I clicked on another version of the video that shows more crowd response, and it was pretty predictable. Presumably clearer to Newsome's ears and he showed considerable restraint.

Having a sense of community doesn't at all eradicate the fact that people disagree. Any crowd on a march or demonstration will boo things they don't like and applaud things they like, that's for sure. That they listened to what Newsome said is the crucial touching part as listening is sign of courtesy. I don't think that interaction would happen anymore.

And hurray for the guy who invited him up. That was a pretty ballsy move.

Do not you think it odd that ALM only makes noise where and when BLM is protesting, the ALM's noise manifestly an effort to drown out and silence BLM concerns? — tim wood

So the House bill that banned choke holds against all humans, not just black ones, was an attempt to drown out BLM? Or was is to be inclusive rather than divisive? Imagine a Congressional bill that bans choke holds only against blacks. That is essentially the message of BLM.

With all this fear blacks claim to have, its a wonder they even come out of their house. Of course that's politics-say one thing, do another.

What I find odd is the complacency and silence of most human beings in general when any white person is killed by cops - as if we've been conditioned to think that its okay for cops to make mistakes that cost human lives at all.

We need to root out racism, as well as address many other problems caused by the abuse of power. But isn't just one life lost one too many, regardless of the color if skin of the victim? Sure, there should be outrage when racism occurs, but shouldn't there also be outrage when other forms of police brutality and corruption occur? The fact that there isn't and only when blacks are killed indicates the that outrage is disproportionate. Even if blacks are killed at higher rates (and no proof that every one of those instances were the result if racism), the level of outrage is disproportionate. There should be at least some outrage, but there is zero outrage.

so at this point it's probably just pure racism driving Harry's weird rants. — Baden

Still fighting racism with racism?

Apparently you did not notice that I asked you a question. And if the sense of it didn't tell you, certainly the question mark ("?") at the end should have. But I have learned a new term, "gaslighting," yours an extended exhibition of same. When asked a question, be good enough to consider answering, and as a courtesy, make clear why you're not, if you're not.

Edit: yours actually a non sequitor, deliberate non-sensifying.

Many Whites like to tell Blacks to "get over slavery" & Jim Crow when, in fact, they haven't gotten over their Confederate ancestors losing their slaves and the power to enforce Jim Crow.

Still fighting racism with racism? — Harry Hindu

:mask:

A grievance about well-documented and corroborated racist violence and discrimination by Whites against People of Color cannot itself be "racist" any more than a complaint of ... sexist violence and discrimination by Men against Women can itself be "sexist". — 180 Proof

Racists (or sexists) are the ones who feel oppressed by the demand for equality.

Many Whites like to tell Blacks to "get over slavery" & Jim Crow when, in fact, they haven't gotten over their Confederate ancestors losing their slaves and the power to enforce Jim Crow. — 180 Proof

I think they have gotten over losing their slaves.

Perhaps they think that the sins of their great great grandfathers aren't the sins of themselves.

Racists (or sexists) are the ones who feel oppressed by the demand for equality. — 180 Proof

So 180 Proof and Harry Hindu feel oppressed?

I myself have always thought that you can judge individuals, but never larger groups of people especially by their nationality, ethnicity, or race (whatever that means), but perhaps that's not the politically correct way to think about things now as denying the importance of race is racism itself.

English, apparently, isn't your first or second language. Yanks (Canucks & Brits) will get my meanings.

Ad hominem. That's three fallacies in a row. I'm labelling the nonsense you call arguments and not missing a beat. — Benkei

But you missed all the fallacies made by your side. So you're inconsistent in your application of the rules and thats the worst fallacy if them all- hypocrisy. It makes us think that you really aren't interested in avoiding logical fallacies at all.

Many Whites like to tell Blacks to "get over slavery" & Jim Crow when, in fact, they haven't gotten over their Confederate ancestors losing their slaves and the power to enforce Jim Crow. — 180 Proof

No on alive today was a slave or owned slaves, so there is nothing to get over. Its not about getting over slavery. Its about getting over identifying people based on the color of their skin.

Racists (or sexists) are the ones who feel oppressed by the demand for equality. — 180 Proof

Racists are the ones that keep judging individuals based on some common physical feature they share with others, like "you ain't black if you don't vote Democrat" and calling all whites racist.

But you missed all the fallacies made by your side. So you're inconsistent in your application of the rules and thats the worst fallacy if them all- hypocrisy. It makes us think that you really aren't interested in avoiding logical fallacies at all. — Harry Hindu

1. We're not in debate teams so there is no "your side". 2. Hypocrisy isn't a fallacy. 3. You haven't pointed out any fallacies yourself so you "missed" them just as much. 4. You were trying to have an argument with me and failed. 5. Your latest point is another big, fat red herring.

