The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[Guardian]

Not off base at all. I appreciate the response, and I'm glad to discuss it with you or whoever else would like to. I see your point. I think BLM has been taken out of context by it's leadership. We don't all agree with what they're doing. But at it's core, BLM is a good cause. Example: The number 1 demand for OKC's BLM chapter is a grocery store on the inner city east side. They can't even get groceries in their own neighborhood. The deeper issue is where they have to go to get groceries...the areas that "they don't belong" Fully agree BLM's leadership has gone rouge. That doesn't mean there aren't people out there looking for real change. I ask that you look beyond that and see the good that is happening. People like to bring up MLK for his contributions...absolute legend. However, that Civil Disobedience you speak of got him voted as the most hated man in America in 1967, and murdered in 1968. Btw the bullet didn't kill him...they let him die on the table. I agree with the pandering comment. Playing the Black National Anthem before a game, won't do anything for anyone. Help us. Help others to understand that we don't all want to tear down this country, we just won't people to listen and understand. Also, I'm fully against looters, not so much riots. However, not much has been accomplished civilly in this country when it comes to change.

Sadly the OKC thing is a problem of capitolism. Someone just needs to step up and open a store then. It’s not about being provided a store.

And Black lives matter hasn’t gone rouge. They were rouge from the beginning. The two female founders are adamant and trained marxists. Look it up. Their own BLM goals don’t match what you say above.

But I absolutely love what you say above and agree. And I don’t think at the core of it you would find Americans that disagree.

As for MLK. Wonder what MLK would actually think about this movement today? I bet you could find a lot of his words that are directly against the stuff happening now.

Just because one or some people are prejudiced and or racist doesn’t make an entire skin color racist. So don’t blame MLK’s death on the country. Isn’t that what black lives matters is fighting against? Then why is it prevalent out there that Black people can’t be racist and all whites are racist? It’s sick.

[Guardian]

What change are we trying to get to? I still don’t understand what is bad about what the country is fundamentally about right now. I don’t see where black skin color is a sentence to anything that isn’t experienced across the spectrum. Please educate me if such facts exist.

[TurnHer4]

13 minutes ago, Kiloalpha said:

I agree people are doing good work in the wake of Floyd's death, and I'll happily support them. I also admit that some BLM chapters aren't going full Marxism, and they should be commended. Sadly the media isn't doing a great job of covering them.

I'll respectfully disagree that MLK's civil disobedience on civil rights were the reason he was so hated at the end of his life. In a 1961 Gallup poll, 41% of Americans viewed him favorably, and 37% negatively. In 1966, 63% of Americans held a negative view of him, and 32% positive. What changed in that time span? He actively campaigned against the war in Vietnam and against poverty above the Mason-Dixon line, which factured his relationship with Lyndon Johnson. Not surprisingly, the press flipped on him as well and helped destroy his image. This NYT Editorial from back then talks about it. There's a great book out there about his last days that mentions some of it, if I can find the name of it I'll post it.

Also, I don't think rioting is/should be the most effective method of policy change in the US. If that's where we're heading, it isn't good.

Thanx, I'll be waiting for the title of the book. Dope knowledge on MLK, thank you for that insight. That's not where I'm headed. What 'm saying is, that behavior is in the fabric of America. 

[Guardian]

What behavior? And how much of the fabric? Are you implying the fabric of America is racist?

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

How does the government or department handle misbehaving officers without the ability to identify them?  Not like their bros are going to tell anyone... Thin blue line and all that.

This isn't the case but even if it was frankly I don't give a shit. Doxxing is never an ok thing to do. You can be angry at someone all you want. You don't have a right to take it upon yourself to see justice. That is not how our society functions. 

[nsplayr]

Ironically, the people in the McCloskey's neighborhood were marching against the Mayor of St. Louis because she had doxxed protesters. Full circle!

Police need to be identifiable by at minimum a patch or other department insignia as well as an individualized badge or ID number for each officer. No need to provide their name necessarily in all circumstances, but normally I would expect someone to identify themselves as "Officer Johnson" or whatever when interacting with people. That being said doxxing is bad and no one should do it.

