Jump to content

Are You Showing Support for Black Lives Matter in Second Life?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 125 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not as such, no. We don't really have that kind of thing here as, well, our law enforcement seldom gun down people - and whilst I obviously do not condone of it, I'm hesitant to give my 'official' (i.

Alrighty, now that I've gone ahead and cleared out some not so pleasant posts from this thread I wanted to drop a quick note here. As many of you have seen me say several times before, delving in

Thank you for this.   Black woman here.  Of A Certain Age.  I have my BLM shirt.   For whatever that means. (freewheeling it here, went from wanting to say something to not wanting to say anythi

Posted Images

15 hours ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

"Race coddling"... really? 

The officer using the knee-on-the-neck technique to KILL someone who is pleading to be allowed to breathe is absolutely personally accountable. Perhaps others are accountable as well, but that officer using the force of his weight and his knee to end a man's life, no matter whether or not any crime had been committed by said man...that officer has no excuse. None.

I agree with you about the officer using the tactic should be held accountable. My point was... that if the officer is to be held accountable for a tactic he was trained to use... the tactic itself was approved by federal, state, and municipal governments so all individuals involved in approving this tactic safe for use by law enforcement, should be held accountable along with the officer... and the tactic should be removed from use and banned.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blake1111Coverdale said:

I agree with you about the officer using the tactic should be held accountable. My point was... that if the officer is to be held accountable for a tactic he was trained to use... the tactic itself was approved by federal, state, and municipal governments so all individuals involved in approving this tactic safe for use by law enforcement, should be held accountable along with the officer... and the tactic should be removed from use and banned.   

As for my comment about race coddling, I stated that this should not be turned into a race coddling black lives matter thing... all lives matter... black people are not the only race killed by law enforcement.   The focus should be kept on the facts - namely should this tactic continue to be used by law enforcement on ANYONE ever ? My opinion as former law enforcement and military enforcement is the tactic is not safe and should not ever have been approved for use.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Blake1111Coverdale said:

As for my comment about race coddling, I stated that this should not be turned into a race coddling black lives matter thing... all lives matter... black people are not the only race killed by law enforcement.   The focus should be kept on the facts - namely should this tactic continue to be used by law enforcement on ANYONE ever ? My opinion as former law enforcement and military enforcement is the tactic is not safe and should not ever have been approved for use.

All lives can't matter until black lives matter. No one is saying "Only black lives matter".

Black lives matter, TOO, but too many people don't believe so, and that is the issue. It's systemic. It's been so for hundreds of years. Don't try to deflect from it by yammering about "other races...." Yes, yes, other races get shot, too. No one said they don't. And no one is saying that excessive force should be used on anyone. You are making a straw man argument here. 

(And to label it as "race coddling"... really, I don't even know where to begin when someone has that kind of belief.)

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, kuboswan said:

ALL LIVES MATTER implies the statement BLACK LIVES MATTERS denounce or doesn't hold as much value in the lives of other races... Which it doesn't and never has. 

ALL LIVES MATTER is a non racist statement to those of us who use it and it simply means no lives of one race are more important than the lives of another race.  It means All of our lives matter. They do... don't they?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Blake1111Coverdale said:

THE CONSEQUENCES FOR COMMITTING A CRIM BLA BLA bla Bla Blaaa Bla Bla bla blaaaaa ESPECIALLY COPS HAVE NO RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE ?

But that's not what Black Lives Matter is about at all.

And what's with all the caps? I'm not blind you know.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Blake1111Coverdale said:

THE CONSEQUENCES FOR COMMITTING A CRIME ** CAN ** BE EXECUTION AT CURBSIDE BY A COP... WHEN YOU DECIDE TO TRY AND KILL THE COP WHO IS ATTEMPTING TO STOP YOU FROM GETTING AWAY WITH YOUR CRIME.  THE DEAD BLACK PERSON THAT WAS EXECUTED CURBSIDE AFTER COMMITTING CRIME AT FERGUSON ... TRIED TO TAKE THE COPS SIDEARM FROM HIS HOLSTER TO KILL THAT COP WITH HIS OWN GUN.  SO WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY COFFEE? PEOPLE ESPECIALLY COPS HAVE NO RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE ?   

your caps are stuck

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Blake1111Coverdale said:

ALL LIVES MATTER is a non racist statement to those of us who use it and it simply means no lives of one race are more important than the lives of another race.  It means All of our lives matter. They do... don't they?

But remember Blake, that according to Social Justice Theory, "One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist. There is no in-between safe space of “not racist.” The claim of “not racist” neutrality is a mask for racism"

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Blake1111Coverdale said:

ALL LIVES MATTER is a non racist statement to those of us who use it and it simply means no lives of one race are more important than the lives of another race.  It means All of our lives matter. They do... don't they?

They should, but too many people act like they don't. That is the problem.

Edited to clarify before it gets jumped on: Too many people act like/believe that BLACK lives don't matter. 

Edited by Sylvia Tamalyn
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Blake1111Coverdale said:

ALL LIVES MATTER is a non racist statement to those of us who use it and it simply means no lives of one race are more important than the lives of another race.  It means All of our lives matter. They do... don't they?

Regardless of intention, you actually have it backwards. Black Lives Matter is actually the one that means, "no lives of one race are more important than the lives of another race." All Lives Matter, on the other hand, is something that came about as a response to the BLM movement, and it essentially is saying "no, BLM is a pointless saying, let's go back to how things were before." Do all lives matter? Sure, they should at least, and that's the goal of the BLM movement, to make sure that black lives are not overlooked in all of this, because they often are. 