You're on fallacy number 4 now. You could go back to my initial comment and try again but I suspect you'll persist in missing the point.

I myself have always thought that you can judge individuals, but never larger groups of people especially by their nationality, ethnicity, or race (whatever that means), but perhaps that's not the politically correct way to think about things now as denying the importance of race is racism itself. — ssu

You really can't win either way. If you just try to view individuals as individuals and try to make as few preconceptions as possible, you're racially ignorant or even a racist today. On the other hand, if you view race as central to identity while you could be considered "woke" or "politically correct" your actual day to day interactions with people of other races are going to be really awkward but at least you're woke.

So I've stopped engaging in these types of conversations.

No on alive today was a slave or owned slaves, so there is nothing to get over. Its not about getting over slavery. Its about getting over identifying people based on the color of their skin. — Harry Hindu

"So there is nothing to get over." Please exhibit the complete argument that supported this conclusion. As it sits it's invalid and illogical - and to no small degree thoroughly offensive.

"Its not about getting over slavery. Its about getting over identifying people based on the color of their skin." And that's all it is? Really? What "it's about" is a lot of things. But can you handle that idea?

I heard an interview many years ago on NPR with a former FBI sniper, and he tells a story about a sting they had set up to arrest some militia-type dude (they pretended they were going to sell him weapons or explosives or something).

They make the arrest and the guy is talking his head off about The Government and Tyranny and all this, and our guy says, "Look, buddy. I had your head in my sights for the last two hours. You may be at war with your government, but your government is not at war with you."

This is what we want our law enforcement to be, isn't it?

Can you blame Black Americans for concluding that police departments are at war with them?

You really can't win either way. If you just try to view individuals as individuals and try to make as few preconceptions as possible, you're racially ignorant or even a racist today. On the other hand, if you view race as central to identity while you could be considered "woke" or "politically correct" your actual day to day interactions with people of other races are going to be really awkward but at least you're woke.

So I've stopped engaging in these types of conversations. — BitconnectCarlos

That's the curse of the post-modernist argument. (And perhaps I should stop too the engagement, because it's not welcome.)

As postmodernism doesn't believe in objectivity (perhaps the only truth is the the postmodernist argument itself), it is designed to be a power-play and a tool to defeat others. This is because of the simplistic argument that post-modernism has: in it's critique it see's "modernism" and universalist ideas like objective reality, science and ideas of the Enlightenment as just power plays themselves forced by a ruling class to maintain power and control. That's the only thing that is true. The Logical consequences is that if everything is then about power and control, then it is so and there really isn't anything else. It's like the conspiracy theorist that thinks everything is pure propaganda and hence will cherish and spread the most offensive, most straight forward and most vulgar propaganda ever as... what else is there? Objectivity and good journalism doesn't exist as everything is propaganda for this conspiracist.

The unfortunate thing is that earlier critics like Foucault did actually know the things they were criticizing (and hence Foucault actually rejected post-modernism and saw himself as a modernist), but the later generation has known only the postmodernist criticism, not the ideas which make up for example the view of the Enlightenment. They simply don't understand the subtle issue of that even if let's say "science" can be used, or abused to justify something that isn't at all an objective observation, but a subjective opinion, that doesn't mean that objectivity in using the scientific method doesn't and cannot exist at all.

No on alive today was a slave or owned slaves — Harry Hindu

Strawman. Address what I wrote, Hindu, like you're not a disingenous tRumpy troll.

... calling all whites racist.

Easier to argue with your own bullshit rather than mine, isn't it? Not making your case though, just changing your wife-beater after shitting your tighty whities. Again.

Racism is in such short supply these days that those who profit off its existence have relegated it to the invisible and nowhere, or in fact have become racists themselves. It’s like St. George forgetting to retire after slaying all the dragons. Pretty soon he’s just there, all alone, swinging his lance in the wind.

All other things being equal - our USA society places a higher value on the life of a white person than that of a black person. — EricH

Wrong. There are many of blacks that make more than many whites combined. — Harry Hindu

The fact that a small percentage of black people have achieved financial success is irrelevant to the discussion.

This didn't answer my question. — Harry Hindu

Correct. if you are in denial that systematic racism still exists in the USA, then there is no point in discussing how to address it.

