Betsy Ross Flag vs Colin Kaepernick (controversial)
ZealotX wrote: And I have yet to truly hear what that means as it is typically undefined by white people making this argument (which boils down to "thou dost protest wrongly"). If we're to be criticized by racists and criticized in our criticism of racists I think it's only fair to hear what the RIGHT way to do it is.
Well I did but the iPad ate my reply..... In short Trump's context was socialist
policies being discussed not being advantageous to the US and that if they liked those policies they should move there rather then change the US. Not racist. Did it sound racist in iolation, sure.... but one shouldn't assume intent and then construct a narrative to support it, or think that everything a racist does is racist. Your surely not arguing for a burden of innocence? Seems much fairer to have a presumption of innocence and a burden of guilt. So in this case, that is just what being rude is, saying things that upset ppl while actually saying something that doesn't. We shoulndt steteotype anyone really, groups, cultures, races or even individuals on their past - treating people on what they actually do means referencing that above all else, as context. If you clarify your question I might be better able to get a response sent through to it.
What you see in this video is a fishing attempt similar to the Hill arrest. The difference is that this guy knew his rights and proper police procedure. Therefore, he was able to shut this down. And he's not the only one. I've seen at least a dozen people (of cases caught on video AND distributed online such that it came across my feed) who shut the police down in their unlawful attempts to harass private citizens. I repeat. Unlawful. In this video you'll hear the driver ask a question the officer simply cannot answer because it would expose the fact that he had no lawful reason for the stop.
The reason many black people do know their rights and police procedure enough to shut down these fishing attempts is because of the sheer amount of cases and stories where these things happen. So learning what an officer can and cannot do has become a survival technique in reaction to racism. But this reaction that forces us to adapt isn't shared by whites in general who don't have the same need to react, therefore don't need to understand proper police procedure and the their rights under the 4th amendment because they are far less likely to receive the same treatment. It does happen however and therefore they should understand these things as it is beneficial but its simply less likely to happen. So without this extra understanding a white person's first glance at one of these stories may not be the same because it might appear the officer is simply doing his job, simply asking questions, and looks very reasonable while doing so. And so it is easy to assume that the officer also has a valid REASON for the stop.
Again... there has to be a specific crime being committed. And the officer MUST have reasonable suspicion that the person has engaged in that crime or is about to. You can't just pull people at random. You CANNOT do that.
The cop follows the guy and when he pulls into the apartments where he lives (and I wouldn't want that cop knowing my exact address either) he's following the guy onto PRIVATE property which makes it worse. But he doesn't ask any questions about how he was driving before he entered the property. So why is he suspicious? What exactly did the driver do? This clearly cannot be called a 'drug area' so what's the deal? People assume that you have to cooperate fully with police officers. That's not true. You have to cooperate with any LAWFUL requests of a police officer. If his request isn't in the pursuit of a specific crime then his request becomes unlawful. And this is key to understand. Police BREAK THE LAW all the time. Not all police do it. Not all of them. But definitely overzealous cops and cops trying to hit quotas have a tendency to break the law. They don't get caught doing so because when a suspect suspects them of breaking the law they refuse to answer questions that would prove it and if they can't find something before over exposing themselves they simply walk away. The key point is that as long as they don't PROVE that they have broken the law it doesn't matter. They can get away with it. What are you going to do? Call the police on them?
So pay close attention to how this unfolds. The cop isn't in some kind of racist angry rage throwing out the N-word and other obscenities. He's not forcing the guy to the ground overreacting. You have to notice everything. They're both being civil and as such the driver gives him nothing to use against him. Plus he may or may not have been aware that he was being filmed which meant he had to be extra careful. But all the professionalism in the world couldn't cover up the fact that he had no real reason for following him and then approaching him. He certainly wasn't familiar with every resident of the apartment complex enough to know that he didn't live there. And if he was familiar he would have checked his parking sticker. I have one too. It's obvious; especially if you're parked next to other vehicles with the same sticker. So the driver allows him to ask questions and answers the ones that are lawful without giving away too much information but in turn and only up to the point he [the driver] can establish why the cop is questioning him which he has a right (by law) to know.
This leads to the key question which is how you (anyone) get out of this situation. He asks, "am I being detained or am I free to go?" Notice, before this the police officer asks his name and the driver says "I don't have to tell you that". So it's not that he doesn't have a name and its not that he doesn't know his address. He simply knows he does not have to give up that information. Now if he was being pulled over for speeding that would be different. The officer can then ask for his license and registration. But you CANT do that without a crime. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here. The point of all this is to show you beyond a reasonable doubt that police officers often use unlawful tactics in dealing with (all) people. However, who would they try this with predominantly? People who are dressed in suits and might be lawyers? Or people who "look" like they're out of place (car, neighborhood, etc.)?
