I was commenting on the other thread, but then my comment grew out of hand and over the character limit for a response. Actually, I'll add some links since I'm going in on it I guess.These are my takes on the various topics:
Nike made a business decision - they signed Kaepernick for publicity.
Imagine thinking a corporation like Nike would do anything for social justice. I don't have evidence for this take, but c'mon now.
Kaepernick sacrificed his NFL career in favor of protesting
police brutality against African Americans. He had the talent
level to be signed as a quarterback. He was not given a workout by
any of the 32 NFL teams as a free agent. Seattle called him to
bring him in, but only on the grounds that he stopped kneeling. He
told them he would not, and here we are.
Kaepernick is making more money now than if he had not protested and finished his NFL career. He would have been paid as a back-up quarterback and probably could have played for 2-5 more years. I assume his Nike deal is much larger, plus he can leverage this for merchandise sales and speaking deals. If you want to use this to dispute the idea that he "sacrificed everything," go ahead. I think that's a fair point to make.
If you disagree with Kaepernick's cause, I think you need to study racial injustice in America more closely. If the police brutality doesn't do it for you, I would suggest to you to research injustice in the prison system & the War on Drugs or the lingering repercussions of slavery & historic injustice to African Americans leading to inequality in generational economics. I'm willing to share resources on this subject - I think it's very crucial for Americans and everyone to understand just how deep some of these cuts are.
If you disagree with Kaepernick's method of protest, I can understand, but please don't misrepresent the protest itself. I think all of the NFL players made it very, very clear that they were not protesting America, or the military, or the flag itself. I certainly don't understand the take that standing for the national anthem at a sporting event is some sort of sacred rite. Players weren't even on the field for it until 2009. Protests are supposed to cause discomfort. A comfortable protest is not an effective one, and it certainly is Colin's right to demonstrate. It was also the NFL's prerogative to not give him a job. I think that's what gives Colin's story some credibility - he did know he would face repercussions and he chose to do it anyway. I don't think you can say he knew he would get this big endorsement deal out of it.
Also Devante, if you want to complain about real oppression, back off of the go-to speculation that you have about "police brutality against blacks" and listen to stories about real oppression across the world.
I have no prejudice against Islamism, but it is the single main breeding ground for all terrorist attacks, so rather than caring about people just because they are black, you should care about people as a whole.
The women are restricted from having self-expression, and they must wear a hijab, otherwise they lose rights such as freedom of choice. And no, despite popular belief, it is not a part of their religious culture for tradition. It is simply because they think that men don't have control over their sexual urges, and are able to get away with "accidentally " girls who aren't covered. And there are no real grounds in which women can claim they were simply because their society is mostly revolved around men.
Not only that, but you are legally allowed to kill homosexuals because homosexuality is a deadly sin in that religion.
Are you sure you want to keep parading around and saying that America has oppression in a place with equal/nonprejudiced rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, self-expression, the press, and fair trial? Bite on the other end of that and tell me how it tastes.
I also have the looming suspicion that you are planning to use myself as the next example. You wanna know what I would be thinking? Nothing because I am dead.
deletedalmost 7 years
and also you say that as though I am trying to be unsympathetic at every moment. I would be upset. I would cry. I would hate the person that did that. But at the same time, I would be able to move on from it, and not make a whole movement about it, because the judicial system will attend to the issue in that case. After that, it is none of my concern/business.
deletedalmost 7 years
you are the pathetic one if you think that me stating nonbiased facts in a free-speech and free-thinking nation is worthy of having my family killed.
deletedalmost 7 years
1. You have never considered any of the crucial evidence I gave. Try listening to me first if you want me to listen to you.
2. How can you say I am being subjective here? The only thing I have been subjective of was the officer being tried. Everything else I have used objective PoV to explain facts.
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.
You’re the type of person I despise. Literal disregard for truth & facts. If you can’t be objective on this open-shut case you’ll never be objective.