Does systematic racism still exist in the USA? I'll repeat myself. Don't take my word for it. Don't rely any surveys or statistics. Go out and do your own research. Talk to 10 black people and ask them about their experiences. Report your results here.

I myself have always thought that you can judge individuals, but never larger groups of people especially by their nationality, ethnicity, or race (whatever that means), but perhaps that's not the politically correct way to think about things now as denying the importance of race is racism itself.

That isn’t only an ethical, but also the reasonable way to go about treating others. One cannot derive any important information about an individual from levels of melanin, beyond what his parents may have looked like. It is better to learn from someone rather than make such assumptions. I’d stick with it if I were you.

That being said, this post-modern, critical theory stuff is a blight on the history of knowledge, and will go the way of all racial superstitions.

"Cui bono?"

Racism (again for the slow fuckers way in the back) denotes color/ethnic prejudice plus POWER of a dominant community (color/ethnic in-group) OVER non-dominant communities (color/ethnic out-groups). Whether Hutus over Tutsis, Israeli Jews over Israeli Arabs, Hans over Uyghurs, Turks over Kurds, Kosovo Serbs over Kosovo Albanians, Russians over Chechens, Israeli Ashkenazim over Israeli Sephardim, American Whites over American Blacks Browns Yellows & Reds, etc, this description of racism obtains.

Resistance to, and subversion of, racist policies and enforcement practices necessarily targets members of the dominant color/ethnic community, which while 'appearing prejudiced' is (usually) not due to corroborative evidence and life-long experiences of the survivors of racial violence and discrimination; also, more significantly, anti-racist activism or policies cannot be racist in so far as their manifest function and objective is TO PROTECT members of NON-DOMINANT color/ethnic communities FROM the extraordinarily well-documented race-targeted, overtly terroristic (i.e. police executions of unarmed PoC, vigilante "militia" killings of anti-racist protestors) and covert daily assaults (i.e. socially-economically exclusionary) BY members of the DOMINANT color/ethnic community. Drawing an 'equivalence' between perpetrators and resisting survivors is apologetic for the perpetrators, and thereby complicit with status quo (ante) racism.

Thus, it ain't no secret where the likes of Harry Hindu, NOS4A2 & that confederacy of evidence-free, demogogic, talk-radio parrotting, trolls stands.

Racism (again for the slow fuckers way in the back) denotes color/ethnic prejudice plus POWER of a dominant community (color/ethnic in-group) OVER non-dominant communities (color/ethnic out-groups). Whether Hutus over Tutsis, Hans over Uyghurs, Turks over Kurds, Kosovo Serbs over Kosovo Albanians, Russians over Chechens, North Sudanese over South Sudanese, American Whites over American Blacks Browns Yellows & Reds, etc, this description of racism obtains. — 180 Proof

I disagree with defining racism this way. Its done only to inoculate anti-white sentiment against a charge of racism, and thats all. Prejudice plus power isnt racism, everyone knows what racism is (hating and treating as lesser based on skin colour) and this trendy new way of defining it is just a way fir people to be racist towards whites while avoiding being called racist themselves (the possibility has been defined out of the word).
It doesnt even make sense.
If I say “Japanese people are scum, sub human garbage, the yellow plague etc etc” then that would be pretty racist. Under the prejudice plus power nonsense if I then flew to Japan where Japanese have all the power it somehow wouldnt be racist? Of course it would, because racism isnt about power, its about hate and/or ignorance.
Obsessed with looking through the lense of race as you are, I know all your examples seem like classic, perfect ones to you but they are just examples of groups vs groups, human tribalism, human war and nation or empire building. They are only distinguishable from other human conflicts/tribalism because you choose to focus on race.
Earlier you asked for examples of black people who agree with the likes of Harry Hindu, that do not believe is systemic racism. You cant have looked very hard, youtube is filled with them but im sure you have some way to excuse that away (not THOSE black voices) so Ill offer up personal examples. Of all my extended family and family, only one person actually buys into the current narrative about systemic racism and prejudice plus power and she is young and in college where they are taught this junk from fake academics who use that prejudice plus power stuff to push an agenda.
It is tiresome and offensive that you white saviour types operate under the guise of helping black people while simultaneously denying black folks agency, committing racism yourselves and trying to decide for me how I should feel about white people, cops and black people.
The colour of my skin (Or anyones) shouldn't matter, and the fact that it does to you or anyone else makes you the one judging by skin colour. Ive said it before and ill repeat it again, the only people who care about race are actual racists, and the people who think everyone is racist. Neither are registering reality properly...your worldview has more in common with racists than you do with me sir.
Here, this amusing video might help you understand:

https://youtu.be/Ev373c7wSRg

... everyone knows ... — DingoJones

What "everyone knows" is just prejudicial bullshit. Thinking, not merely believing, is what's called for here; and if that's too difficult or inconvenient for you, well then, let's agree to disagree on this point.

