FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I often think about the bolded part, not just with racism, but with pretty much all "moral" choices--particularly with regard to the secular vs. the sacred. What's the non-religious justification for "racism is wrong," or, for that matter, that cannibalism is wrong? My opinion? Yours? The collective opinion of humankind? Who is to say?
So, yes, I say that racism is wrong because we're all made in the image of God and have intrinsic value, that when the Kingdom is actualized, there will be people from every tribe, nation, and tongue, and therefore excluding anyone is wrong. But apart from referencing a higher power that says so, what's the argument against "I was born with blue eyes and that makes me superior?" Or "It's ok to kill living things in order to eat. We do it with kale, spinach, cows, pigs, broccoli, and fish all the time. I've decided that I want to eat humans."

Is there any difference? Religion provides a moral code for, among other things, relating to our fellow humans. Different religions have different views on how we should interact with each other, all supported by belief. Can't that work the same way with secular belief? Someone can believe it is wrong to cause suffering and behave to minimize that.

As for racism, the foundational problem is that racism is defined by supremacy. All humans should be treated equitably. Defining others, through external characteristics or heritage, as inferior is wrong.

And don't get me started on race as a social construct.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

"I can't be detained"

That stood out to me as well. Who talks like that? (now maybe he said that, but that'd be surprising to me). Maybe in response to an officer saying "I'm going to detain you now?"

Anyways, I agree. The body cam footage must be pretty bad.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That stood out to me as well. Who talks like that? (now maybe he said that, but that'd be surprising to me). Maybe in response to an officer saying "I'm going to detain you now?"

Anyways, I agree. The body cam footage must be pretty bad.

Especially from someone who was accused to be drunk

SI

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Right...and that version doesn't really add up, either. "I can't be detained"...Grabbed at the ineffective stun gun while walking toward the officer...and that gets the officer a fast murder charge and a firing for "egregious violation" of policy? I'm guessing that the video must be pretty bad--that it's clear that the taser never should have been deployed in the first place, or perhaps that the "appeared to reach out to grab" is an overstatement. The facts that are out there don't make it sound like something so cut and dried to expect a near-immediate murder charge and firing, so I'm guessing there's more to it than what we've been told.

My reckless speculation would center on why did the officer think the victim was intoxicated and needed to be detained.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

@Brian, what's your "why"?

Don't pose the question of everyone else's "why", wondering if it matches your own without posting your own.

You get to see everyone else's and then change yours if you want.

This is part of why I have resorted to putting people on ignore. It is basically like playing tennis against a brick wall. Or even better, a ball machine. I am tired of playing these "intellectual exercises" which I don't think are being played on honest terms. I don't want to tune out of the subject, but there are some voices which I just no longer wish to deal with.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Who talks like that?

Have you seen pics of the guy? If not, I'd say that I wouldn't be shocked if he talked like that. This is going to be the epitome of the "scary-looking black man" narrative. (He was a fitness trainer. Absolutely ripped.)

[Ben E Lou]

Dola.


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...20000..&type=3

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Is there any difference? Religion provides a moral code for, among other things, relating to our fellow humans. Different religions have different views on how we should interact with each other, all supported by belief. Can't that work the same way with secular belief? Someone can believe it is wrong to cause suffering and behave to minimize that.

As for racism, the foundational problem is that racism is defined by supremacy. All humans should be treated equitably. Defining others, through external characteristics or heritage, as inferior is wrong.

And don't get me started on race as a social construct.

I mean, never mind the fact that for hundreds/thousands of years, religion either didn't really provide the moral code for treating fellow humans the same, or even provided an excuse for treating them differently (or just conveniently stepped around any of that by defining others as not human). The Crusades, the Inquisition, Catholics vs Protestants, Shiites vs Sunni. Slavery, forced conversion. None of those were against religious moral code at the time. Society eventually progressed. How much of that was a push from religion, and how much can be attributed to any one in particular? (Well, those in who society who are trying to progress, which isn't everybody.)

