Black people, stop embarrassing yourselves!

[McBell]

Mestemia, the only person twisting things is you. I questioned the double-standard presented in the title.The reason "black people are embarrassing themselves" is due to police violence. Do you need someone to draw you a colored diagram with pictures to show you the correlation or are you just being intentionally obtuse?

The only person looking for a fight is you. I asked a question, which is a function having this forum in the first place. If that bothers you (which is does apparently), you're free to go enlighten yourself with something that requires less reading comprehension and is more your speed.

Have a nice day.

*yawn*
You really need to work on that.

You are free to have the last word.

 

[Mister_T]

*yawn*
You really need to work on that.

You are free to have the last word.

A compelling and well thought out response that helps justify your frivolous diatribes.

Yes, I think I will take the last word, thank you.

 

[suncowiam]

I wonder, is it only the ones looking to be "offended" who think that the OP was talking about every single black person?

So, there's no responsibility on the OP in this case?

I agree with you that some might be over reacting like myself. But these short contrite titles and especially that first post as how it was constructed was a big bait and switch.

My suggestion here is just hold the emotions in check as best as they can and be constructive. Criticism is best accepted when its in a constructive manner.

Although, as I've already opined, this thread does not address all the issues at hand. I still find it very one-sided, one-dimensional to a bigger problem.

 

[Shad]

Agreed, and let me bring up another point that I think you'll agree with.

We spent roughly a trillion dollars propping up our banks since the beginning of the Great Recession, and rightfully so as we could not allow our economy to collapse, but why haven't we done much at all to help encourage the creation of more jobs, the repairing of our infrastructure, and encourage the rebuilding of our crumbling cities? I'm not talking about issuing more handouts-- I'm talking about changing some of our laws and procedures to create more jobs, and this can and has been done before, so we do know how to do it and what it takes to do it.

We just put the literal buck back into the hands of the very groups that causes the crash of the 20's. Banks have far too much power over the economy to the point that we attempt to save banks which should of collapsed. We support capitalism until those in charge decide otherwise. We spend time and money better invested into production which is the real factor of economic growth.

 

[Mycroft]

Couple of things:

• I don't think Saint Frankenstein is racist, he has a point but it could have been worded a bit better maybe.
• The point being: If you wish to be treated a certain way, one should act in a way that is conducive to that treatment. I am sure your mothers all used to say 'If you want to be treated like an adult, act like one!'? This is roughly the same thing, and what Frankenstein was trying to get at.

 

[Stevicus]

Do you even know what racism is? I've said many times before that this is not a racial issue. It has nothing to do with black people as a race. I've gotten into fights with racists on here trying to say that black people are biologically inferior. This is a social/cultural issue and the problem mostly lies with inner city black teen youth culture. That is the real issue at hand.

I would tend to agree with this, although if it's a problem with inner city teen youth culture, then it's not really about the "black community" or black people in general, as it wouldn't really apply to middle-aged or elderly people within that community.

But the larger mainstream culture has had a love affair with angst-ridden youth ever since the era of James Dean, so if we're upset about angry youth culture, then it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out where their ideals and influences come from, whether directly or indirectly. Likewise, the overall culture embraces and fosters a harsh, dog-eat-dog, materialistic, he-who-dies-with-the-most-toys-wins attitude, and yet, so many people feel they can cry "foul" if we actually have to face the logical consequences of our society's values.

So, the rioters are exhibiting a harsh, dog-eat-dog attitude, and some are even using it as an excuse to loot, so they can have all the wonderful toys which our consumerist society likes to brag about so much. Gee, I wonder where they learned all that from? I daresay it wasn't from MLK or even the Black Panthers.

Even the so-called "gang culture" is really just a trickle down consequence of America's love affair with mobsterism, and it may be just a coincidence that many of these problems seem to exist in cities which have long histories of mobsterism which had been aided and abetted by the local authorities. If people feel powerless, then they might look to those they see as having power as role models in an attempt to elevate their position. Strictly speaking, I don't think anyone can blame those in the inner cities for Hollywood's and popular culture's glorification of the criminal culture and our society's generally harsh, cold-blooded attitude and hyper-consumerism.

