Focusing on the exception while ignoring the peaceful majority is also what BLM and anti-racist activists are doing. And rightfully so!
When it comes to severe crimes or violence, it has to be the expectation that they are rare events. If the murder rate in a city increases from 0.1% to 0.3%, we wouldnt say "this city is mostly safe, focus on the positive", we'd be very concerned and demand police/city hall to do something about it. Similarly, non-self-defense killings of civilians by the police are very rare yet society is absolutely justified in questioning every single one of them.

All I'm asking for here is consistency. If the rare, violent outliers are concerning when it comes to police violence or racism in general, then the same standard also has to apply to violence and crime perpetrated by protestors.



One of the rare cases where you made a good argument. The kneeling is an annoying but acceptable form of protest and I was wrong to oppose it so vehemently back in 2017.




Basic human rights are not contingent on a social contract, they apply universally. Additionally, you will not find any advanced society in human history which sanctioned random murder, rape, arson or property destruction against its members by non-state actors.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 31 2021 02:20am

yeah nice try, but the tenor of that whole anti-BLM narrative is not: "there are instances of violence that are concerning", which would be an obvious deflection attempt, but a fair observation to make - the right wing narrative is that the movement itself is inherently violent, that burning, looting and violence is the rule, the nature of it, and not the exception, so much so that the core message can be dismissed and the "morality" of it is undermined by the relatively rare instances of violence (conveniently ignoring the point that many of those were started or escalated by the police or right wing agitators), even going so far as to label it a "terrorist organisation". that is absurd, dishonest, and clearly fabricated to smear the movement, to dismiss its goals, if you want to admit it or not.

now you can clutch your pearls and protest, claiming that's not exactly what you explicitly stated, try to retreat to semantics and nitpicking, but you know as well as me that's what you perpetuated here. you're not merely "asking for consistency", you're engaging in a smear campaign based on deliberate misrepresentation of facts.

That is a two way street. If it's acceptable for people to "go full" out on attempting to murder me and burn down my home and business because they no longer agree to the social contract, then it's equally acceptable for me to shoot them like the rabid dogs they are for being a threat to me.

If it's every man and woman for themselves, I'm good with that. The idea that, "Other people in other places did these supposed bad things that make me angry, therefore YOU have to suffer through no fault of your own" is somehow "right" or "legitimate" is completely stupid.

Your premise is false, your conclusion is false, and it's very clear you're a shitty person. Do better. Or just, you know, grow up kiddo.

Having lived in many regions, I'm behind reimagining policing in dense urban and city environments, less so for rural or state level. Maybe it's a combination of higher hiring standard, less immunity for fups, more public visibility, officers with higher caliber specializations and variety among working shifts, more pay for officers, less long distance commuter officers policing areas that aren't part of their home town. Also, more authority for fire or paramedic to intervene with officers having a mental episode.

This post was edited by RedFromWinter on Mar 31 2021 04:53am