Grand jury indicts 1 officer on criminal charges on Breonna Taylor case

[Mr S 8,794]

I thought they were gonna get this one right considering they got the Ford murder right (though it took major protesting)

This is so disappointing. 

[ShtoopidLahv 710]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

And that's all extremely problematic and the system needs a serious overhaul and I'm not saying otherwise and I support most changes ppl are pushing for

 

I'm simply saying that ppl use language that makes it sound like cops going around murdering ppl and what ur seeing on social media is the norm. There are like 340M ppl in the US that's many millions of cop interactions per year. 

 

If the cases that get attention on social media were the norm or how a typical cop reacts, half the population would get killed in a year by a cop (or at the very least the most racially profiled groups)

 

These highlighted cases do shine a light on a deeper fundamental problem than just the cases themselves. But ppls language on how they describe those cases and then cops in general ud think cops as a gener rule have a habit of going around killing ppl for no reason (or trivial reasons). It's not quite like that

Another black woman’s life brutally taken away and denied justice and you’re concerned about the language 

[Economy 52,853]

18 minutes ago, ShtoopidLahv said:

Another black woman’s life brutally taken away and denied justice and you’re concerned about the language 

Everything matters. If the language detracts from the legitimacy of the message in the eyes of the ppl that need to take it seriously the most how does it not matter?

 

This kind of stuff doesn't upset me because I think it's somehow more important than the issue at hand. This stuff upsets me because it backfires from the message. It's not about the wording of the message in itself somehow being more important.

 

GGD as a general rule is a very progressive leaning website. Exept for a handful of users that are the exeption (I won't name names) the vast majority of people here don't really need to be told these social issues need to be tackled.

 

But on the flip side I do think a LOT of ppl here need to start accepting feedback on their methods of spreading awareness.

 

If everytime someone tries to point out flaws that may not be working u just jump to the assumption that it's because they are not concerned about the issue u can never be told anything.

 

I've always thought progressives the last few years have a serious serious issue with thinking they have everything correctly and they can't listen to any criticism ever. This is supposed to be constructive criticism to make the movements actually more fruitful not to tear them down

 

I'm gonna be honest, in my opinion, while I side with progressives on most issues at its core, the methods, the language used, the culture and tone on how stuff is debated and promoted I find is extremely inefective. 

 

If I'm such a terrible guy for pointing out something I think isnt helping movements than so be it.

[ShtoopidLahv 710]

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

Everything matters. If the language detracts from the legitimacy of the message in the eyes of the ppl that need to take it seriously the most how does it not matter?

 

This kind of stuff doesn't upset me because I think it's somehow more important than the issue at hand. This stuff upsets me because it backfires from the message. It's not about the wording of the message in itself somehow being more important.

 

GGD as a general rule is a very progressive leaning website. Exept for a handful of users that are the exeption (I won't name names) the vast majority of people here don't really need to be told these social issues need to be tackled.

 

But I do think a LOT of ppl here need to start accepting feedback on their methods of spreading awareness.

 

If everytime someone tries to point out flaws that may not be working u just jump to the assumption that it's because they are not concerned about the issue u can never be told anything.

 

I've always thought progressives the last few years have a serious serious issue with thinking they have everything correctly and they can't listen to any criticism ever. This is supposed to be constructive criticism to make the movements actually more fruitful not to tear them down

The marginalized don’t owe anything to their oppressors, allies, or bystanders in terms of language. It is up to you to support the movement and combat oppression rather than policing their reaction. 

[Economy 52,853]

8 minutes ago, ShtoopidLahv said:

The marginalized don’t owe anything to their oppressors, allies, or bystanders in terms of language. It is up to you to support the movement and combat oppression rather than policing their reaction. 

That's fine. But are u more concerned with fighting for equality in an way that actually yields results and taken seriously? Or are u more concerned with speaking however u want because u have the right?