This, coupled with the very real and natural human feeling of not wanting to be treated like crap, leads to these occasional riots and instances of violence. Sure, it's bad, but it's just the consequences of the society we live in. A lot of people seem to think that whatever it is that needs to be "fixed" is something that exists solely within the "black community," but that's barking up the wrong tree. The entire society needs to be fixed, from top to bottom.

So if I'm a racist, then I'm a pretty ****ing poor excuse of one since I don't see any race as inferior or superior and I believe that all people have the power to change for better or worse.

I'm getting pissed about people being foolish coming in here and saying "that's racist!" and then not adding anything to this topic and then having the nerve to act all smug. It's very frustrating.

I agree that some people might too quick to play the race card or make charges of "racism" too frivolously. Again, I think the problem here is that our society never really dealt with these problems and our historical atrocities in a truly honest and sincere manner. I think of this whenever I hear someone complain about "political correctness," but the thing is, PC would never have come about at all if people had been treated fairly and equally all along.

Racism seems almost beside the point, when this appears to be more a matter of political gamesmanship. Even when considering those blacks who stoke up the "hate whitey" rhetoric, whose interests are they really serving? Isn't it better for the political elite that black anger is misdirected and diffuse against an entire race of people, rather than more directly focused at the elite or the political system in general?

All these images of angry black youth with hatred towards whites also has the effect of scaring the crap out of "whitey" and driving the white population more into the arms of the power structure for their own protection. Therefore, the drive to support more police and harsher tactics and sentences is very strong.

It's similar in my neck of the woods where white Anglos are upset about the "invasion" from across the border. There are some loud voices among the masses crying out "Protect us! Protect us from these awful people," whether the "awful people" are in the inner cities, south of the border, or somewhere in the Middle East.

 

[metis]

We just put the literal buck back into the hands of the very groups that causes the crash of the 20's. Banks have far too much power over the economy to the point that we attempt to save banks which should of collapsed. We support capitalism until those in charge decide otherwise. We spend time and money better invested into production which is the real factor of economic growth.

I agree, and I held my nose during the bailouts, but it had to be done. The alternative would likely have been catastrophic. To me, the offending banks should have been temporarily federalized, broken up into smaller parcels, and sold to investors with better track records, such as what the Brits did with the RBS.

Most of the economic base of this country is with smaller, more localized businesses, and this is where our emphasis should be, imo. If people feel that they have partial ownership of these businesses, they are more likely to use and support them.

 

[Shad]

I agree, and I held my nose during the bailouts, but it had to be done. The alternative would likely have been catastrophic. To me, the offending banks should have been temporarily federalized, broken up into smaller parcels, and sold to investors with better track records, such as what the Brits did with the RBS.

Most of the economic base of this country is with smaller, more localized businesses, and this is where our emphasis should be, imo. If people feel that they have partial ownership of these businesses, they are more likely to use and support them.

It only had to be done in nations which do not regulate banks or have little regulation. It didn't have to be done in Canada since Canadian laws regulate banks to the point that the 2008 collapse was an economic boost until the last years or so. likewise for Iceland. Once the large banks recovered by government loans only did the economy fall back into it's standard trend pre-2008

While there are many small business many are dependent on banks. I agree with focusing on smaller business locally and nationally rather than large foreign companies. Production makes a nation a true economic power. If a nation is based on importation rather than exportation there is little true growth.

 

[metis]

It only had to be done in nations which do not regulate banks or have little regulation. It didn't have to be done in Canada since Canadian laws regulate banks to the point that the 2008 collapse was an economic boost until the last years or so. likewise for Iceland. Once the large banks recovered by government loans only did the economy fall back into it's standard trend pre-2008

Had the American and British banks collapsed, Canada would be with us back into the stone age. Some economists believe that we could have gone into a depression worse than the Great Depression because there was more money tied up in debt than there was back then.

