Bolas

You keep saying this. The "grievances" are of the entire black population. How they are treated (partly as a result of the actions of the "small population) as a whole. Those grievances are long held and legitimate. I have yet to hear any statements by Obama or any government official that come anywhere close to "advocating violence". Trump's comments on a number of occasions have been a lot more inflammatory. And what cops are "being hunted"? Seriously. There have been a handful of incidents (3 in the past couple of months), all of which resulted in dead "hunters". That's a long way from "hunting" in my book. If BLM, a blatantly racist organization did not exist or was not given support by the President and the Democratic Party, the chances of the Dallas shooting happening would have been minuscule. When the poster boy for your organization is a criminal who was shot while attacking a cop... Hell, if Obama had just stated that while he looked like the younger picture of Trayvon, he never looked or acted like his current pictures that would've helped too. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Not saying it's up to white males to decide, nor should it be. The only way we're ever going to have true equality is for all to be treated equally regardless of their DNA. The best way to do this is to stop using DNA groups for all government reporting. One's DNA should only be used for physical descriptions. Beyond that, it's irrelevant for all data collections. Do we have a problem with violent black people? No. We have a problem with uneducated inner-city poor criminals from broken homes that had no role models that value neither their lives nor others. Do men make more than women at the same job? No. They tend to choose different professions and additionally may leave the workforce for a while for family. This is why DNA-based evidence is irrelevant as all it leads to is people proposing solutions to "fix" what appear to be inequalities based off incomplete data. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

I'm not concerned with situational double standards. I'm concerned with double standards based solely on the speakers DNA. If the derogatory term for blue people was bloops, shouldn't blue people not want anyone to use it, blue people included? Why should it only be considered offensive if a non blue person says it? In addition to it being a double standard, they're the ones keeping the offensive word alive. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

So what? Seriously. How does it affect your life in any way, shape, or form that you shouldn't call somebody a specific racial slur? What joy in life is it depriving you of? Forget the legalities. I mean the realities of life. How the hell does it really affect your life? Slurs either should be redefined and used by everybody or by nobody. Bitch could be redefined to behavior instead of gender. The n word could be redefined to poor, criminal, uneducated, broken home regardless of race. If we ever truly want equality, all need to be treated equally. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

I think you're missing the point. It's not a matter of sometimes you can use it and other times you can't, it's the fact it's not a slur. Example: If somebody cut somebody else off in traffic and they yell asshole at them it's far less inflamatory then yelling a slur. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

What are the sexist slurs for men? What are the racist slurs for white people? What are the slurs for heterosexuals? How often do you hear people use the above slurs (for lack of better words) when referring to their own kind? The only example I can think of is redneck but very few take offense to that regardless of who says it. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

How is asshole a double standard? What DNA group is specifically targetted by it? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Not the point. Asshole is not a homophobic, racial, sexist, nor ethnic slur. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Ok, how about honkey? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Such a stupid statement. It isn't a double standard, it is different consequences for different circumstances. Not sure if you are married or have a girlfriend, but in my house there are very different consequences to: My wife's best friend calling her a bitch. Me calling her a bitch. You calling her a bitch. This isn't a double standard, it is called life. Normally I would have figured most people should be smart enough to figure this out, but with Trump being a presidential nominee it is pretty clear a lot of people are significantly more stupid than I thought. Another double standard. When was the last time you heard a white person, other than Mike Birbiglia, say cracker? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

And what would that be? If we're going to group people, let's do it by things they can change: citizenship status, education, criminal record, income, religion, location, etc. You keep saying that - as if religion is so easy to change. If that's the case, then just believe in God. Have a little faith and be saved - you don't even have to tell anyone about it. Never said it was easy, just possible to change unlike DNA.

And what would that be? If we're going to group people, let's do it by things they can change: citizenship status, education, criminal record, income, religion, location, etc. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

I think the day that word loses it's power would be a good day for black people. . . I'm just waiting for the double standard to die. Either let everyone say it or no one say it, preferably the latter. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Information in itself is neither good nor bad, it's what's done with it that makes that determination. Example: In my Drivers Ed book in high school in the early 90s, the drinking and driving information dangers and effects also included a small section on driving drunk such as slowing down and greatly increasing following distances. Also remember watching a movie in middle school about hitchhiking dangers that also included a small piece about how best to do it. This didn't negate the other information, it helped to give the full picture. This seems to be something lacking today as people are told something is bad/dangerous/illegal then given no additional information about it. They use the term education but the "education" only shows one side: Abstinence only "education" is a great example with predictable disasterous results. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Simply put, the more emotional or vague something is, the more exposure it gets. Howard Stern learned this long ago. https://youtu.be/9G6xu-J_Dmc If one really wants to stop Donald Trump, Black Lives Matter, The Kardashians, Justin Bieber, etc. it's easy: Stop talking about them as all you're doing is giving them more exposure with every comment or repost. The old adage still rings true today. "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

Posted by me earlier in the thread. Focus on the changeable for solutions, not the DNA.