 

U can totally exercise the right to use whatever methods u want to spread awareness. But if it's hindering the efforts against those that need to hear it what is the point? It's not gonna change anything

 

Either way u don't have to agree with me. But don't make me out to be some bad guy for pointing out what in my opinion its a flaw in the effectiveness of movements. If the ability of expressing what one just means to be constructive criticism is prohibited that's more of a cult type attitude than a movement and that's where I think the modern progressive culture is overly intolerant. The purity tests are so agressive even minute disagreements on something that on top of that is intentioned to be helpful to the cause not against it has to be such an issue

 

I think it's holding back progress. Any criticism I sometimes feel should be said is only because I wish there was more dialogue

 

Just because one is justified in using language and a preaching culture a certain way because them being pissed off is justified doesn't mean it's actually advantageous to do so

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

And that's all extremely problematic and the system needs a serious overhaul and I'm not saying otherwise and I support most changes ppl are pushing for

 

I'm simply saying that ppl use language that makes it sound like cops going around murdering ppl and what ur seeing on social media is the norm. There are like 340M ppl in the US that's many millions of cop interactions per year. 

 

If the cases that get attention on social media were the norm or how a typical cop reacts, half the population would get killed in a year by a cop (or at the very least the most racially profiled groups)

 

These highlighted cases do shine a light on a deeper fundamental problem than just the cases themselves. But ppls language on how they describe those cases and then cops in general ud think cops as a gener rule have a habit of going around killing ppl for no reason (or trivial reasons). It's not quite like that

If they murder 1,000 people every year, that’s nearly three murders per day. So, yes. 

There are millions of airplane flights every year, and we wouldn’t say that 1,000 crashes (mistakes) is acceptable, would we?

I don’t think anyone is pretending that every single interaction with a police officer will end up like the George Floyd murder, for example. I think you’re being overly sensitive. The problem is that it happens at all. One would be enough, but we’re talking a number much, much higher. 

Also, the “typical cop” that you speak has very likely witnessed a killing or some other type of injustice and they chose to stay on the job. Therefore, that “typical cop” you speak of is complicit. 

Every cop who witnesses a cop-perpetrated injustice and remains a cop is a bast*rd. 

According to the statistics that I’ve given, I would say that, yes, cops do have a have it of going around and killing people for no reason. That’s the problem. 

We must defund and abolish police and start something new. 

[Werk 13,166]

4 hours ago, Florin said:

People should inform themself a little more on the subject.

 

I read this:

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/crime/2020/06/16/breonna-taylor-fact-check-7-rumors-wrong/5326938002/

I'm so confused now  

[Economy 52,853]

2 minutes ago, TheQueenLG said:

If they murder 1,000 people every year, that’s nearly three murders per day. So, yes. 

There are millions of airplane flights every year, and we wouldn’t say that 1,000 crashes (mistakes) is acceptable, would we?

I don’t think anyone is pretending that every single interaction with a police officer will end up like the George Floyd murder, for example. I think you’re being overly sensitive. The problem is that it happens at all. One would be enough, but we’re talking a number much, much higher. 

Also, the “typical cop” that you speak has very likely witnessed a killing or some other type of injustice and they chose to stay on the job. Therefore, that “typical cop” you speak of is complicit. 

Every cop who witnesses a cop-perpetrated injustice and remains a cop is a bast*rd. 

According to the statistics that I’ve given, I would say that, yes, cops do have a have it of going around and killing people for no reason. That’s the problem. 

We must defund and abolish police and start something new. 

If that's in the sense u mean when u say common, I do agree with u. And I never said 1000 murders is acceptable not once did I say that. I made it very clear I think the system is very problematic

 

I only take issue when ppl make it sound like as a general rule cops are going around killing ppl like it's what most cops are doing.