This can get deep into philosophy and psychology, deeper than I'm qualified to really be able to discuss. Personally, I tend to try to want fairness. Golden Rule, Categorical Imperative, whatever you wish to call it. Is that necessarily a religious belief? I don't know. I went to Sunday School some when I was little; church less as I got older. I am sure I was taught some measure of fairness in school, filtered through whatever my teachers' beliefs were. I watched Sesame Street, Electric Company, and other kids shows. Did they teach me "fairness?" What brand? and what were their influences? Do I have any intrinsic sense of fairness that is different (less, greater) than others? No idea. But there's some mechanism there which I can apply in a situation and try to ascertain "is this right?" I'm sure it's evolved, and I'm sure when and where I'm actually applying it has changed over time. I don't know that this has correlated with any specific religious practices.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

it's also either really naive or concern trolly to not see why someone would question your motives in this. In short, it says a lot about you, too.

I think my post dealt with those objections, didn't it? I mean, people can conclude that I was lying and I really don't see anything wrong with racism or whatever, but if they're going to assume that in contradiction to a fairly lengthy history I have on this forum then there's nothing I'm ever going to be able to say or do to convince them otherwhise.

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Brian, what's your "why"?

Don't pose the question of everyone else's "why", wondering if it matches your own without posting your own.

You get to see everyone else's and then change yours if you want.

So every thread or post ever put up on this forum is faulty if it asks a question without providing its own answer? There wouldn't be many posters in good standing left around here if we all followed that.

I think mine is pretty well-established to people who read what I post, but it's simply this; I think it's morally wrong to judge people by the group, period.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Is there any difference? Religion provides a moral code for, among other things, relating to our fellow humans. Different religions have different views on how we should interact with each other, all supported by belief. Can't that work the same way with secular belief? Someone can believe it is wrong to cause suffering and behave to minimize that.

There's a big difference. I tried to convince myself to be a humanist in my 20s, and this issue is why I failed. Humanism and the concept of morality are fundamentally incompatible. You can have a preference for certain ethical approaches, but that's all it is. Moral law requires a Moral Lawgiver. From a humanistic standpoint, if another person asserts that they believe a particular action you consider wrong to actually be fully justified, you have no logical path to condemning that action as immoral. You can disagree with it, but if there is no authority above and beyond humanity then the opinion of one human is no more valuable than that of another, and more importantly they are all just opinions. There's no objective standard by which to judge the rightness or wrongness of an assertion.

[JPhillips]

It all boils down to, I believe this. Belief systems aren't limited to religion.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

So - and this is to everyone, moderate, conservative, liberal, etc. - why is racism wrong? What, from the standpoint of fundamental principles, is bad about it from a moral/ethical/betterment-of-society standpoint (if anything).

Racism is the belief that your "race" is superior to another because of inherent, inborn etc. characteristics.

Although there are definitely genetic differences between "races", I believe nurture (vs nature) plays a significant role in what happens (e.g. call it at least nurture-nature 50-50 and I lean towards nurture playing an even greater role like 70-30, 80-20 when talking in aggregate).

Much of the advantages are based on country where you are born, parents you were born to, time period you were born in, resources available to you etc. Luck of the draw. So I do not think anyone should believe they are superior because of the inherent, inborn characteristics because there tons of other factors at play.

Racism is wrong because (1) the underlying belief is wrong, way too narrow minded (now, if there are a lot of X-men like mutants around us, I'll concede it's a whole different story). What are the metrics that defines superiority, who defines what is superior to another etc. and (2) it comes to the sense of fair play and the golden rule.

Interestingly, as I thought about a response, I was going to say Racism is bad because it leads to really bad outcomes, like genocide. But in reality, there are a wealth of other beliefs (e.g. religious, cultural, economic) that also leads to genocide. In other words, although there are certainly bad things that come out of racism, I cannot think of any "exclusively" bad thing that come out of racism that doesn't happen because of some other belief, prejudice, bigotry etc.

