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

[Tolya Ugajin]

15 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

Force isn't limited to lethal force. How many times have they used their tasers, or batons, or rubber bullets, or pepper balls, or their fists?

Someone made an unsubstantiated statement, I countered it with fact.  You asked the question, go research it.  But, if you or anyone else thinks using force is the rule when dealing with civilians, not the exception, then you're brainwashed and out of your damned minds.

But, since I couldn't help myself, I did the work for you.  Less than 20% of ARRESTS involve ANY force at all.  Maybe you should stop believing everything you think you hear on TV and Farcebook.

"NIJ-sponsored research at the local level found that, in the context of the subset of police-public contacts involving adult custody arrests, police used physical force(handcuffing excluded) in less than 20 per-cent of 7,512 arrests studied (chapter 4).  Even in those instances, police primarily used weaponless tactics, such as grabbing or holding"

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/176330-1.pdf

[Tolya Ugajin]

27 minutes ago, kali Wylder said:

I don't have time right now as I'm supposed to be working.  but your stats of cops using their guns don't help much when the force is a knee on a windpipe.

And that's so common, sure.  This is typical internet thinking - I saw it happen so it must happen all the time.  I've replies elsewhere with more data.  You, Beth, etc. are just grasping at straws to cling to your narrative.

[Beth Macbain]

1 minute ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Someone made an unsubstantiated statement, I countered it with fact.  You asked the question, go research it.  But, if you or anyone else thinks using force is the rule when dealing with civilians, not the exception, then you're brainwashed and out of your damned minds.

But, since I couldn't help myself, I did the work for you.  Less than 20% of ARRESTS involve ANY force at all.  Maybe you should stop believing everything you think you hear on TV and Farcebook.

"NIJ-sponsored research at the local level found that, in the context of the subset of police-public contacts involving adult custody arrests, police used physical force(handcuffing excluded) in less than 20 per-cent of 7,512 arrests studied (chapter 4).  Even in those instances, police primarily used weaponless tactics, such as grabbing or holding"

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/176330-1.pdf

You think they report it? C'mon... you aren't that naive. How many reports say the suspect tripped? 

[Janet Voxel]

17 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

You're free to research it further.  The information comes from the first link below, table 3.2.  It's interesting that first you bemoan how spending is being cut

*car tires screeching sound*

I....provided a graphic of what I was talking about. So what we're dealing with is conflicting data. If he's increasing spending to these programs, why are his budget proposals for decreasing spending to housing, labor, transportation and health and human services?

Here's another one:

 

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Janet Voxel
and another one

[Tolya Ugajin]

1 minute ago, Beth Macbain said:

You think they report it? C'mon... you aren't that naive. How many reports say the suspect tripped? 

OK, you have officially joined the ranks of unwilling to believe anything that doesn't support your view, and too lazy to bother even reading something that might contradict you.  Those statistics are based on surveys of the people arrested, not what the cops reported.  You'd know that if you bothered to read it.  Enjoy your ignorance.

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Enjoy your ignorance

Enjoy YOUR ignorance.

You can have a democracy, or you can have a patriarchy, but you can’t have both.

[kali Wylder]

2 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

And that's so common, sure.  This is typical internet thinking - I saw it happen so it must happen all the time.  I've replies elsewhere with more data.  You, Beth, etc. are just grasping at straws to cling to your narrative.

You are very good at looking up stats Tolya, I've read many of your posts with stats. I've never called you out on it, because I generally enjoy your posts.  Math is great stuff. I like it too.  I've also take a couple of statistics classes and I know that you can prove anything you like with stats.  Just because you've looked up some that back up your assertions, doesn't mean you've proved your point to me. This time I really disagree with what you're trying to assert and when I have the time I will look up some stats of my own.  

[Beth Macbain]

1 minute ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

OK, you have officially joined the ranks of unwilling to believe anything that doesn't support your view, and too lazy to bother even reading something that might contradict you.  Those statistics are based on surveys of the people arrested, not what the cops reported.  You'd know that if you bothered to read it.  Enjoy your ignorance.

Wow. Really? Really, Tolya?! Disagree with me if you want, but that was really hitting below the belt. 

 

[Janet Voxel]

3 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

OK, you have officially joined the ranks of unwilling to believe anything that doesn't support your view, and too lazy to bother even reading something that might contradict you.  Those statistics are based on surveys of the people arrested, not what the cops reported.  You'd know that if you bothered to read it.  Enjoy your ignorance.

Is it necessary for you to be so insulting with everyone who disagrees with you?

[Tolya Ugajin]

5 minutes ago, Janet Voxel said:

*car tires screeching sound*

I....provided a graphic of what I was talking about. So what we're dealing with is conflicting data. If he's increasing spending to these programs, why are his budget proposals for decreasing spending to housing, labor, transportation and health and human services?