It doesnt even make sense

It is pretty absurd for the reasons you stated. But also the idea that the KKK or neo-Nazis are not racist because they lack power is morally repugnant. It makes no sense.

At this point? Did we have this conversation before or something?
You quoted two words cherry picked out of a sentence and then didn't even address that. Prejudicial bullshit? And where do you get off telling me im not thinking about this issue?
That was a non-response, which I guess is fair enough if you arent interested in responding to my points.

Racism (again for the slow fuckers way in the back) denotes color/ethnic prejudice plus POWER of a dominant community (color/ethnic in-group) OVER non-dominant communities (color/ethnic out-groups). — 180 Proof

Good that you also included there ethnicity as historically especially in the European context racism hasn't been about skin color as obviously Germans, Poles, Russians, Belorussians, Swedes or Finns are considered to be white, but that hasn't stopped at all racism, racial division, pogroms and genocide. Because I bet if we looked at photos of Poles, Russians, Germans and Finns nobody would have any clue which belongs to the "aryan", the "northern" or the "subhuman / inferior" race as defined some time ago in one European country. And this example isn't made to get some intersectionality points or refer to whites being the victim, but to show how absolutely crazy the whole idea of racism is.

Thus racism and xenophobia can be created between any two groups even if the categories are invented by a third party (like with the Hutus and Tutsi's) as there is absolutely no logic behind racism. It is just invented to fit the current situation. Racism is thinking of some other group of people being inferior, no matter what the defining charasteristics are. Nowdays or in the US context it's skin color.

But that may sound too much like the old definition of racism, perhaps.

180's is a significant and ideological definition of racism, whenever someone defines racism this way, I feel it becomes clear that their primary concern is not the logic of racism and this is a problem. I do think it is key to understand this definition though, we cannot take for granted that we agree with someone in opposition to "racism" when people have these definitions.

Any pretence of the agreement should be dropped, you go into a discussion hearing someone being appalled by racism and think that's the common ground you can work with but there is in reality very little. What you are against and what the likes of @180 Proof is against are completely different.

The understandings are incompatible, the logic we despise is not only not condemned but actually utilised because it can be justified depending on whether you're a from a marginalised group or not. It is very difficult and there's no real incentive to differentiate between what he considers a racist and himself from our position.

Which is not to say that we don't condemn state-censored violence or oppression, based on race or otherwise. However, the idea that identical logic and speech is racist or not racist depending on your skin colour or ethnicity is absurd. There is no possible excuse where it becomes justified yet 180 proof is trying to provide us with one.

Whenever I agree with @NOS4A2 over someone else, I feel they can just instantly be disregarded as a thinker with any possible merit.

Any pretence of the agreement should be dropped, you go into a discussion hearing someone being appalled by racism and think that's the common ground you can work with but there is in reality very little. What you are against and what the likes of 180 Proof is against are completely different. - However, the idea that identical logic and speech is racist or not racist depending on your skin colour or ethnicity is absurd. — Judaka

And this is why the whole thing is so detrimental.

Meh, Im not sure thats fair. (To dismiss 180 as a thinker of merit). Everyone has a blindspot or two, and the race blind spot has Faux academic backing. (And wide media acceptance). The narrative has been successfully delivered so Im not keen to dismiss someone just because they are hopelessly wrong on this issue.
Plenty of normally rational people have lost their minds about Trump as another example, but I still listen to those folks in other threads because rationality returns to them.
The fact you get people responding to certain woke words and quickly forming agreement speaks to what I would call the cult-like operating procedures used by those who’ve bought the narrative. It doesnt matter what you think, it only matters that you fall in line with their language use. Hence as you say, they cannot tell when they disagree with someone or not if the right words are being used. The language is the first and most important attack vector, controlling that makes everything else easier. Also like a cult, these people (maybe 180, maybe not) do not realise what they are doing, how closely they resemble their declared enemies on behalf of the bad actors that came up with all this shit.
Did you check out that video I linked to 180? Its a hilariously accurate point being made.

Why do insults have to be fair? :(

I did watch the video, very funny and sums up my complaints.

They dont, if all you are doing is insulting. I had the impression you were expressing something of substance at the same time. That would being fair, to me anyway.