[CrimsonFox]

Texas Police Officer Fired, Charged With Murder Over Fatal Shooting Of Black Man : Live Updates: Protests For Racial Justice : NPR

[stevew]

I read in some other article that Shaun Lucas may have convulsed in response to being taser'd and that made it seem like he(absolutely ripped) was about to charge the officer. That would likely be apparent on the body cam.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think my post dealt with those objections, didn't it? I mean, people can conclude that I was lying and I really don't see anything wrong with racism or whatever, but if they're going to assume that in contradiction to a fairly lengthy history I have on this forum then there's nothing I'm ever going to be able to say or do to convince them otherwhise.

The question you're posing, at the time you're posing it, is a decently common alt-right playbook move to distract from discussion that could lead neutral people to see things happening in the world, see reasonable discussion about it, and shift their political views left. A nazi can't come into a discussion spouting nazi shit and win people over. A nazi can come into a discussion and pretend to be "just asking innocent questions" and playing what-if games that serve to move the goalposts away from the events/discussion at hand, or to try to create confusion/dissent where there otherwise wasn't any.


In the wake of the Brianna Taylor verdict and discussion about what could possibly turn out to be one of the most egregious police shootings to date (more info needed for THAT judgement, of course), all of the cards of "well he shouldn't have resisted" or "he shouldn't have committed a crime" that racists argue justifies cops committing murder appear to be off the table for the latest protest generating event, so generating a ton of seemingly innocent "heyyyy guys, what is racism anyway, and why do you think racism is bad?" discussion is the perfect alt-right move to fuck up productive discourse.


I don't think you're doing that, we all know each other here. But I'm very surprised you don't understand why you'd get the reaction you did from some, hence the simplified long winded explanation.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Radii

The question you're posing, at the time you're posing it, is a decently common alt-right playbook move to distract from discussion that could lead neutral people to see things happening in the world, see reasonable discussion about it, and shift their political views left. A nazi can't come into a discussion spouting nazi shit and win people over. A nazi can come into a discussion and pretend to be "just asking innocent questions" and playing what-if games that serve to move the goalposts away from the events/discussion at hand, or to try to create confusion/dissent where there otherwise wasn't any.

I think this is frankly just absurd. We are not, in any reasonable measure of such things by forum standards, in the wake of the Breonna Taylor shooting. The last comments about that case in the thread were on September 28th - and that was basically a one-off about grand jury info, most of the discussion had wrapped up almost a week before that. Not to mention that my attempt to productively participate in said discussion was completely ignored.

My question came on October 8th, or two weeks after these events had ceased to be a significant topic of conversation. You can't be a distraction from a topic that isn't even being actively discussed. If that's not long enough of a waiting period, how long does it need to be? Two months? Six? A year? It's not as if there won't be fresh outrages between now and then. If you can't ask a probative question with that much time, then you really can't reasonably ever ask it - not to mention how wrong it is to go around assuming the motives of people for doing so in the first place. As I mentioned, I've posted here for years. If people think I'm an alt-right plant - me, who has said he plans on voting Democrat this year, has been against Trump from day one, who has years of posting on this board and has repeatedly rejected pretty much everything they stand for and is overall a moderate at the present time in my approach - then it's truly a waste of my time to spend two seconds concerning myself with what someone whose perspective is so skewed from any reasonable understanding of the facts involved is going to twist what I'm saying into.

It's not so much that I'm surprised - it's rare that discussion around here really surprises me. It's more that I'm not going to walk around on pins and needles worrying about how someone might flagrantly and totally unjustifiably misinterpret what I'm saying and then beyond that, assume the worst and overreact to that misinterpretation and assumption. There are some things you just can't control. I wanted to get down to core assumptions because it's clear there are some I don't share with the rest of the board and I want to understand those differences. If it's just the case that people don't even want to engage with what those core assumptions are and/or discuss them for the most part - I appreciate those who did reply - then that's sad. It also means the unilateral death knell of any hope at discourse on the side of those unwilling.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think this is frankly just absurd. We are not, in any reasonable measure of such things by forum standards, in the wake of the Breonna Taylor shooting. The last comments about that case in the thread were on September 28th - and that was basically a one-off about grand jury info, most of the discussion had wrapped up almost a week before that. Not to mention that my attempt to productively participate in said discussion was completely ignored.