 

Again in my opinion, language matters because movements are also about convicting more ppl to start taking issues seriously not just to further empower the ones that already acknowledge it to be stronger allies (although that is important too)

 

I got conservative and centrist family and workmates etc I know how they think. I know what kind of stuff they tend to pick apart.

 

So believe me that when I criticize the way many progressives go about certain things it is not with an intent to tear down the message itself cuz I'm on the side of it. But I do not like seeing the way it's given giving further reason for critics to take it less seriously

 

And criticism I give is well intentioned. It's supposed to be constructive. I genuinely do think progressives have 1 major flaw and that is that they don't let me to hear any criticism and that any criticism is always interpreted like ur against the movement. How can movements grow in effectiveness if anything that's pointed out I'd always let with hostility??????

 

All Im saying is I think movements would benefit from being more balanced on how the messages are spread. I know the opressed don't "owe" anything in how they wanna be heard as the other user mentioned and your right. But if some adjustments will help being taken more seriously, why not focus on that instead of focusing on being right? Is that not more important in the long run?

 

I don't like seeing division. And while bigots and a corrupt system are the ultimate causes, I do think those on the progressive side can be guilty of jabbing a little fuel to the fire regardless of that bitterness is justified and I don't think it's helpful

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

8 minutes ago, Economy said:

If that's in the sense u mean when u say common, I do agree with u. And I never said 1000 murders is acceptable not once did I say that. I made it very clear I think the system is very problematic

 

I only take issue when ppl make it sound like as a general rule cops are going around killing ppl like it's what most cops are doing.

 

Again in my opinion, language matters because movements are also about convicting more ppl to start taking issues seriously not just to further empower the ones that already acknowledge it to be stronger allies (although that is important too)

 

I got conservative and centrist family and workmates etc I know how they think. I know what kind of stuff they tend to pick apart.

 

So believe me that when I criticize the way many progressives go about certain things it is not with an intent to tear down the message itself cuz I'm on the side of it. But I do not like seeing the way it's given giving further reason for critics to take it less seriously

 

And criticism I give is well intentioned. It's supposed to be constructive. I genuinely do think progressives have 1 major flaw and that is that they don't let me to hear any criticism and that any criticism is always interpreted like ur against the movement. How can movements grow in effectiveness if anything that's pointed out I'd always let with hostility??????

 

All Im saying is I think movements would benefit from being more balanced on how the messages are spread. I know the opressed don't "owe" anything in how they wanna be heard as the other user mentioned and your right. But if some adjustments will help being taken more seriously, why not focus on that instead of focusing on being right? Is that not more important in the long run?

 

I don't like seeing division. And while bigots and a corrupt system are the ultimate causes, I do think those on the progressive side can be guilty of jabbing a little fuel to the fire regardless of that bitterness is justified and I don't think it's helpful

If someone is not appalled by what the police are doing after seeing everything that’s happened in the past year (and every year before that, really), I don’t think a tweak in language is going to be the difference-maker. 

Most cops are complicit in an injustice. It’s likely that most cops are domestic abusers. And cops have a self-identified problem with white supremacy. We don’t need to sugar coat this. You’re coming across as a little bit of a bootlicker, although I respect you, and always have, for your ability to debate with civility. 

If someone has a problem with the statement ACAB, explain to them why ACAB. But don’t go directly to “most cops” talking points. They’re all bast*rds and we must recognize this. 

Due to the nature of the oppressor-oppressed relationships in our society, leftists do tend to have a big problem with taking the side of the oppressor. Regardless of if you intend to do that or not, I bet that is what people are interpreting. 

Being right is more important than sugarcoating and minimizing the injustices of police to appeal to conservatives and moderate liberals, I think. 

Finally, those who say blue lives matter subscribe to a violent ideology. Being intolerant of these folks is the only way to achieve a tolerant society, at least in my view. 

[MACATL 2,128]

4 hours ago, Florin said:

People should inform themself a little more on the subject.