Here's another one:

 

A President's budget is almost never what actually happens.  For one thing, presidents generally babble about how they're going to cut waste and such, and their budgets reflect such pipe dreams (Clinton was the only one in my lifetime who actually did make it happen, so kudos for Bill).  The Congress, regardless of who runs it, is institutionally incapable of reducing spending.  After the 2008 crash, for instance, we spent more than a trillion dollars on "stimulus", and we never stopped spending at those higher levels thereafter.  It was like our house burned down in 2008, so we decided we'd buy a new house every year going forward.  Also, some of the spending above is driven not by actual spending bills, but by income and similar factors (as I mentioned, some spending is income related, and in Trump's dreamland where everything is going to get better because he said so, the prediction would be incomes rising would mean less people on food stamps, for instance).  Finally, budgets are not the only way money is spent.  Trump is also pushing for a huge infrastructure spending bill, for instance, so transportation spending above would skyrocket.  The OMB data I supplied is reality, as in actual spending (outlays), not fantasy or propaganda (ie. budgets).

[Robin Kiyori]

Juust popping in to say that Police Brutality isn't just an American Problem.

 

I should know,  my Country's old "police" (RUC) had to be dissolved  completely due to it.  As a result of this whee little thing called "the troubles" and that was the stuff they did to the white folk they didn't like.  Imagine the  undocumented  injustice that time caused  for POC Folk.

Plus Canada's treatment of the native populations there.

Look into any country's past (or present) and you'll see similar injustices.

That's why BLM is such an internatural protest. America may be the most brutal and numerious. But that doesn't make other countries any safer if you are marginlized.

[Tolya Ugajin]

5 minutes ago, Janet Voxel said:

Is it necessary for you to be so insulting with everyone who disagrees with you?

Insulting with everyone who disagrees with me is inaccurate.  When I put data after data in front of someone and they refuse to even consider it to the point of rejecting it without even reading it, they are willfully choosing ignorance.

[Luna Bliss]

6 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

budgets

 

[Luna Bliss]

[Tolya Ugajin]

8 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

Wow. Really? Really, Tolya?! Disagree with me if you want, but that was really hitting below the belt. 

 

No, Beth, it's hitting you over the head with your myopic and intellectually lazy responses.  You're not even bothering to consider facts and data, you don't even read it.  "Well, it's not what I believe, so I'm sure it's based on lies" may as well have been your response.  This is so very typical of how every time I masochistically choose to debate anything with the liberal crowd on here plays out.  You won't look at data, you (this is a group statement, not just to you) post things as "proof" when you haven't even read your own sources and that's if you bother to offer anything substantive beyond your emotional response and repetition of what Maddow told you.  Then, you claim I'm "hitting below the belt", but you calling me "naive" (actually, reading between the lines of how you wrote it, it was a shot at my integrity), is just fine, and if I post something without a link to back it up, I'm "just repeating Faux News".  It's bullscat.  If you want to live a fact free life, that's your problem, I'm done debating this topic with someone who clearly isn't interested in anything more than hearing their own thoughts reflected back at them.

[Love Zhaoying]

11 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Insulting with everyone who disagrees with me is inaccurate.  When I put data after data in front of someone and they refuse to even consider it to the point of rejecting it without even reading it, they are willfully choosing ignorance.

Keep trying! If you put forth a concise, cogent, comprehensible argument that does not depend on emotion or reaction, then you've got something!

[Tolya Ugajin]

21 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Enjoy YOUR ignorance.

You can have a democracy, or you can have a patriarchy, but you can’t have both.

Wow, what a deep meaningful response, so very typical of you.

[Luna Bliss]

Just now, Tolya Ugajin said:

23 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Enjoy YOUR ignorance.

You can have a democracy, or you can have a patriarchy, but you can’t have both.

Wow, what a deep meaningful response, so very typical of you.

 

 

[Love Zhaoying]

34 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

  Less than 20% of ARRESTS involve ANY force at all.  Maybe you should stop believing everything you think you hear on TV and Farcebook.

"NIJ-sponsored research at the local level found that, in the context of the subset of police-public contacts involving adult custody arrests, police used physical force(handcuffing excluded) in less than 20 per-cent of 7,512 arrests studied (chapter 4).  Even in those instances, police primarily used weaponless tactics, such as grabbing or holding"

This is absolutely awful! You quote it as if it is a good thing! How dreadful.

[Pegi Tuck]

I support black lives matter. Ashton Kutcher pointed out that it is Important to do so because some people don't believe black lives matter. 

 

But, I want to use Second Life to escape ALL politics. That is the only reason to post a response here. I leave places where these or other issues get discussed since we are human and uniting as so.

[Lyssa Greymoon]

35 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Someone made an unsubstantiated statement, I countered it with fact.  You asked the question, go research it.  But, if you or anyone else thinks using force is the rule when dealing with civilians, not the exception, then you're brainwashed and out of your damned minds.

