. How about Brown being a "gentle giant" when he is obviously a thug and a criminal. How about the claim that Brown was shot with his hands up saying "don't shoot" when three different autopsy reports contradict this?

I'd be lying if I said I didn't find this statement chilling. Even if it is true, what does it have to do with a man's right to live and not be gunned down in cold blood?

Of course it doesn't mean he can be gunned down in cold blood. But it's a totally relevant fact because it makes it plausible that Brown was the one who initiated the fight in the car. Why would you consider a relevant fact like this "chilling". Are we not allowed to apply common sense anymore?

[nate33]

In addition to pine's lament about the proliferation of dueling "facts," there's the proliferation of needless nastiness. Labeling people as thugs or racists or sexists or 'hos or whatever is demeaning, dismissive and -- in virtually every case -- just plain wrong. Nobody is one thing. Nobody is merely the worst thing they've ever done. Or the best.

When I see a large man rob a store and cavalierly shove the store-owner to the ground, then casually walk out, I conclude that he is a thug. It's not a "label". It's an accurate description of the man. Normal people in polite society don't do this. The part that troubles me the most isn't the violent act, it's the way he confidently struts out of the store as if he doesn't even recognize that what he is doing is wrong. Either that, or that he is so confident in his ability to intimidate those around him that he's not worried about being caught. This is what I consider to be "chilling".

I refuse to be cowed by political correctness on this. Just because the man is black, it doesn't mean he can't be criticized for his actions. If a burly white guy with a shaved head did the same thing, nobody would think twice about calling him a thug.

[Nivek]

The video from the store shows an argument -- a dispute. It's soundless, so we don't know what was said. Another video from that store may show Brown paying for the cigarillos.

The point is that we don't KNOW Brown is a "thug." You can assert it all you want, but your assertions and assumptions don't make it so. Maybe Brown was "confident" that he hadn't done anything wrong because perhaps he hadn't done anything wrong. Maybe the store owner was being an ass and Brown thought he was backing him down.

And maybe Wilson was being profane and abusive, was having a fit of temper, and threw open his car door only to have it bounce off Brown and hit him in the face. And maybe the further enraged him, so he took out his gun and opened fire. WE DON'T KNOW.

And, by the way, comments about a person's BEHAVIOR don't start with "Brown IS..." That's an assertion of fact, and we don't have sufficient information to accept that as valid.

[Induveca]

The video from the store shows an argument -- a dispute. It's soundless, so we don't know what was said. Another video from that store may show Brown paying for the cigarillos.

The point is that we don't KNOW Brown is a "thug." You can assert it all you want, but your assertions and assumptions don't make it so. Maybe Brown was "confident" that he hadn't done anything wrong because perhaps he hadn't done anything wrong. Maybe the store owner was being an ass and Brown thought he was backing him down.

And maybe Wilson was being profane and abusive, was having a fit of temper, and threw open his car door only to have it bounce off Brown and hit him in the face. And maybe the further enraged him, so he took out his gun and opened fire. WE DON'T KNOW.

And, by the way, comments about a person's BEHAVIOR don't start with "Brown IS..." That's an assertion of fact, and we don't have sufficient information to accept that as valid.

You've taken political correctness to a whole new level.

[crackhed]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOfqIXkBRE[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOfqIXkBRE

[popper]

Not just about this issue, but using it as a microcosm for contemporary political discussion.

The thing that bothers me most lately (last 10 years or so), is the proliferation of multiple fact sets. Honestly, there really should be only one set of facts, but in just about any issue, I can google a completely and contradictory set of "facts".

In many/most instance, one set of supposed "facts" is completely made up to support somebody's predetermined position on something. But that doesn't matter. Because there apparently is no logical consequence these days for lying -- out-and-out baldfaced lying -- about anything. You still get paid, probably get paid more handsomely by proponents of on side or another, for being the purveyors of the lies.

Then, your lie ricochets around the media and internet echo chamber. (Though sometimes picked up by an increasingly lazy MSM). And, again, nobody pay any credibility price for repeating the lie.

So, ultimately, what happens is that you have sides who cannot communicate because there is no commonly-accepted foundation from which to build a conversation.

Grf.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and attempts to illustrate your point in the following article. What do you think of his opinion on the matter?

A fact-free, postmodern make-it-up world
Rejection of facts could prove lethal

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -up-world/

[Zonkerbl]

In addition to pine's lament about the proliferation of dueling "facts," there's the proliferation of needless nastiness. Labeling people as thugs or racists or sexists or 'hos or whatever is demeaning, dismissive and -- in virtually every case -- just plain wrong. Nobody is one thing. Nobody is merely the worst thing they've ever done. Or the best.

When I see a large man rob a store and cavalierly shove the store-owner to the ground, then casually walk out, I conclude that he is a thug. It's not a "label". It's an accurate description of the man. Normal people in polite society don't do this. The part that troubles me the most isn't the violent act, it's the way he confidently struts out of the store as if he doesn't even recognize that what he is doing is wrong. Either that, or that he is so confident in his ability to intimidate those around him that he's not worried about being caught. This is what I consider to be "chilling".

I refuse to be cowed by political correctness on this. Just because the man is black, it doesn't mean he can't be criticized for his actions. If a burly white guy with a shaved head did the same thing, nobody would think twice about calling him a thug.

But you're not just criticizing him for his actions. You are saying a police officer is justified in gunning him down for this.