billsfan1959

Makes as much sense as most of your posts....

The reasons people get pulled over are varied. How that translates into "real priviledge" for each and every member of one group and "oppression" for each and every member of another group in regard to opportunities for advancement/betterment requires some real intellectual gymnastics.

He can speak for himself; however, I'm sure what he wants is for people who desire to emigrate to this country, to do so according to existing immigration laws. Not a difficult concept, no?

The meeting singled out one group of people and applied some vague quality of "white priviledge" to each and every person of that group without any consideration of the unique life circumstances of each individual. Call it what you want. I call it wrong.

Agree. I just acknoweldged as much in another post.

I believe those with the ability for introspection and the willingness to engage in critical self analyses tend to grow as they age. They also tend to be more willing to engage in discussions that do not degenerate into childish tantrums. However, we all have our moments, particularly when we are passionate about the particular topic. I do believe there is considrable constructive discourse within this forum. Unfortunately, there are a minority of posters, on both sides of whatever issue is being discussed, that immediately want to take it to a personal level. It is a microcosm of the toxic nature of the national dialogue in this country over the last few years: a minority of voices on the extremes belittling, shaming, labeling, and, in general, drowing out the reasonable voices. It seems that almost every thread these days gets hijacked by a minority of posters. It doesn't mean meaningful, constructive discussions no longer exist. You just have to wade through more posts by those who don't care to engage in honest debate. It certainly doesn't mean we should stop trying.

You seem a bit judgemental. That is not typically a trait that promotes tolerance and openness to other opinions. Perhaps, you were describing yourself?

First, you accused him of having a strong opinion while being unable to listen to opinions that are contrary. Then you accuse him of being the one whose contrary opinion is being ignored. Which one is he?

I don't know what the specifics of the state statutes are in New York regarding the use of choke holds by police; however, the video indicated that it was not prohibited, but was a Class-C Felony if it results in serious physical injury or death. I don't know if there are any exceptions/provisions in the statute if it occurs while the officer is in imminent fear of his life in a struggle. I am also not aware of the specifics of the Bills passed by the city. The video states the city laws primarily criminalize (1) the use of any restraint that compresses the windpipe or carotid artery and (2) placing a knee on the back/chest of a suspect. I have no problem with the limitations on restraints that compress the windpipe or carotid artery in general. Howevever, to make it a crime even if it occurs unintentionally and/or if no injuries occur, and to leave no room for it to be used if an officer is fighting for his or her life, will only serve to reduce an officer's ability to subdue suspects who resist arrest. Most departments already prohibit choke holds. However, policies and state laws in most states understand that it will occur on occasion and can be justified. That is the sujective nature of the use of force. I have a greater concern with eliminating the use of the knee on the back. In a struggle, it is virtually impossible for a single officer to gain control of, and handcuff a suspect (who is non-compliant) without the ability to apply pressure with a knee. And, again, to make it a crime even if it occurs unintentionally and/or if no injuries occur, and to leave no room for it to be used if an officer is fighting for his or her life, will only serve to reduce an officer's ability to subdue suspects who resist arrest. My greatest concern is that the city laws allow the officer to be sued for any of these acts regardless if they occur unintentionally and/or if they result in no injuries. If they remove the subjectivity from the use of force and define it only by precise, objective standards, AND allow them to be sued for unintentional acts, that result in no injuries, even if they are necessary for the safety of the officer but still violate the law, they will severely limit the ability and the desire of officers to do their jobs.

The very point of the meeting was to single out people by a phenotype (skin color), attribute qualities (from specific to nebulous) to the entire group based solely on that phenotype, and inform them that the qualities automatically attributed to them were offensive /detrimental to those with a different skin color. By doing so, the purpose of the meeting was essentially to inform them that the very nature of their phenotype (whitness) was offensive / detrimental to others. I don't know about you; however, I was raised to believe that it is wrong to paint an entire group of people with the same broad brush stroke, simply because they share the same race/ethnicity/sex/religion/etc.