If you don't have the above at a minimum, you have a completely unaccountable force with the licence to use violence. I'm also against police appearing in military-style uniforms because it conflates two very different government forces, one that are guardians in the homeland and one that are aggressors/defenders abroad. Even when the National Guard is used domestically, it's important for people to very clearly understand who is a member of the military and who is a local, state, or federal LEO.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/20/mark-hertling-police-portland/

Edited July 24, 2020 by nsplayr

[TurnHer4]

@Guardianexcellent discourse, I really appreciate your perspective. And I'm not here to change your mind. I think everything stated above was racially motivated, but thats my opinion. I do think the system is racist, heres why. Those people that called the cops on me, did it because of my skin color. Beyond that, they both have jobs. What I mean by that is, we can agree that racism exists. I don't think that hate and resentment towards minorities stops when they go to work. Racist people are in the system, and I believe that some of them allow it to cloud their judgement. When overt racism became uncool at the turn of the century, those people didn't stop being racist, it's just undercover now. I agree the BLM moniker is tainted. But from what you're saying, you understand that there is an issue, but others won't join because of the BLM moniker....that makes sense, I can understand that. I brought up the OKC issue to point to BLM here isn't tearing down stuff, looting, or rioting. I agree with you. And it's a call to celebrities in and from the area  to help. MLK did say a riot is the language of the unheard. However, I agree. I don't like some of the things I've been seeing. Hopefully you don't think I think a whole race of people are racist because of MLK, I don't. I brought it up to show that it wasn't that long ago, and people that think that way are still alive. Most of us fully understand all whites aren't racist. We're trying to bring attention to those that are. I don't like preferential treatment either. But I also don't like people thinking I received preferential treatment to get where I am. I'm just damn good at what I do. Example. One of my peers (at the direction of some other peers) had enough balls to tell the Sq CC that we had too many black flt ccs. We had 2. 2 out of 10. I was one of them. Got Flt cc OTY at the group level, and the other guy got it the year after me. But some say we got it because we were black. Further, who ever these people are, are going to stay in the AF and continue their careers with that mind set. Thats bad in my book. But I'll continue to overcome that. As far as the system, there is a disparity from that I'm seeing. Brock Turner got 6 months for raping a woman an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. My cousin got 3 years for a dime bag of weed. That white lady that paid 15k for her kid to get into Stanford got 14 days in jail. A black homeless woman who used a friend's address to get her son into elementary school got 5 years. The change I'm trying to see is everyone being treated equally. I want the white racist that call the cops on blacks for nothing to stop. That fact that it's ok to use the police as a weapon against someone that has committed no crime is heinous. What police do when they get there is a different story. I've seen your post, and I'm aware you have different views. I see the world differently as well. I see it from an inner city kid perspective that made it out. Someone who couldn't go to schools in a certain areas, that was only looking for an opportunity to make it out. Believe it or not, not all of those kids believe they can make it out ( I didn't) and that's a shame because they can. The change I'm looking for is for us to get into those communities and show those kids it's possible. For me it was a white Capt in a flight suit at an inner city high school football game, where there are shootouts every weekend. After my game I asked him if he was a pilot, I wanna be a pilot. He said yes. I told him, you're brave for coming here. He said there is untapped potential in your neighborhood, so you want to be a pilot? And the rest is history. That's what I want. Also, I don't see that as preferential treatment because all I received was information on how to become a pilot that I didn't have access to/didn't know existed. You can believe everyone starts on equal footing if you want, but that's not true where I'm from. The change I want is for those of us that have made it, to reach back and help others, regardless of race. Get in those neighborhoods. There are 100 of me in each of those neighborhoods, just looking to take the next step, but they don't know where to place their foot.

I don't think the fabric is racist. The behavior I'm speaking of is what's happened throughout America's time. The raping, pillaging, looting, and murder of the Native Americans. The enslavement of Africans. We literally fought a war to end slavery, and the beliefs of those on the losing side have been passed down. I'm saying rioting/fighting, and forcing people to bend to our will is what made this country into what it is today. That stuff happened, it's in the past, but it is history. I don't think we can dwell on it, but I do think it's important to understand that blood has been spilt by this country since it's inception. It has made us the greatest country on the planet, but my patriotism leads me to believe it can be even better. 

Edited July 24, 2020 by TurnHer4

[Guardian]

Ironically, the people in the McCloskey's neighborhood were marching against the Mayor of St. Louis because she had doxxed protesters. Full circle!
Police need to be identifiable by at minimum a patch or other department insignia as well as an individualized badge or ID number for each officer. No need to provide their name necessarily in all circumstances, but normally I would expect someone to identify themselves as "Officer Johnson" or whatever when interacting with people. That being said doxxing is bad and no one should do it.
If you don't have the above at a minimum, you have a completely unaccountable force with the licence to use violence. I'm also against police appearing in military-style uniforms because it conflates two very different government forces, one that are guardians in the homeland and one that are aggressors/defenders abroad. Even when the National Guard is used domestically, it's important for people to very clearly understand who is a member of the military and who is a local, state, or federal LEO.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/20/mark-hertling-police-portland/

Good thing they were all identified as such as you state above. Great point. And glad to see that it happened that way.