I don't believe in the quota system. The quota system assumes that crimes are happening all the time and that if officers are in the right place they're going to run into them. The quota system creates an incentive for cops to make arrests whether people are innocent or not. If someone calls the police on you and it takes an hour or two to investigate and write a report that's time he cannot get back and could need in order to hit his numbers. So you have to either kill the quota system entirely and stop using the justice system as an income stream for the local municipality (because that's exactly what it becomes and why they have quotas). OR you have to at least use the cops GPS data to make sure they are spending equal time in all communities in their jurisdiction.
I would also look at their "rules of engagement" and create penalties (disincentives) for breaking those rules. Cops should have a point system just like drivers and once they run out of points they should be under a microscope until their points refresh. If I'm late to work its the same thing. If I get too many points I automatically get fired. Much of the problem that these illegal tactics are encouraged by the quota system, by the economic incentive of the municipality which then rolls down to individual officers. And if they feel the only way to hit their numbers is to bend or break the law then its better to violate someone's 4th amendment rights than to get reprimanded or fired for not meeting their quota. They're more afraid of the quota system than the constitution because like I said before they're not afraid of being caught because the people they target rarely (if ever) have lawyers and most lawyers will not touch those cases because you have to prove intent. And if the officer doesn't have to answer your questions... as long as he's not an idiot he can almost always get away with it.
Take out the quota system and arrests will drastically decrease. Take out the quota system and cops will target so many people based on their race and gender. These solutions aren't complicated but often the problem is capitalism itself. Because capitalism drives the behavior of the municipality to seek more money. They're not telling anyone to be racist or use racial profiling so they can always say their hands are clean. If the cop can say "I stopped them because.... um... uh.... drug area" it doesn't matter if its B.S. their hands are clean in the eyes of the law. As long as people's hands are clean they have no reason to change what they're doing. Therefore, the laws have to be changed and new policies put in place. If a municipality needs more money then raise property taxes. Period. They should not be using a public service as an income booster. Whatever money a public service brings in should fund only that public service and any extra should be a surplus held until taxes can be lowered.
I believe the quota system actually seduces police officers into being bad cops. If there's not enough crime to meet the quota then they are tempted to "create crime" by fishing attempts. The success rate of a fishing attempt simply depends on the knowledge of the suspect and their vulnerability to the system. Vulnerable people often don't even complain or ask for an officer's name and badge number because they don't believe anyone will believe them anyway. And who are they going to complain to? The buddies of the cops back at the station?
So you also need a civilian oversight board, staffed by volunteers from the community. They can hear complaints and then turn those into more formal investigations which to go directly to the police chief with. These civilians should review body cam footage and act as arbitrators. One of them should be in the viewing room monitoring suspects being questioned. And it would be their job to know the law, the person's rights, and stop anything that violated the law.
Body cams.... body cams should be controlled by Bluetooth, GPS, and voice activation. If an officer goes to the bathroom it should be
off. At the station it should be off. In his car it should be off. I respect their privacy but if their heart rate is elevated it should automatically turn on. If it hears loud voices such as the officer giving commands it should turn on. If the officer is walking and outside of a 2 mile range of the station it should turn on. And if it's not on then an officer should not be allowed to touch the suspect. If they have to they can hold them at gun point until their partner arrives with a working camera. Malfunctioning cameras or blocked cameras should beep loudly, even letting the suspect know that it's off. Body cams should be standard issue, given to an officer at the same time they're given their weapons. Eventually, I would invest in technology so that cams are put on guns and the gun would only fire if the camera is recording audio and video. Is this really so difficult to do? No. Is it worth doing to save lives? Yes. The lives of the guilty are still human lives and the fact is that innocent people have also been killed by police. And they can shoot you and put a knife in your hand after the fact.
Decriminalize drugs. I think drugs as well as prostitution should be legal and taxed. As long as you have 2 consenting parties of legal age whatever activity they engage in together should be legal as long as it doesn't effect anyone else. So buying cocaine should be legal. Driving under the influence of any drug should not. Same with alcohol. Remember prohibition? Gangsters controlled the flow of alcohol and because it was a black market commodity people got hurt and shot and people still got drunk and people still gambled and all that. Making things illegal doesn't stop it from happening. If there's a market for it then it will happen. People smoke. Now there's a market to help people stop smoking. There can be a market to help people get off dangerous drugs the same way but it wont be utilized like AA until its stops being criminal. Hurting yourself should never be a crime. Once you get drugs into actual stores then there's no need for gangs because what do gangs do outside of selling black market goods? And many illegal weapons are supplied in order to maintain the black market territories against other suppliers. So get the drugs off the street, the gangs off the street, and most of the guns off the street. When you can legally purchase these things and the prices are competitive this destroys the black market demand and the supply can be taxed. Revenue from that taxation can fund treatment centers and health care in general. Taxing it can also fund local public schools and trade programs. If a student isn't doing well and isn't on a college track they should be able to switch to a trade school and pick a trade to go into. That should be free public education that yields certifications at the end. And then instead of people calling that kid to buy drugs they can call that kid to come fix their sink.