I didn't know that. None of my relatives from that line (at least the ones I know) have red hair. Many of my mother's family is from FLorence as well, but I haven't met anyone with red hair.

YOU posted a photo to show that protesters wear masks. The problem is that the photo you used showed quite a number of protesters without masks. My point wasn't about whether or not wearing masks is good. My point was that you are an idiot.

You might want to take a closer look at your own photo. You can see quite a number of people with their faces uncovered. You would think it would be impossible, from a statistical probability perspective, for you to be wrong as often as you are.

My mother was born in Tripoli, Libya; however, her parents had relocated there from Italy. My grandparents had a restaurant in the Italian section until they lost the restaurant and were forced to leave in the mid 1960s. My mother and father met while my father was stationed there in 1956. They married and then he brought her here. She became a U.S. citizen in 1966. All my relatives on my mother's side (that I know or communicate with) live in Italy. My great grandparents on my father's maternal side emigrated from Florence, Italy. From what I can tell, most of the remainder of families on my father's side came from throughout Europe in the mid 1800s to early 1900s.

Obviously, nobody told this guy that bringing up black on black crime is racist and simply a way to divert attention away from police brutality...

Happy 4th Everybody! Here's hoping to an even better future for all!!!

I'm not upset. I am merely pointing out how absolutey flawed your logic is. You like things to be simple. You like for one word labels to describe the complexities of a human being. It makes things easier for you. It doesn't change the fact that "slave" and "enslaved" are different without a distinction. They both, inevitably, refer to someone being held against their will. Neither term sheds any light on WHO a person is. From your previous post: "If a person is considered a “slave” and that’s just who they are in their nature." That just might be the dumbest thing I have ever seen you post. That is saying something as you are the one who once posted that "guns make suicides more lethal."

You and your kind in a nutshell. Labels, labels, labels.... The term "slave" describes who someone is in their nature? There is nothing about that term that describes the "nature" of anyone. There is nothing about that word that describes "WHO" a person is. When someone is a slave or enslaved, they are someone being held against their will, as you say, "forcefully and brutally." Both words describe their condition. And of course, you finish your post with the obligatory liberal labeling: "People not not wanting to see the difference just don’t care." For people like you, labels do matter, but only for the purposes of making yourself feel better, smarter, and more enlighted, or for shaming and bullying others tha do not agree with you.

No it isn't. It is semantics. Both describe a condition the person is in. "Who" a person is can never be described by a label. That is the problem with people like you - constantly defining who people are by labels and superficial qualities. Just as long as they are the labels and qualities that suit you for the moment. Find me one person who has been, or is a slave that supports this and I will be more than happy to listen to him or her. If somebody works as an engineer, do we refer to that person as "employed as an an engineer," rather than just "an engineer," in order to distinguish what that person does as opposed to who that person is? No, we don't. You know why? Because there are no self-congratulatory feelings of moral and intellectual superiority that go along with that particular distinction.

To be enslaved is to be a slave. And I doubt anyone who ever experienced it, or is currently experiencing it, felt or feels the least bit more dignified calling him/her enslaved or a slave. The condition is the condition despite academics engaging in linguistic gymnastics to make themselves feel more enlightened.

A little? You are a kind man....

Yeah, it feels as if the NFL is taking a situation that was already badly handled and making it worse. I support the right of players to do what they want to do. Like I said, I just don't feel like this country is moving closer to some sense of unity - or even honest dialogue. However, I will bow out of this thread, as it will just end up turning into a referendum on who is or isn't racist - rather than a discussion.

I like the song; however, is this where we want to go? Separate, but equal anthems? I thought we wanted to distance ourselves from that sort of thing, conceptually speaking. It just seems to me that each day we are moving further and further from the "unifying" message everyone is looking for.

Everyone gets fooled now and then

Nope, we fell for it because it could reasonably be true - and I still feel the sentiment is there for AOC. However, it has been flushed out and most here have no problem admitting if we were wrong about something.