However, I fully agree with you that the countries like Canada and China, which had more and more sensible regulations in place, were in better shape.

While there are many small business many are dependent on banks. I agree with focusing on smaller business locally and nationally rather than large foreign companies. Production makes a nation a true economic power. If a nation is based on importation rather than exportation there is little true growth.

Agreed, but I'm more concerned about less disparity of income and more stability than I am about being an economic power-- although having all three is no doubt a nice bonus. The "global economy" has presented a great many problems internationally, but putting the genie back into the bottle isn't likely to happen. Plus, I think we can construct working models so as to have our cake and eat it too, so I don't see this as being an either/or thingy.

 

[Shad]

Had the American and British banks collapsed, Canada would be with us back into the stone age. Some economists believe that we could have gone into a depression worse than the Great Depression because there was more money tied up in debt than there was back then.

It could have been possible. It would of hurt the global economy that is for sure. However Canadian systems are more sound than American systems. Canadian systems do not force banks to make risky low-income loans. While this is a great safety net it also prevent investment opportunities people would take the risk on. Domestic banks are also favored over foreign banks which make the chance of Canadian bank failing smaller than America's. Not a single Canadian bank failed in the Great Depression while thousands of American banks did.

However, I fully agree with you that the countries like Canada and China, which had more and more sensible regulations in place, were in better shape.

We trade safety at the cost of investment opportunities. The highs and lows are not so extreme.

Agreed, but I'm more concerned about less disparity of income and more stability than I am about being an economic power-- although having all three is no doubt a nice bonus. The "global economy" has presented a great many problems internationally, but putting the genie back into the bottle isn't likely to happen. Plus, I think we can construct working models so as to have our cake and eat it too, so I don't see this as being an either/or thingy.

My point was about bring production back to both nations rather than rely on cheap Chinese production. This is why China is a rising power, it's production base and exports.

 

[metis]

It could have been possible. It would of hurt the global economy that is for sure. However Canadian systems are more sound than American systems. Canadian systems do not force banks to make risky low-income loans. While this is a great safety net it also prevent investment opportunities people would take the risk on. Domestic banks are also favored over foreign banks which make the chance of Canadian bank failing smaller than America's. Not a single Canadian bank failed in the Great Depression while thousands of American banks did.

I agree, but just a reminder that the Canadian banks and investments are international as well as our economies in general. Actually one form that had to be bailed out was the insurance giant AIG. Because of the extensive use of credit-default swaps, especially here in the States and in the U.K., if they went under there would be the devil to pay. Even my pension was insured by them.

We trade safety at the cost of investment opportunities. The highs and lows are not so extreme.

Agree.

My point was about bring production back to both nations rather than rely on cheap Chinese production. This is why China is a rising power, it's production base and exports.

Agree-- in spades. A VAT approach would help., as well as putting more pressure on them to not continue to devalue their currency. The only reason why we haven't completely put the screws to them is that we don't want to lose them as a market, but that's a hellova price to pay for all the westerners put out of work.

 

[suncowiam]

Couple of things:

• I don't think Saint Frankenstein is racist, he has a point but it could have been worded a bit better maybe.
• The point being: If you wish to be treated a certain way, one should act in a way that is conducive to that treatment. I am sure your mothers all used to say 'If you want to be treated like an adult, act like one!'? This is roughly the same thing, and what Frankenstein was trying to get at.

He responded undetered, uncensored, emotionally raw to the situation. He didn't think twice about what was written. Some folks did the same and responded as naturally. Some folks like myself started slow with the suggestion of racism in the tone, especialy Wirey.

Adult relationships require everyone to be adults.

We can beat this until its beyond dead, but there should be enough lessons here for EVERYONE to move forward with.

 

[McBell]

So, there's no responsibility on the OP in this case?

I agree with you that some might be over reacting like myself. But these short contrite titles and especially that first post as how it was constructed was a big bait and switch.