My question came on October 8th, or two weeks after these events had ceased to be a significant topic of conversation. You can't be a distraction from a topic that isn't even being actively discussed. If that's not long enough of a waiting period, how long does it need to be? Two months? Six? A year? It's not as if there won't be fresh outrages between now and then.

IMO it doesn't matter the example used was Taylor, there's been a long runup anyway. It's really the persuasiveness of the automatic "it's racism" by the louder and intolerant (e.g. cancel culture) elements on this forum.

If you can't ask a probative question with that much time, then you really can't reasonably ever ask it - not to mention how wrong it is to go around assuming the motives of people for doing so in the first place. As I mentioned, I've posted here for years. If people think I'm an alt-right plant - me, who has said he plans on voting Democrat this year, has been against Trump from day one, who has years of posting on this board and has repeatedly rejected pretty much everything they stand for and is overall a moderate at the present time in my approach - then it's truly a waste of my time to spend two seconds concerning myself with what someone whose perspective is so skewed from any reasonable understanding of the facts involved is going to twist what I'm saying into.

I do think there are many moderate forum members who are interested in discussing controversial, thought provoking etc. questions. But it's pretty obvious the louder, radical-left elements can easily flood the discussion (e.g. that's why there is the non-political Wuhan thread, it's worked pretty well) with their accusations, insults, escalations etc. ultimately leading to a non-productive discussion.

IMO posing your question in this particular thread is doom to failure. Better to do it in a separate thread and ask people not to participate if they can't hold a discussion without insulting or pithy commentary.

I wanted to get down to core assumptions because it's clear there are some I don't share with the rest of the board and I want to understand those differences. If it's just the case that people don't even want to engage with what those core assumptions are and/or discuss them for the most part - I appreciate those who did reply - then that's sad. It also means the unilateral death knell of any hope at discourse on the side of those unwilling.

Uh, isn't this self-evident?

So my suggestion is, identify the top 8-10 intolerant radical left and just ignore them. They'll use unhelpful one-liners and call you a racist, troll etc. whatever and they'll wallow in their own oblivious hypocrisy of intolerance, bigotry, ageism, trolling etc.

The next level of more moderate left may still insult you some but they are willing to have a discussion. These IMO, although you may still disagree with them, they are the more interesting and productive discussions, I learn from them and actually want to read their posts because of the different POV.

Then we have the far moderate & radical right. I think most of the moderate right (few as we are) will definitely insult you less and definitely hold a discussion. The radical right really don't post here anymore.

The real question you have to ask yourself, is this forum worth being a member of with the small radical, but very vocal elements automatically assume you have the worst of intentions and respond to you in such?

[thesloppy]

Dare I say that all goes both ways. You've been a member here for years and have often joined in complaining about the board's leftist leanings but then went out of your way to post 'is racism bad??' in the middle of a thread explicitly dedicated to racial/police violence, filled with the most agitated leftist posters & then want to broadcast your shock from the top of a high horse AND you're going to force it into an extended discussion about "Why can't I ask if racism is bad??" as well? Give me a break, please.

[JPhillips]

According to newly released transcripts of interviews with Louisville police officers, they knew a month before they invaded Breonna Taylor's home that the "suspicious packages" that supposedly justified the raid came from Amazon.https://t.co/3JMtZK4Fcm

— reason (@reason) October 9, 2020

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

You've been a member here for years and have often joined in complaining about the board's leftist leanings but then went out of your way to post 'is racism bad??' in the middle of a thread explicitly dedicated to racial/police violence, filled with the most agitated leftist posters & then want to broadcast your shock from the top of a high horse AND you're going to force it into an extended discussion about "Why can't I ask if racism is bad??" as well?