If you do the things I mentioned in this post it will deal a major blow to racism in and outside of the police force. Why? Because all those arrests help to paint a false narrative about black people being criminals and that gets taught to new generations of racists. If you get rid of the black market for drugs and tax it you can train other skills and help people launch businesses that generate taxable income that can support their families as well as others in need. You get kids off the street and you give them another opportunity they can believe in so that they know they can survive and have the same things that every one has in the pursuit of happiness and the American dream. Do these things and it will only be a matter of time before racism itself becomes a thing of the past.
Adder wrote: In short Trump's context was socialist
policies being discussed not being advantageous to the US and that if they liked those policies they should move there rather then change the US.
sure, but by this logic we don't need a congress or a president or a supreme court. We can just say "it is what it is and if you don't like it you can move"
changing the US is baked into the constitution. Changing the US is as American as the American flag. Changing the US, for the better, is what the US is all about.
And it is OUR country that we want to make better. The socialist argument is simply propaganda meant to scare the ignorant. Socialism is a system of political-economics where the means of production, distribution and exchange of commodities are regulated by the people or community rather than a private entity or a top elite. Universal healthcare is a social program, not socialism.
What happened to "make America great again"? Isn't that the exact same thing? Why don't they just "go back to Europe"?
I should not have to explain why this is racist. White people shouldn't need to 'ask a black dude' every time something racist happens so they can know it was racist. There are plenty of whites who have called it out for being racist and a resolution even passed the House.
But... to explain... As I said before, racist often attack the notion of your "place" in this country or any community or territory they believe "BELONGS" to them. They don't recognize your equal stake or ownership. They view it as "their country", not yours. And so by extension they're "ALLOWING" you to live here.
What citizen has the right to either remove or tell another citizen to leave? What US citizen has more right to live here than another? Do we want to play the game of whose family has been here longer? Because Trump doesn't win that fight. Many racists base their idea of ownership on the demographics; they're in the majority. So... racists will very commonly be against "race mixing" or non-white immigration because it threatens their pure white majority ownership (as if their majority will vote in the interest of their own race). We've seen that they're very scared of the demographics of the country changing to no longer be a "white country" which gives rise to white terrorist training camps and terrorists like Dylan Roof who was treated to Burger King. It's about who belongs here.
This has ALWAYS been about race and ethnicity. Many whites view this as a white country. Period. "Jews will not replace us!" was the chant of white nationalists. It's racist! Of course it is. It shouldn't even be a question. When you tell someone to get out you are implying that the place they are getting out of is YOUR place. You can tell people to get out of your house, get out of your car, get out of your business establishment, get out of your face, etc. But you're implying ownership that the other person simply doesn't have. You're saying they don't have equal right to be there.
And that's why part of the "Southern Strategy" is about gerrymandering and denying black people from voting. You don't do that if you believe that this is just as much their country and they have every right to vote. You do that because you're racist and you want the power to stay in the hands of your race.
There are certain things racists say all the time. Black people are well aware of them. We've heard them numerous times. It's not new or surprising. So while I can understand if its not normal to you and so you're trying to take it on an individual basis and figure out the context... while that's cute and all... this was already figured out several decades ago. It's not something that non-racists say. If they did there wouldn't really be a controversy right now. They don't because it doesn't occur to them to use the race of the person and their country of origin in an argument. Why would they? They're not racist. Someone who is racist is definitely thinking of the person's race and country of origin and will use that in their argument if they get upset enough. I've been in enough situations to know and not be guessing. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tells you to go back to Africa, then buddy, I'm sorry but that duck is a racist duck. At this point, Trump is leaning into his racist identity by continuing the attack and allowing racists to take it in exactly that way (the way he meant it). And he can say it wasn't for the sake of... whatever at this point-it doesn't matter... but they [racists] know what it is. They knew back when he was attacking Obama and asking for his birth certificate. This simply is not a conspiracy to make Trump into a racist. Many people have known this whole time but have had to hold back until more people could catch on to it.
As for corporations? If I don’t like what they do enough, I don’t buy their products. It’s simple for me.
Why that exact flag?
Why now? In 2009 it flew behind Obama at his inauguration.
I understand certain flags for sure, yes they are history but yet some directly support darker parts of history (The Confederate Battle Flag). Should they be banned, no, but they shouldn't be flown proudly (but free-speech, so, that's my opinion). At what point did this exact flag become an issue? As a student of history I just don't really get this one, I feel like those placing this much feeling into the symbolism of this (Betsy Ross) flag is a little of an ideological stretch.
Do you think Nike cares about the principle it acted in, or is the ticking in their stock price due to name recognition more important?
IMHO and in some of my knowledge, outrage sells doesn't matter what its about just as long as it happens. I.E. Trump says racist thing, everyone tweaks and in the side articles there is a small mention about the executive order and rule change to asylum he made. Which is a very very significant thing. Sometimes it seems like a play by either side of the political spectrum to add a factor of control.
Much Love, Respect and Peace,
I met a strange lady, she made me nervous, she took me in and gave me breakfast. - Men at Work