[Guardian]

[mention=77584]Guardian[/mention]excellent discourse, I really appreciate your perspective. And I'm not here to change your mind.

Dude. Nice. Thanks. Super appreciate you taking the time to answer and provide discourse. I agree with a lot of what you said.

However I am trying to change your mind. I would like to see the individual examples you speak of and the details behind the jail or punishment.

I also don’t see any evidence (maybe yet) of systematic racism. Getting called on the cops based on skin color is how you feel things went down. Did you go back and ask? Is it the truth? Let’s assume for this argument it is. Ok. So two people called the cops. How many white people are there in the country.

I just get the feeling because of isolated incidents of a couple of people that all (white) people are getting biased and prejudiced against. Isn’t that what we are fighting against? So I challenge all people that think there is a systematic problem to try and identify it and put your finger directly on “it”. And if you can’t, then maybe it’s at a micro or individual level and those are the levels that need to be addressed. Not by calling all or most whites people racist. There are some good arguments out there how blacks and some minorities are actually racist and receive the privileges of this society more so than majorities. Any thoughts on that?

People being persecuted for a trait they can’t control? (Race, sex, age, etc). Isn’t that racism at its very core? Do things like this exist on all sides? Why can’t we focus on the measure of the individual instead of applying the crimes or mentalities of one or few to the many?

Dude. I really appreciate you engaging. I’m glad to find someone that will sit and talk and not get emotional without thought. Thank you.

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, TurnHer4 said:

but my patriotism leads me to believe it can be even better. 

How?

What is it that we can do that will make it better?  What is it that is feasible, affordable, moral and doesn't cut off our nose to spite our face?  That is just sets us up for more inter-group resentments and does not violate the bedrock of individual freedom, individual justice and equality before the law.

[Hacker]

On 7/23/2020 at 10:22 AM, brawnie said:

Am I in a never ending semantics argument? Is this about can vs may? The courts ruled your first amendment rights don’t apply when there is a “clear and present danger.”

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Yeah, you have proved my point precisely.

You said, " you can't say fire in a crowded movie theater," and that quote clearly shows that you can. In order for it to not be protected speech,

1) It has to be "false"

2) It has to cause a panic

3) It has to cause a clear and present danger.

So, can I "say fire in a crowded movie theater" if it is actually on fire?  Yep.

Can I "say fire in a crowded movie theater" if it neither creates a panic, or creates a clear and present danger?  Yep.

You may call it semantics, but if you're going to make an argument like that, being specific matters.

[pawnman]

4 hours ago, FLEA said:

This isn't the case but even if it was frankly I don't give a shit. Doxxing is never an ok thing to do. You can be angry at someone all you want. You don't have a right to take it upon yourself to see justice. That is not how our society functions. 

My point is that if one of these asshole police beats a protestor bad enough to put them in a hospital (for example)... How does their agency hold them accountable when they have no individual identification?  When someone calls to make a complaint, they just say "oh, the third one in the left in camo" as the whole description?

Why do any police ever wear a nametag or badge with a number, anywhere?  Hell, why do we wear nametags if this is such a security concern?

Edited July 24, 2020 by pawnman

[lloyd christmas]

Excellent insight TurnHer4   

There is a narrative out there that suggests our country is overtly racist, run by racists, founded on racism and policed by racist officers who are enforcing racist laws.  What I see in each of those instances is more complicated than the narrative suggests.  The narrative is also given no context whatsoever and the starting point is never the truth.  There is more to the story and there are different sides to each story.  We must do our best to understand the truth and see things as they truly are.  