My suggestion here is just hold the emotions in check as best as they can and be constructive. Criticism is best accepted when its in a constructive manner.

Although, as I've already opined, this thread does not address all the issues at hand. I still find it very one-sided, one-dimensional to a bigger problem.

So sorry.
Did I make a false assumption in thinking you were merely looking to be offended?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I would tend to agree with this, although if it's a problem with inner city teen youth culture, then it's not really about the "black community" or black people in general, as it wouldn't really apply to middle-aged or elderly people within that community.

But the larger mainstream culture has had a love affair with angst-ridden youth ever since the era of James Dean, so if we're upset about angry youth culture, then it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out where their ideals and influences come from, whether directly or indirectly. Likewise, the overall culture embraces and fosters a harsh, dog-eat-dog, materialistic, he-who-dies-with-the-most-toys-wins attitude, and yet, so many people feel they can cry "foul" if we actually have to face the logical consequences of our society's values.

So, the rioters are exhibiting a harsh, dog-eat-dog attitude, and some are even using it as an excuse to loot, so they can have all the wonderful toys which our consumerist society likes to brag about so much. Gee, I wonder where they learned all that from? I daresay it wasn't from MLK or even the Black Panthers.

Even the so-called "gang culture" is really just a trickle down consequence of America's love affair with mobsterism, and it may be just a coincidence that many of these problems seem to exist in cities which have long histories of mobsterism which had been aided and abetted by the local authorities. If people feel powerless, then they might look to those they see as having power as role models in an attempt to elevate their position. Strictly speaking, I don't think anyone can blame those in the inner cities for Hollywood's and popular culture's glorification of the criminal culture and our society's generally harsh, cold-blooded attitude and hyper-consumerism.

This, coupled with the very real and natural human feeling of not wanting to be treated like crap, leads to these occasional riots and instances of violence. Sure, it's bad, but it's just the consequences of the society we live in. A lot of people seem to think that whatever it is that needs to be "fixed" is something that exists solely within the "black community," but that's barking up the wrong tree. The entire society needs to be fixed, from top to bottom.



I agree that some people might too quick to play the race card or make charges of "racism" too frivolously. Again, I think the problem here is that our society never really dealt with these problems and our historical atrocities in a truly honest and sincere manner. I think of this whenever I hear someone complain about "political correctness," but the thing is, PC would never have come about at all if people had been treated fairly and equally all along.

Racism seems almost beside the point, when this appears to be more a matter of political gamesmanship. Even when considering those blacks who stoke up the "hate whitey" rhetoric, whose interests are they really serving? Isn't it better for the political elite that black anger is misdirected and diffuse against an entire race of people, rather than more directly focused at the elite or the political system in general?

All these images of angry black youth with hatred towards whites also has the effect of scaring the crap out of "whitey" and driving the white population more into the arms of the power structure for their own protection. Therefore, the drive to support more police and harsher tactics and sentences is very strong.

It's similar in my neck of the woods where white Anglos are upset about the "invasion" from across the border. There are some loud voices among the masses crying out "Protect us! Protect us from these awful people," whether the "awful people" are in the inner cities, south of the border, or somewhere in the Middle East.

Excellent post. You make some very good points.

 

[suncowiam]

So sorry.
Did I make a false assumption in thinking you were merely looking to be offended?

Don't be coy.

Nobody looks to be offended. This is a sensitive subject, is it not?

Let's you and I not get into a defensive posture and throw meaningless jabs without a meaningful outcome. I've spoken as much as I can objectively for both sides. I mentioned earlier that the OP could have been much more constructive in the approach regardless of the emotions. I strongly feel that way now. If you disagree then I like to hear your sincere response.

But if you just want to throw another jab then I reserve you the last jab.

 

[Shad]

I agree, but just a reminder that the Canadian banks and investments are international as well as our economies in general. Actually one form that had to be bailed out was the insurance giant AIG. Because of the extensive use of credit-default swaps, especially here in the States and in the U.K., if they went under there would be the devil to pay. Even my pension was insured by them.