 

Have to agree here.  Lot of folks waiting to be outraged and really don’t have the details needed.  Only spin.  If a grand jury can hear all the facts and come to this conclusion, then perhaps we don’t have all the facts or aren’t willing to hear them...

[MACATL 2,128]

2 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

Defund the police. 

Keep spreading this nonsense, and Trump will be right back in office.  

[Economy 52,853]

9 minutes ago, TheQueenLG said:

If someone is not appalled by what the police are doing after seeing everything that’s happened in the past year (and every year before that, really), I don’t think a tweak in language is going to be the difference-maker. 

Most cops are complicit in an injustice. It’s likely that most cops are domestic abusers. And cops have a self-identified problem with white supremacy. We don’t need to sugar coat this. You’re coming across as a little bit of a bootlicker, although I respect you, and always have, for your ability to debate with civility. 

If someone has a problem with the statement ACAB, explain to them why ACAB. But don’t go directly to “most cops” talking points. They’re all bast*rds and we must recognize this. 

Due to the nature of the oppressor-oppressed relationships in our society, leftists do tend to have a big problem with taking the side of the oppressor. Regardless of if you intend to do that or not, I bet that is what people are interpreting. 

Being right is more important than sugarcoating and minimizing the injustices of police to appeal to conservatives and moderate liberals, I think. 

Finally, those who say blue lives matter subscribe to a violent ideology. Being intolerant of these folks is the only way to achieve a tolerant society, at least in my view. 

I dunno. Not everyone is either fully for or against the defund the police. Anyone that can't see the issue with what we've seen I agree with u that the tone is not what's going to make a difference and the same can be said about outright white supremacists or other type of bigots

 

But there's other ppl who are more in the middle. They are not happy with the police but maybe don't fully grasp the full scope of the problem. These are the kinds of people that could potentially not take you as seriously in your arguments if the language comes across as just being exagerated. 

 

It's not about bootlicking. It's about being taken seriously. I don't think being careful to not use language that sounds like ur exxagerating something so ur not shrugged off is any kind of bootlicking.

 

And thank-you I appreciate that. Debating stuff without getting agressive or personal is always what I strive for. I don't think these exchanges accomplish anything if ppl just get agressive and personal the moment they don't see eye to eye in something and that's something I find too many ppl have an issue with (regardless of political background, seems to be human nature in general) and it ends up accomplishing nothing, it just becomes a fight/argument not a debate of any use

 

I also forgot to respond to something else in ur post before about getting rid of the police all together and replacing it with something new. I more or less agree with u and think it could be a great idea to start from scratch. But I also think they need to create that new system ASAP and get it up and running before getting rid of the police all together. Something tells me no law enforcement at all and no accountability would cause a lot more problems and caos than it would solve

[Economy 52,853]

5 minutes ago, MACATL said:

Keep spreading this nonsense, and Trump will be right back in office.  

This is part of the language issue I was talking about above, this is another perfect example about how language can hinder a movement sometimes if we're not careful how stuff is said

 

Most ppl when they say defund the police they either just mean cut back on some responsibilities and reassign to others (like mental health situations being handled by a professional for example) or reduce funding that may be excessive and re-route it to useful programs that help community and thus reduce the root causes of crime in the first place this reducing the need for as much police

 

Others who actually mean get rid of police entirely don't mean have no type of law enforcement. They just mean come up with a new system from scratch and try to build that system without the fundamental flaws police has

 

But a lot of people are enterpreting it as just have no police or anything for accountability and have everybody free to do whatever they want

 

It's not what is meant by it. But it comes across that way to many when the statement "defund the police" comes after an outrageous situation and then never an explanation. Ppl are just interpreting it as "people are upset with police and want them gone and then we have no system"

[Morphine Prince 109,657]

58 minutes ago, MACATL said:

Keep spreading this nonsense, and Trump will be right back in office.  

DEFUND THE POLICE.

[GagaSine 7,464]

The system will never give us justice.