There was actually a really good Reddit comment I found before that explains before the problems with saying "all lives matter" as a response to "Black Lives Matter." 

 

Quote

Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment -- indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any! The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share", which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out. That's the situation of the "black lives matter" movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society. The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn't work the way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn't want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That's not made up out of whole cloth -- there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it's generally not considered "news", while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate -- young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don't treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don't pay as much attention to certain people's deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don't treat all lives as though they matter equally. Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase "black lives matter" also has an implicit "too" at the end: it's saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying "all lives matter" is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It's a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means "only black lives matter," when that is obviously not the case. And so saying "all lives matter" as a direct response to "black lives matter" is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem. TL;DR: The phrase "Black lives matter" carries an implicit "too" at the end; it's saying that black lives should also matter. Saying "all lives matter" is dismissing the very problems that the phrase is trying to draw attention to.

 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

All lives can't matter until black lives matter. No one is saying "Only black lives matter".

Black lives matter, TOO, but too many people don't believe so, and that is the issue. It's systemic. It's been so for hundreds of years. Don't try to deflect from it by yammering about "other races...." Yes, yes, other races get shot, too. No one said they don't. And no one is saying that excessive force should be used on anyone. You are making a straw man argument here. 

(And to label it as "race coddling"... really, I don't even know where to begin when someone has that kind of belief.)

I'm not yammering about anything. Ive addressed your misinformed beliefs with respect and with facts.  But your disrespect of me and the things I have stated really shows your resistance to other peoples views or facts presented if they do not agree with your opinion. Since you are incapable of discussion without trying to discredit or put someone down that you don't even know..  I will respectfully be civil and end our discussion as of now.  Oh and by the way, if your an American, This "yammering" as you call it,  comes from me a man who served his country and defended your right to speak and think freely.  Your welcome.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blake1111Coverdale said:

I'm not yammering about anything. Ive addressed your misinformed beliefs with respect and with facts.  But your disrespect of me and the things I have stated really shows your resistance to other peoples views or facts presented if they do not agree with your opinion. Since you are incapable of discussion without trying to discredit or put someone down that you don't even know..  I will respectfully be civil and end our discussion as of now.  Oh and by the way, if your an American, This "yammering" as you call it,  comes from me a man who served his country and defended your right to speak and think freely.  Your welcome.

You've pulled out that "I'm a vet" card more than once. That doesn't make your opinion any more informed than anyone else's.

 

take care.jpeg

  • Like 8
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

41 minutes ago, Blake1111Coverdale said:

I agree with you about the officer using the tactic should be held accountable. My point was... that if the officer is to be held accountable for a tactic he was trained to use... the tactic itself was approved by federal, state, and municipal governments so all individuals involved in approving this tactic safe for use by law enforcement, should be held accountable along with the officer... and the tactic should be removed from use and banned.   

The tactic he used, putting a knee on the neck, was not taught or sanctioned by the Minneapolis police. 

Edited by Bree Giffen
  • Like 7
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

Except now he's more likely to get away with it.

Murder 3 was a slam dunk. Murder 2 means he gets to use the aforementioned "training" as an excuse. That puts the responsibility on the department and takes it off him, which just means a settlement with taxpayer money. 

My thinking is that it lets them plea it back down to the original charge.  Plea deals always result in the person pleading to something less than the actual charge - and plea deals are so very common.  Though given how seldom the police are actually convicted, the accused may figure they have a better chance at going to court than taking a plea.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Blake1111Coverdale said:

ALL LIVES MATTER is a non racist statement

It's a racist dog whistle. "All lives matter" (so let's stop talking about the systematic oppression of black citizens, okay?).

 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Derek Torvalar said:

But remember Blake, that according to Social Justice Theory, "One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist. There is no in-between safe space of “not racist.” The claim of “not racist” neutrality is a mask for racism"

Your goofing right? Thats cool, laughing is good.  But if your serious, yeah I do not believe in social justice theory.  Or any theory.  I examine hard evidence, actual facts and simply choose to do the right thing whenever possible based on those. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blake1111Coverdale said:

Your goofing right? Thats cool, laughing is good.  But if your serious, yeah I do not believe in social justice theory.  Or any theory.  I examine hard evidence, actual facts and simply choose to do the right thing whenever possible based on those. 

Ya goofing a bit. But the religion takes this stuff really seriously and lest ye be caught by their acolytes and forced to repent/recant know that there is no safety. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it here that I saw the list of books for us unwoke white people to wake us up? Anyway, I just want to mention that I found one that wasn't on the list but was available on Amazon(It was a 99cent deal but the deal is over) and I started reading it last night and I'm really liking it - I'm Still Here: Black Dignity in a World Made for Whiteness by Austin Channing Brown.

 

 
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

My thinking is that it lets them plea it back down to the original charge.  Plea deals always result in the person pleading to something less than the actual charge - and plea deals are so very common.  Though given how seldom the police are actually convicted, the accused may figure they have a better chance at going to court than taking a plea.

Plea bargaining happens before ever going to arraignment. Yes, I have been there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

You've pulled out that "I'm a vet" card more than once. That doesn't make your opinion any more informed than anyone else's.

 

take care.jpeg

My military status as a VET, and prior law enforcement experience actually can make my opinion more informed than yours especially on subjects that pertain to my knowledge, expertise and experience in specific subjects. Good thing for you I base my statements on facts not on my opinion.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Derek Torvalar said:

Ya goofing a bit. But the religion takes this stuff really seriously and lest ye be caught by their acolytes and forced to repent/recant know that there is no safety. 

Yeah very true.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 125 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...