Investment is heavy restricted and regulations force banks to curb what funds they can use. Investment banking is not a major part of the banking system while in America it is and has been for centuries.

Agree-- in spades. A VAT approach would help., as well as putting more pressure on them to not continue to devalue their currency. The only reason why we haven't completely put the screws to them is that we don't want to lose them as a market, but that's a hellova price to pay for all the westerners put out of work.

The market but also that China has invested a large amount of funding into the USD, its loans and interest. It has a level of control over it's own currency and that of a foreign currency which few governments have even over their own banking and currency systems.

 

[metis]

Investment is heavy restricted and regulations force banks to curb what funds they can use. Investment banking is not a major part of the banking system while in America it is and has been for centuries.

I think if you actually checked up on this that you'll find that the Canadian banks have done and still do a great deal of investment speculation because that's how they make most of their money. The difference is how much is allowed to go into investments versus being held as a liquid asset, which is higher here in the States after Glass-Steagall was passed in 1999. Even though this did not cause the problem, it definitely made it worse.

The market but also that China has invested a large amount of funding into the USD, its loans and interest. It has a level of control over it's own currency and that of a foreign currency which few governments have even over their own banking and currency systems.

Agreed, and think this tremendous degree of leverage they have puts us in a bad spot if there's any chance of military conflict. Because they're system is more centrally controlled, they're in a better position to take a big hit if they dump their investments here than we are.

 

[McBell]

Don't be coy.

Nobody looks to be offended. This is a sensitive subject, is it not?

Let's you and I not get into a defensive posture and throw meaningless jabs without a meaningful outcome. I've spoken as much as I can objectively for both sides. I mentioned earlier that the OP could have been much more constructive in the approach regardless of the emotions. I strongly feel that way now. If you disagree then I like to hear your sincere response.

But if you just want to throw another jab then I reserve you the last jab.

Why would you assume the OP meant every single black person?
Where do you draw the line?
Every single living black person, perhaps?
Or perhaps just the black people living in Baltimore?
Maybe every single black person who ever lived?

I did not assume the OP meant every single black person.
I assumed the OP meant the black people involved in the rioting.

Which assumption do you think is more rational, based on the OP?

 

[suncowiam]

Why would you assume the OP meant every single black person?
Where do you draw the line?
Every single living black person, perhaps?
Or perhaps just the black people living in Baltimore?
Maybe every single black person who ever lived?

I did not assume the OP meant every single black person.
I assumed the OP meant the black people involved in the rioting.

Which assumption do you think is more rational, based on the OP?

Generalizations do not need to assume all. It can mean most or even some. It doesn't matter. That fault still lies with the concept of generalization. The only characteristic given in the OP was black. It did not touch on other social issues outside of black. If one solely had to go on the notion of black then one had to dig into his/her own bag of black generalizations to assume what the OP meant.

So again I strongly suggest to use a more constructive narrative. Stay away from the notion of race. As discussed much later, involve the culture, the recent history, the social economic conditions, the relationships between authority... Much more can and should be discussed here.

The is not a black and white issue (excuse the pun).

 

[McBell]

Generalizations do not need to assume all. It can mean most or even some. It doesn't matter. That fault still lies with the concept of generalization. The only characteristic given in the OP was black. It did not touch on other social issues outside of black. If one solely had to go on the notion of black then one had to dig into his/her own bag of black generalizations to assume what the OP meant.

So again I strongly suggest to use a more constructive narrative. Stay away from the notion of race. As discussed much later, involve the culture, the recent history, the social economic conditions, the relationships between authority... Much more can and should be discussed here.

The is not a black and white issue (excuse the pun).

And you tell me to stop being coy?

The very first line of the OP:

"So there was riots and looting in Baltimore..."​

Please answer the question:

I did not assume the OP meant every single black person.
I assumed the OP meant the black people involved in the rioting.

Which assumption do you think is more rational, based on the OP?