That's not what I did. First of all, I can't force any kind of discussion. Discussions take multiple parties. But also, I didn't ask if racism was bad. I asked why it was bad. In my post bringing it up I specifically stated this:

Originally Posted by me

Before someone gets the wrong idea, this isn't a gotcha question and I would fully agree with the self-evident IMO proposition that racism is a moral evil. But I am more and more convinced that my why is different than many posters here.

If someone can read that and think I'm suggesting racism isn't bad, I would suggest they need to work on their reading comprehension because it states the opposite.

Why isn't this thread the most appropriate place to ask the question? This is the thread where people most concerned here about racial issues post about those the most, therefore it has the best sources of information in terms of what they think about racism. To my mind it's a demonstration of respect. I could have just gone off about some recent postings here that brought rise to the question, but instead I decided to ask. To try and learn. To better understand the perspective of people who think differently than me. Rather than engage on something where there'd be no common ground, I tried to ascertain the differences at the fundamental level.

Does the fact that it's an emotionally charged issue mean we don't have to respond to the actual arguments being offered? Regarding it all going both ways, where do you see me attacking the inner motivations of others or getting upset that a topic was even brought up? You show me any example of me doing that and I give you my word, I will fully and forthrightly apologize here. I believe a false argument - and I didn't make an argument, I asked a question - should be refuted, not named.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

IMO posing your question in this particular thread is doom to failure. Better to do it in a separate thread and ask people not to participate if they can't hold a discussion without insulting or pithy commentary.

I thought that would be just as likely to get people asking why I was calling attention to myself by making a new thread when we already have one, etc. I thought, and still do, that posting it here was most appropriate and a sign of respect.

Originally Posted by Edward64

The real question you have to ask yourself, is this forum worth being a member of with the small radical, but very vocal elements automatically assume you have the worst of intentions and respond to you in such?

It's worth it to me. I've had some very valuable discussions with you IMO on a number of subjects. I've learned from Radii, from JPhillips, from thesloppy, from others at different times. Yes, sometimes I have to wade through a metric ton of crap to get to those moments, but it beats a lot of places on the internet for sure.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's worth it to me. I've had some very valuable discussions with you IMO on a number of subjects. I've learned from Radii, from JPhillips, from thesloppy, from others at different times. Yes, sometimes I have to wade through a metric ton of crap to get to those moments, but it beats a lot of places on the internet for sure.

I agree, it's worth it to me also. And it's definitely easy enough to ignore the radical left but still converse with the moderate groups.

[PilotMan]

Ahhh yes, using "radical left" is one way to initiate and ensure a very fair, and level headed discussion.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Ahhh yes, using "radical left" is one way to initiate and ensure a very fair, and level headed discussion.

Are you kidding me about "fair" and "level headed" discussion? No problem with the moderate left, the radical left are beyond hope.

Hence the other phrase I use often, oblivious hypocrisy.

[PilotMan]

You know what I'm saying. When the 'other side' is deemed to be unreachable and lost it's time to walk away. The time for talking is past. I've done this to a few former friends and family. I've pulled back for my own benefit. Everyone knows where I stand, I don't need to announce it. It is what it will be.

[cuervo72]

The bar on "radical" is ever shifting, too. Well, that or the "moderate" right is, making everything else radical in comparison.

[sterlingice]

The Overton window has shifted a long way in my lifetime

SI

[PilotMan]

Dammit SI, do you know now many times I've had to ~highlight, right click, search Google~ because of you?

[ISiddiqui]

Is this really the first time you've heard of the Overton window?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[cuervo72]

I'm with PilotMan - I knew of the concept, not the name of the term. (Need to store it away for trivia purposes...)

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Is this really the first time you've heard of the Overton window?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Yeah, never, that's a new one for me.

[sterlingice]

My bad - was just having a conversation on FB Messenger about that. It's just a bit too wonky and defeats the purpose of communication if it had to be looked up. But, yeah, it describes a lot of what we were talking about above.

SI

[larrymcg421]

I'm curious as to what people's definitions of radical left are considering it's seemingly now being applied to people who largely rejected Bernie both times he ran?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm curious as to what peope's definitions of radical left are considering it's seemingly now being applied to people who largely rejected Bernie both times he ran?