I hope one day one of your parents or close associates are shot trying to enter their car & if the shooter claims “he did it because he was tired after a long day of work & thougt your parent was trying to steal his car” you have this same energy You are pathetic
Also I agree on one thing, the prosecutors should not have initially charged her with manslaughter. Here’s a more appropriate charge & definition:
imagine if someone came to your door twenty years ago, and just took one of your parents away. their income disappears. all of a sudden the other parent has to look after you and your siblings, if you have any, on their own.
they also have to pay all those bills on their own, pay the mortgage or rent on their own, pay for medicine, new uniforms, new clothes, food, on their own. half the income disappeared, but it'll be fine right?
so then twenty years later if someone asks you why you're not achieving as highly as you might be expected to, and you say "well my parent just disappeared in '98, some people took them away", that's an understandable reason
so why the f*ck can't you take that as a reason when non-white people says "well, here's how the system has screwed us"
anyway that's voter stuff, there's more but i cbf. let's talk crime?
how about the fact that black Americans are more likely to be stopped than white Americans?
or the fact that black and Latina Americans are eight times more likely to serve jail time for marijuana crimes than white Americans? not eight times more likely to COMMIT crimes, just eight times more likely to get a jail sentence while a white guy gets probation or a fine.
or the fact that because black Americans are more likely to be incarcerated for a crime a white American gets off on, they're unable to vote again because America removes voting rights from felons?
or the fact that as felons it's far less likely for them to get jobs after prison, but states like California will still use them to fight wild fires (no firefighting job post-prison) and states like North Carolina will leave them to try and survive hurricanes in prisons
or the fact that schools in predominantly black districts are funded less than schools in predominantly white districts leading to lower education outcomes which leads to lower job opportunities, higher crime rates, and higher poverty rates?
or the fact that the jailing of black Americans for crimes that white Americans get lesser or no sentence for means that a current and future source of income is removed from a family resulting in poverty rates?
or that fact that higher poverty rates = lower access to health care, and lower standards of education, meaning that the poor die faster and are less likely to have an education equivalent to that of a neighbouring, wealthier suburb?
do you have any requests? I'm gonna count modern day as 21st century. so anything from jan 1st 2000 counts.
so how about Republicans gerry mandering voting districts so that the power of black voters is minimised?
or we could talk about the purging of black names from electoral rolls across the United States in the run up to the 2000 election, leading to Bush's victory while thousands of black voters (particularly in Florida, where the electoral votes decided the election that year) were being turned away from polling stations because they'd been wrongly deregistered?
or how about the same election where thousands of black voters turned up to polling stations BEFORE the closing time, meaning they were legally entitled to cast their votes, but were turned away because the polling stations decided otherwise
or how about the closure of DMVs in predominantly black districts in Georgia this year, meaning that black voters were unable to get essential photo ID to vote?
or how about the use of voter ID at all? there have been less than 50 cases of voter fraud in the last 20 years, covering 5 presidential elections, and over 300 million total votes cast, yet voter ID is still required in numerous states despite being proven to disenfranchise black voters.
deletedalmost 7 years
i cc gay
deletedalmost 7 years
This wouldn't even qualify for a typical manslaughter case, because most are planned, motivated crimes that are intended to torture, not kill.
deletedalmost 7 years
which is why I suggest is the worst thing that happens to her is losing her job. But apparently she is already being tried for manslaughter. Hope you guys are happy that someone is serving for a 2-second fear instinct that didn't allow enough time for rational thought whatsoever.
deletedalmost 7 years
they are cookie-cutter apartments that probably had similar decorating, and she reacted in the heat of the moment.
deletedalmost 7 years
actually typing paragraph long answers on epic mafia dot com
a lot of this is basic criminology and critical law studies, doing more of a thing like, say, stop-and-frisking black individuals more because their communities are more predisposed to 'criminal' behaviour will lower your numbers in the long run but cultivate a distrust of the police. And you see that distrust reflected in a lot of black culture, hip-hop being one big example.
There is nothing the police can do to eliminate "criminality" purely by bolstering their numbers and increasing the amount of spot-checking they do, they can only arrest and jail more people and cultivate a culture that is weary of their presence.
This has been made worse from decades of innocent black people being stopped and jailed from minor offenses purely by being in the presence of a police officer- or worse, killed, like we saw with Eric Garner.
It definitely did reduce crime, since crime considerably affects and is produced more by minority communities. The question on your mind shouldn't be "therefore, more of this", but instead "so, what is causing the crime? what can be done about it? what makes these communities predisposed to more 'criminal' behaviour?"
And stop-and-frisk doesn't stop at merely being stopped, and the experience of a black person being stopped for doing nothing wrong and then being jailed is a phenomena that exists. Police officers in the states are still more likely to arrest a black person who has been stopped on minor charges or arrested for no-crime other than obstruction.
Being harder on criminals lowers crime but it doesn't address the issues that lead to a 'crime' being committed in the first place.
I'm not saying the stats aren't correct, and that those three things won't help your upward social mobility, i'm arguing that not everyone has the same opportunities to fulfil those three things, poor black communities especially