But, since I couldn't help myself, I did the work for you.  Less than 20% of ARRESTS involve ANY force at all.  Maybe you should stop believing everything you think you hear on TV and Farcebook.

"NIJ-sponsored research at the local level found that, in the context of the subset of police-public contacts involving adult custody arrests, police used physical force(handcuffing excluded) in less than 20 per-cent of 7,512 arrests studied (chapter 4).  Even in those instances, police primarily used weaponless tactics, such as grabbing or holding"

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/176330-1.pdf

That report is over 20 years old.

[FairreLilette]

2 hours ago, Pixieplumb Flanagan said:

If it turns out to be a full on revolution well, people die in revolutions, on both sides.  Who would like to argue against the American or French revolution on the basis that some people died? I mean, sure, I would much prefer that the racists stop being racist, that the police stop deliberately targeting POC and escalating situations so that they can use their shiny shiny toys, that statues of murderers be removed, that history be taught fairly and accurately, but it seems at this point that a lot of people don't fancy that, so maybe you just have to have the revolution instead.  Your choice.

This post reminds me of the song by Jackson Browne called "Lives in the Balance" and the lyrics that go "and the people who finally can't take anymore so they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone".  

The good thing is change is going to happen though I'm not saying right this minute right now.  The bad thing is that this had to happen during a pandemic which is frightening.  

@Ashlyn Voir, your posts keep saying nothing will change although things are changing a bit already now.  But, if you want something to change...what exactly do you want to see change?  More accountability?  Defunding?

To people in this thread who say it's an American problem:  The problem with America is we don't have gun control like you do in other countries.  You have to have a permit for a gun in America though and I don't think the average everyday citizens are allowed to carry a concealed weapon, but guns are sold illegally here in America.  It's a problem, but many feel it's a Constitutional right to bare firearms.  So.........?  What do we do about that?   Guns are a problem.  Some people are hurt by police just when trying to get their driver's license out as it's perceived they might be going for a gun or a knife even.  

I didn't want to get too much involved in BLM because as far as my own sister who was beaten by the Police, it's a personal issue.  I am the one who has to deal with a sister who does not want to speak nor eat nor drink not anyone else.  But I want to hear from Ashlyn what she hopes may change out of this?  

[Extrude Ragu]

 Tea break for all, lets have a rest before we resume winding each other up on the internet.

Check on your pets and make sure you get some exercise!

☕

❤️

[Janet Voxel]

2 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

A President's budget is almost never what actually happens.  For one thing, presidents generally babble about how they're going to cut waste and such, and their budgets reflect such pipe dreams (Clinton was the only one in my lifetime who actually did make it happen, so kudos for Bill).  The Congress, regardless of who runs it, is institutionally incapable of reducing spending.  After the 2008 crash, for instance, we spent more than a trillion dollars on "stimulus", and we never stopped spending at those higher levels thereafter.  It was like our house burned down in 2008, so we decided we'd buy a new house every year going forward.  Also, some of the spending above is driven not by actual spending bills, but by income and similar factors (as I mentioned, some spending is income related, and in Trump's dreamland where everything is going to get better because he said so, the prediction would be incomes rising would mean less people on food stamps, for instance).  Finally, budgets are not the only way money is spent.  Trump is also pushing for a huge infrastructure spending bill, for instance, so transportation spending above would skyrocket.  The OMB data I supplied is reality, as in actual spending (outlays), not fantasy or propaganda (ie. budgets).

Yes, but the data you provided was very vague and does not add up and I'm not insulting you either. If he proposed that many cuts to social programs....are you saying nothing got cut? What I was asking you for was more data as to what programs that money went to. Where was the increase? The data you provided could easily have gone to administration and other vague costs such as "overhead" and not to actual people that need it.

My assertion was simple: the US spends much less than it should on social programs than it should and it shows.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/03/26/the-u-s-spends-far-too-little-on-social-welfare/

[Luna Bliss]

54 minutes ago, Janet Voxel said:

My assertion was simple: the US spends much less than it should on social programs than it should and it shows.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/03/26/the-u-s-spends-far-too-little-on-social-welfare/

Taking one paragraph from her conclusion:
"It follows fairly obviously from the above that the U.S. should be making large outlays on social welfare that it currently is not making. While other wealthy countries apparently view their inhabitants as part of a society with universal needs, the U.S. largely leaves its people to fend for themselves."

I would add that the reason the U.S. largely leaves its people to "fend for themselves" is because it values a patriarchal (stratified) society in which groups of people (like Blacks) are kept at the bottom to benefit those at the top. In a society where community is valued as much as the individual we are less likely to create groups that are more disadvantaged.  Unfortunately, in the US people have been brainwashed to fear most any service for the public good as some sort of scary Socialism.

The US really has to change now -- people are suffering -- we can't take much more as a country. And I can't take encountering people with the 'blah blah blah but the gubbermint spending is bad' mindset much more.

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Luna Bliss