Here is what bothers me.  Because of my political beliefs and conservative views, I am labeled a racist, sexist, xenophobic bigot.  I have even been called a Nazi to my face.  In reality, I am living the best life I know how to while trying to be the best father, husband, son, uncle, coworker and neighbor that I can be.  I feel like I am being punished for sins that I did not commit.  We are headed in the wrong direction.  The answer to our society's injustices towards minorities will not and can not be fixed by applying the same type mind set towards whites.  Equality goes both ways.  It is very hard for folks like me that just want left alone to see what is going on in politics, sports, hollywood and academia.  I do not want to see BLM painted on our city streets or on a pitcher's mound during a baseball game.  I do not want to see looting, rioting, arson, assault or vandalism in our streets in the name of an issue that is not discussed honestly.  Our society has it's issues, that is for sure.  But, we can't fix hate with hate.  

 

[Negatory]

1 hour ago, Hacker said:

Yeah, you have proved my point precisely.

You said, " you can't say fire in a crowded movie theater," and that quote clearly shows that you can. In order for it to not be protected speech,

1) It has to be "false"

2) It has to cause a panic

3) It has to cause a clear and present danger.

So, can I "say fire in a crowded movie theater" if it is actually on fire?  Yep.

Can I "say fire in a crowded movie theater" if it neither creates a panic, or creates a clear and present danger?  Yep.

You may call it semantics, but if you're going to make an argument like that, being specific matters.

Mark it off for the technicality here, congrats. Even though no one in this thread would argue with the fact that in an actual fire, no shit, you can say there is a fire. Guardian even said this is "the only place in the world where it is legal to speak your mind and as long as you aren’t yelling fire in a crowded movie theater," which is totally 100% technically incorrect by your logic, although I'm pretty sure you understood his point.

The point is that that America's freedom of speech is almost indistinguishable from many other nations'.

Edited July 24, 2020 by brawnie

[Guardian]

Mark it off for the technicality here, congrats. Even though no one in this thread would argue with the fact that in an actual fire, no shit, you can say there is a fire. Guardian even said this is "the only place in the world where it is legal to speak your mind and as long as you aren’t yelling fire in a crowded movie theater," which is totally 100% technically incorrect by your logic, although I'm pretty sure you understood his point.

The point is that that America's freedom of speech is almost indistinguishable from many other nations'.

Yep. You’re right. I wasn’t specific enough with my statement. You can’t blame me for you being wrong though. Blame speak or shifting blame is common for those who can not use civil discourse well.

So now you have made a claim that it’s almost indistinguishable from many other nations. What nations and how is it indistinguishable? You made the claim. So now you must back it up. (I’m guessing you know I completely disagree as no one in America has been fined or jailed or threatened under the law with either).

[Negatory]

It's not blame shifting, @Guardian, it's pointing out double-standards. Don't misconstrue the argument.

[Negatory]

Also, I'm not the one with burden of proof. All of this conversation has been in response to an outlandish claim by a member of this forum when he said "An entitlement only afforded to you in the US. Free speech isn’t legal anywhere else in the world."

The greatest thing about a positive claim is that, to disprove it, you only need one example as a counterpoint. And since semantics arguments are accepted here (apparently) and you made an extremely over-extended claim that the entitlement to free speech is literally ONLY afforded to you in the US and only legal in the US, I present one counterpoint (enjoy):

"The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 5: Freedom of expression. (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources."

This example both proves that the US is not the only place in the world where freedom of speech is afforded to you, and, furthermore, shows that free speech is legal somewhere else in the world. Boom, both parts of your argument are done, gottem.

 

 

 

This way of arguing is f#$@ing stupid. Try to understand my point and not pick apart my words. I'll do the same for you.

I understand, for example, that your point was that America's level of freedom of speech is unparalleled. I agree that, when it comes to strict censoring, you're correct. You can say more here in America than probably anywhere else in the world. But when it comes to talking about most things in common discourse/debate (politics, viewpoints, government criticism), you get the same protections across many first world countries.

Edited July 24, 2020 by brawnie

[Guardian]

Also, I'm not the one with burden of proof. All of this conversation has been in response to an outlandish claim by a member of this forum when he said "An entitlement only afforded to you in the US. Free speech isn’t legal anywhere else in the world."

The greatest thing about a positive claim is that, to disprove it, you only need one example as a counterpoint. And since semantics arguments are accepted here (apparently) and you made an extremely over-extended claim that the entitlement to free speech is literally ONLY afforded to you in the US and only legal in the US, I present one counterpoint (enjoy):
"The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 5: Freedom of expression. (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources."

This example both proves that the US is not the only place in the world where freedom of speech is afforded to you, and, furthermore, shows that free speech is legal somewhere else in the world. Boom, both parts of your argument are done, gottem.
 