Right, and you still can't assume that they're going to attack only because they didn't do what you told them, and use that assumption as a justification for shooting them. Yes, being a policeman is a tough job. No, they shouldn't be allowed to make that job easier by shooting first and attempting to find out what was happening second. Who said anything about shooting first? If someone is being noncompliant for whatever reason, an escalation of force is required. In the case of the deaf or autistic, they might be forcibly restrained. The size of the officer and the potential threat may also be factors in force escalation choices. If the potential threat continues to resist additional force escalation may be required. Of course all this assumes there's no other information about the threat available which is often the case. Even then, the information usually increases the threat level such as criminal record or warrants. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

It does seem as though it is the 'others' that are doing most of the dieing. Jerry Baumchen As said up thread that until the threat is mitigated, it's still a potential threat to the public, the officers involved, and the threat source themselves in that priority order. An ideal situation for all is the threat is mitigated without incident. The "others" also are doing most of the resisting and/or attacking. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Often the police are not approaching people from the front, making eye contact and ensuring they have a person's attention before issuing "orders". Generally the "orders" are shouted from behind or from some distance, and are unexpected. Perhaps you are suggesting deaf people should wear a flashing neon sign that says "deaf"? Maybe people should be legally barred from listening to music too, as that may interfere with them hearing, immediately understanding, and instantaneously responding to someone shouting "orders" out of the blue? As far as the autistic are concerned, should they also wear a sign? Maybe be kept on a leash? Obviously that would be better than being subject to extermination for failure to instantaneously comply with "orders". Don Flip that script. A LEO has no way of knowing why a person isn't complying. If they wait for eye contact or reaching out to grab the person to get their attention and can't see their hands, they're potentially risking the safety of others and themselves if that person decides to attack: armed or unarmed. It all comes down to threat assessment and perceived risk. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

You seem to be implying that it's OK for a cop to kill someone because they are deaf and can't hear the "orders" or they are autistic and don't understand what is going on. Do the police not have any responsibility to assess the situation and determine if there is an actual threat, beyond a failure to instantly comply? Don No. I'm saying that until the threat is mitigated, it's still a potential threat to the public, the officers involved, and the threat source themselves in that priority order. For deaf people, they know there may be a difficulty so should be very passive with their hands clearly open, visible, and empty while saying they are deaf. As for autistic and other mental illnesses that's tougher. Perhaps they can be "trained" similarly to the deaf people? If not, perhaps should not be out in public alone. I have literally never in my life talked to a person so deeply in love with the idea of a police state. If it was satire, it would be brilliant. Not in love with a police state, but understand how hard a job they have. They must make split second life and death decisions in determining threats. The truth isn't known until after the fact. If/when they make the wrong decisions they or others can die. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

So you wouldn't protect your family, even if it was their fault? Thus illustrating the bullshit indoctrination that helps create the problem in the first place. I'm just curious. People say things, and may have the best noble intentions, but when the shit gets real, and a family member fucks up, who here would not protect their close family member to the best of their ability? Are you talking legal or illegal protective steps? It's not about me. BUT - it would depend on your POV. There is a grey area there. If, for instance, a loved one - say . . . Wife or Sister . . . was in jeopardy because of something severe injuries she didn't mean to do, but nonetheless caused. The brother/husband has information that would absolutely convict her - does he volunteer that info? Does he deny the information knowing that it would be detrimental to her? Agreed. The grey area can be what's right vs. what's legal. Not volunteering information is perfectly legal but if subpenoed to testify have to answer questions truthfully. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

You seem to be implying that it's OK for a cop to kill someone because they are deaf and can't hear the "orders" or they are autistic and don't understand what is going on. Do the police not have any responsibility to assess the situation and determine if there is an actual threat, beyond a failure to instantly comply? Don No. I'm saying that until the threat is mitigated, it's still a potential threat to the public, the officers involved, and the threat source themselves in that priority order. For deaf people, they know there may be a difficulty so should be very passive with their hands clearly open, visible, and empty while saying they are deaf. As for autistic and other mental illnesses that's tougher. Perhaps they can be "trained" similarly to the deaf people? If not, perhaps should not be out in public alone. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Noncompliance with orders is always going to be perceived as a threat, regardless of reason until the potential threat is mitigated. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

So you wouldn't protect your family, even if it was their fault? Thus illustrating the bullshit indoctrination that helps create the problem in the first place. I'm just curious. People say things, and may have the best noble intentions, but when the shit gets real, and a family member fucks up, who here would not protect their close family member to the best of their ability? Are you talking legal or illegal protective steps? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Groups, demographics (Non DNA based), cultural. Thanks for proving that one's DNA is not relevant.