I believe in this case, it's being applied to anyone who calls out racism but not racism that was defined by ADL's definition, at least until they changed the definition a month ago to include those things as racism, thus making the claim that it's not exactly ADL-racist invalid... but that's a wordy mouthful so I could be wrong.

SI

[spleen1015]

I just learned I can highlight something, right click to Google it. Awesome.

Radical left is anyone who disagrees with Trump. People like to use it as an insult, like "incel".

[GrantDawg]

"Radical" is defined as "anything or anyone I disagree with.", Or at least I think that is the ADL definition.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Watch where you are stepping guys, it's gotten awfully sticky.

But if you do want to try to have a productive discussion on the radical left on FOFC, glad to do it. If not, not a big deal.

[sterlingice]

Heh: "productive discussion on the radical left of FOFC"

SI

[JPhillips]

I'll probably regret this, but what the hell.

What policy preferences make one, radical left?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'll probably regret this, but what the hell.

What policy preferences make one, radical left?

To be clear, we are discussing radical left on FOFC. So although policy differences do come into play, our discussion will also include the behavior of radical left on FOFC.

It you think it's still worth a conversation, I assume we can have a real discussion, this is what I have asked of another previously

Be glad to have a one-on-one conversation with you if you promise not to revert to a potty mouth, toss out insults, or bring your gang in to overwhelm a conversation. Let me know.

If it helps, we can create a separate thread and ask no one else to participate?

And when SI questioned "potty mouth" comment, my response was

If you did a search on cuss words in this thread, you'll find the vast majority of them come from the radical left.

The cuss words themselves don't matter to me but, when used during an intense discussion, they are an early warning/first sign (and this is typically when the "bros" show up to pile on) that the discussion is going downhill quickly. Many of the radical left here get agitated because of their inability to accept that good people have honest differences of opinion. The cuss words are inevitably replaced with "racist", "disingenuous", "troll" etc. and other personal attacks.

Think of it as a litmus test or commitment to not have the conversation eventually devolve into bitter acrimony.

If you disagree, come up with some suggestions.

[JPhillips]

The behavior of the radical left, doesn't define what it means to be radical left.

[BYU 14]

I am just curious who you define as radical left in this equation on FOFC? I have my own opinion there, but honestly don't think that many fall into that category.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The behavior of the radical left, doesn't define what it means to be radical left.

It does when the context of the proposed discussion of radical left on FOFC. If you read the threads that started with my conversation with Brian, it's pretty clear I was talking about FOFC radical left specifically.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I am just curious who you define as radical left in this equation on FOFC? I have my own opinion there, but honestly don't think that many fall into that category.

I absolutely think this is a fair question and willing to have that discussion with you assuming we agree on some proposed rules (see above response to JPhillips). I said this to Brian further up.

So my suggestion is, identify the top 8-10 intolerant radical left and just ignore them. They'll use unhelpful one-liners and call you a racist, troll etc. whatever and they'll wallow in their own oblivious hypocrisy of intolerance, bigotry, ageism, trolling etc.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Many of the radical left here get agitated because of their inability to accept that good people have honest differences of opinion.

I would agree with this, except that I don't think 'radical left' is the best terminology to use for it. This isn't the best place for that semantic hair-split though.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I would agree with this, except that I don't think 'radical left' is the best terminology to use for it. This isn't the best place for that semantic hair-split though.

What terminology would you use?

Oh nevermind. There'll be the inevitable bros pile on and didn't mean to get you involved beyond quoting your-my exchanges. Let's see if there's a separate thread created first with some rules of the road so we can have a productive conversation. This is definitely getting off topic for this thread.

[JPhillips]

You won't define the term, so there's nothing to discuss.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You won't define the term, so there's nothing to discuss.

Yup, no super powers without the bros.

[JPhillips]

lol

The radical right at FOFC get agitated because they won't answer simple questions.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

lol

The radical right at FOFC get agitated because they won't answer simple questions.

My offer stands.