 
 
This way of arguing is f#$@ing stupid. Try to understand my point and not pick apart my words. I'll do the same for you.
I understand, for example, that your point was that America's level of freedom of speech is unparalleled. I agree that, when it comes to strict censoring, you're correct. You can say more here in America than probably anywhere else in the world. But when it comes to talking about most things in common discourse/debate (politics, viewpoints, government criticism), you get the same protections across many first world countries.

You quote your own counter argument. It has to be “from generally accepted sources.” Hence not freedom of speech.

I have proven that your statements now of Canada, new Zealand, and Germany (but to be fair you proved Germany without any research on my part) do not have freedom of speech as free as the US. Next.

[Guardian]

 

 

This way of arguing is f#$@ing stupid. Try to understand my point and not pick apart my words. I'll do the same for you.

I understand, for example, that your point was that America's level of freedom of speech is unparalleled. I agree that, when it comes to strict censoring, you're correct. You can say more here in America than probably anywhere else in the world. But when it comes to talking about most things in common discourse/debate (politics, viewpoints, government criticism), you get the same protections across many first world countries.

 

In response to your final statement, feel free to do whatever it is you are claiming I do to you in return to me.

 

Thanks for admitting that the US has the best freedom of speech in the world and is unparalleled. We didn’t need to waste this much time to get to this point. But thanks for the agreement and opportunity to change your mind.

 

[Guardian]

First google post search.

 

 

“Supreme court

The Constitution of Japan guarantees freedom of expression and the Supreme Court has stated that freedom of expression is particularly important in a democratic nation such as Japan. However, this freedom may be restricted for the sake of public welfare to a reasonable and unavoidably necessary extent.”

 

Who gets to decide? The government. It ain’t free bubba.

 

[Guardian]

Oh. You deleted your Japan post....ok.

[Negatory]

Japan is a valid example and a valid post, but I believe that it's pointless to debate you any longer. There are clear cut counterexamples to your poorly written first point. We're not engaging in academic thought anymore if you refuse to acknowledge that.

And to your point that "Who gets to decide? The government. It ain’t free bubba." - The United States of America has had plenty of cases where freedom of speech wasn't just a clearcut happyland world that you make it out to be. Who gets to decide in the end? Oh, the government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

I'm done playing 6 dimensional chess inside of your brain.

[Guardian]

Japan is a valid example and a valid post, but I believe that it's pointless to debate you any longer. There are clear cut counterexamples to your poorly written first point. We're not engaging in academic thought anymore if you refuse to acknowledge that.
And to your point that "Who gets to decide? The government. It ain’t free bubba." - The United States of America has had plenty of cases where freedom of speech wasn't just a clearcut happyland world that you make it out to be. Who gets to decide in the end? Oh, the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment
I'm done playing 6 dimensional chess inside of your brain.

Sounds good to me.

[TurnHer4]

4 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

How?

What is it that we can do that will make it better?  What is it that is feasible, affordable, moral and doesn't cut off our nose to spite our face?  That is just sets us up for more inter-group resentments and does not violate the bedrock of individual freedom, individual justice and equality before the law.

Excellent question. The answer is the same way you get better at being an aviator. And that's in the debrief. Which is what I think is happening right now on this thread. Take off the rank, biases, etc and have an open discussion. Listening to the feedback and applying it. I say we need to get people to understand that there are those that have hatred in their heart for minorities and non-minorities a like.Racism in most cases is covert and subtle. I ask that when we see it from anyone, squash that shit. I want you to understand my perspective and to not down play the way I view something. You may not every see it, but if and when you do, call it out. I understand what Guardian is saying, and I'll reflect on that. I ask that others do the same with different perspectives.

[magnetfreezer]

3 hours ago, pawnman said:

My point is that if one of these asshole police beats a protestor bad enough to put them in a hospital (for example)... How does their agency hold them accountable when they have no individual identification?  When someone calls to make a complaint, they just say "oh, the third one in the left in camo" as the whole description?

Why do any police ever wear a nametag or badge with a number, anywhere?  Hell, why do we wear nametags if this is such a security concern?

Wearing nametags helps develop rapport/relations in less confrontational situations. When danger increases like in this case, removing them increases OPSEC. AF paints over crew names on aircraft (AFI 21-101/105) before deployment and crews often remove nametags; doesn't mean there was no accountability for who was flying a certain sortie. The agency will know who they have assigned on a particular patrol, dispatch records, etc. and can use interview and investigation to find the rest.