And rightly so.
The whole point of the “Black lives matter” campaign is because, to large parts of society, that statement can’t be assumed to be true. The same can’t be said of white lives.
But hey, most people can work this out - I think at this point, it’s wilful misunderstanding because the alternative is having to change how you see the world.
Aren’t black-on-white murder (& assult, rape, etc.) extremely more common than white-on-black murder (disproportionately to the sizes of the population)?
One number I saw said 200X more common.
I don’t see what that’s got to do with the #BlackLivesMatter situation, where black people are disproportionately more likely to be killed by police but it rarely leads to punishment.
wtf? Did you get lost on the way to some hateforum? This kind of stupid strawmanning might be more appreciated there.
The issue is that police have a disturbing tendency to gun down unarmed black people. No one is suggesting that police stop investigating crimes or arresting criminals, just that they stop murdering innocent black people.
Having definitions for things requires being able to hold a concept in your head long enough to consider it. I’m pretty sure Clothahump’s head is too filled with bright flashing lights and loud, shouty voices to leave any room for that kind of concentration.
And the root cause of police murdering black people is? What makes the response to the issue stupid is that there’s no interest in addressing the real root causes. “Police need to stop being racist!” doesn’t realistically address the issue.
The reason “all lives matter” is right is because the reason cops kill black people is part of a bigger problem: arrogance and lack of accountability among government officials, especially those with the power to arrest and prosecute.
Focusing on a single issue within a larger problem is known as avoidance. It’s even more crazy because it’s easier to put systems in place to make government officials more accountable than it is to make them nicer. Ever noticed how Uber drivers are nicer than cabbies? That’s because there’s a system in place that highly incentivizes good behavior, one that is lacking with traditional cab companies. It’s why grocery store clerks are nicer than DMV workers. Address the larger issue of government arrogance and you solve police brutality.
Democrats remove Thomas Jefferson’s name from the Jefferson-Jackson day dinner. They also removed Jackson, but he was actually an irredeemable prick, so that’s not a stupid liberal idea. But Jefferson? Someone should ask Hillary Clinton about the country’s founders at a debate. Do Democrats also consider George Washington irreputable? How about FDR?
Jefferson-Jackson-Bailey Day. John Bailey, presumably, didn’t own any slaves or force-march native Americans into the wilderness, so apparently he gets to stay.
As to why that particular combination of names for a fundraising dinner to begin with, I’ve honestly no idear.
Do Democrats want to take Washington’s name off the states or remove him from the $1 bill?
Well, if and when they do, I’m sure you’ll be here to get the word out.
I think it’s quite fair to ask if the Democrats don’t like Thomas Jefferson anymore. It sure looks like they don’t. Does that antipathy extend to pretty much every Democrat prior to JFK?
Oh, relax, for fuck’s sake. I agree it’s at least a half a Stupid Idea, as you apparently do, even if I don’t really much care what they name their fundraising dinners.
JFK’s status as an icon of progress is at least somewhat undeserved. Both he and his brother were firmly in the “go slow” camp as regards civil rights. LBJ exploited his assassination to accomplish the heavy lifting, in a breathtaking example of cynical idealism, realpolitik applied to a noble end. Little needs be said about his blunders relative to Viet Nam.
Point of fact, his image as a civil rights icon probably did more good than he ever did. And so it goes…
I wouldn’t say JFK is a civil rights icon. But he wasn’t a slaveholder or segregationist, nor did he intern a whole group of Americans because of their race or drop an atomic bomb on anyone. So that would probably make him the first acceptable President to today’s Democrats.
If we were to regard GeeDubya as “acceptable”, Obama would be a candidate for political canonization.
And when there’s a national movement among Democrats as a whole to TNT all of Mount Rushmore into dust, then your comical overreach might actually have some truth behind it. Until then, please stop conflating the actions of one group of Democrats in Connecticut with all Democrats everywhere.
Just saying whatever you think of in the moment, without regard to reality or facts. That’s our Adaher.
Then explain why Jefferson’s name has suddenly become inappropriate for one of the Democrats’ most important political gatherings.
Or just agree that it’s a stupid liberal idea.
So, instead of “Don’t shoot!” people should shout, “Consider how this is going to affect your yelp review!”
Is that it?
That agreement has already been conceded.
And how important a political gathering can it be? I’ve never even heard of it.