Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-26-2020, 10:28 AM
 
72,842 posts, read 62,249,253 times
Reputation: 21795

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Based on your posts to this forum, you seem to be reasonable, emotionally mature and not prone to absolute thinking.

Most people are aware of what is likely the single largest looting event in US history that happened overnight on 8/10 in multiple commercial districts in Chicago. Estimates are about 2500, mostly young black people engaged. Some of the criminals live streamed their activities and there is no shortage of video from retail cameras. It was a free for all and mostly all about the goodies.

On another thread, I pointed out there are nearly 1 million black peoples who reside in Chicago. About 99.75% of the local black population did not engage in the looting event. A majority has no influence or power over what a minority of a minority choose to do. This did not fit the majority sentiment of that thread.

On another thread, my consistent observation that most protests do not go sideways, turn into riots, arson, property damage or looting met with pushback. All media historically uses a “ if it bleeds, it leads” approach and don’t show then tens of thousands of protests throughout the US that did not go off the rails.

Seems to me social media, especially in election cycles, tends to be dominated by a vocal minority who use a broad brush to paint others and portray the actions of some as the face of Fill in the Blank.
I do what I can. In many cases, I find absolute thinking to be reprehensible. I wanted to discuss this particular topic in a manner that involves an intellectual process. Many people here aren't interested in that. Some people are here just for the snark value.

I've been hearing about Black people in the streets rioting. And it isn't like this isn't true. There is no shortage of media showing rioters. And sadly, it proves something else. People doing bad attracts far more attention than anything else. I will also say this. There were certainly no shortage of looters who used a tragedy as their opportunity to steal, to take from other people. There is also a segment of people who are very angry, believe that there would never be justice, and were ready to exact revenge against society. What I see are people who believe in being vindictive, who want to destroy the rest of society because they view the rest of society, as well as the police, as they enemy. Anger, vindictiveness, hate. There is also a mentality among some that includes "shoot now, ask questions later". This is one of the hallmarks of rioting. I bring that up and hardly anyone listens.


I bring this up because I see alot more snark than anything else. I believe in my heart of heart, that some people are here just to get their rocks off by being snarky and nasty. There are times I feel like I'm in high school, and not in a good way.

Most Black people are not engaging in crime or violence. Most people in general are trying to just go about their day. One thing that I've taken from this is that it doesn't take a large number of people for mayhem to take place. And the people who are protesting peacefully, well, they won't get attention. Many won't tell the difference between those who are only protesting and the rioters. Like you just said, if it bleeds, it leads. And I remember many years ago, a woman who worked for a radio station in Atlanta mentioned that. If it bleeds, it leads.

The one difference between 2000 and now is social media. I've brought this up over and over. Only a few actually listen. Social media has changed the game. Minneapolis received a bunch of notoriety in 2020 for the riots that took place. I notice there is no mention about the riots that took place in Minneapolis in 2002. MySpace didn't even exist in 2002. Benton Harbor, Michigan had a riot in 2003. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benton_Harbor_riots

And social media gets slammed during elections. In 2012, I cut off all contact with one guy because of his racially charged comments about Obama. It was basically "Obama should run back to Kenya". I knew he wasn't a fan of Obama, but that comment was hitting below the belt. It was basically a bigoted comment. For starters, it was giving into the bigoted birther nonsense and a stereotype about Africans. I saw some of the worst in people come up in 2012 and 2016. At the time I was thinking "we're moving backwards". When I sit down and actually THINK, it starts to sink it. Some of these persons I dealt with were likely always like this, but it never came up verbally, and then social media showed a side I never expected.

Technology has changed how fast information spreads.

 
Old 08-26-2020, 10:38 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
25,901 posts, read 24,622,730 times
Reputation: 9715
I wonder if the riots would stop earlier if police did not show up at all. Many rioters need an enemy to fight and that is usually the police, who because of their uniforms even identify themselves as one group. Maybe it would be an interesting experiment: next time there is a riot, just don't send any cops. Maybe it would die down pretty fast when rioters notice nobody cares about them.

I think one thing that encourages rioters is that usually they by far outnumber the police, which might give them an illusion of strength and anonymity.
 
Old 08-26-2020, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,858 posts, read 8,163,032 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Statz2k10 View Post
Or what about parents that just want there child to marry within the same race? Not because they think there race is better but there culture & beliefs is that you marry somebody that looks like you.
I'm probably biased because I have a rather possessive personality. I want people associated with me to have my name and to look like me, and to look like my family. I love to see my mother and my sisters in my nieces. And this might sound bad, but I don't even like seeing "the fathers" in my sister's kids. I much prefer them to look like my sisters, like "my" family. It even bothered me when my sisters got married and changed their names. I still want to call them "their names". They're still "my" sisters.

Being military and moving around from state-to-state, my sisters were often my only friends. I would still make other friends, but sometimes my sisters were all I had. I'm also the youngest, and I watched my sisters, their relationships, their behaviors, their interactions. I'm an observant person, a kind of student of human-nature. I can tell in five minutes what kind of person someone is, and whether a relationship will "work".

Ironically, although I consider myself the "most racist person on this forum", my real goal is harmony. There is a line from the bible, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God."

I am a peacemaker, a problem-solver. And as to the race problem, miscegenation is merely an extreme, it might be easy to see but it isn't "the problem". If the goal is harmony, I would take it much much further than race.

To understand my point-of-view, think of "arranged-marriages". Arranged doesn't mean "forced" btw, it is more like "parent-approved". Generally the parents arrange for their son/daughter to meet "candidates" who are pre-approved, and then select from that list.

If you had a daughter and you were looking for her a partner, what kind of guy would you pick? I would assume most people would pick someone a lot like themselves. You can refer to this phenomenon as "ingroup bias".

https://dictionary.apa.org/ingroup-bias

The problem with ingroup bias is that it leads to tribalism. Countries where people marry within their own groups are usually a bunch of semi-hostile clans. To bridge the gap between clans, they would promote intermarriage. The daughter of one chief or noble would marry the son of another. This would unite the two groups by bonds of blood.

Once mixed they cannot be unmixed. And so most governments for hundreds of years have promoted policies to encourage mixing to a greater degree. A lot of this was done through social taboos about consanguineous-marriages.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419292/

Ironically, the most successful couplings are something like second and third-cousins, but here in the "West" we generally think of this as incest. In fact, this social taboo has become so extreme that some people even think white people dating other white people is incest, regardless of how distantly-related.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...is-best-kissi/

A lot of people seem to think the more distantly-related people are, the healthier their offspring will be, because they will be the least "inbred" of all. But distantly-related people can have genetic incompatibilities, and there is certainly no evidence for any kind of "hybrid-vigor" among distantly-related populations. In fact, mixed-race people seem to have far more problems, especially mental-health problems and behavioral/learning disorders.

https://yorkshiretimes.co.uk/article...Mental-Illness


So why is everything we believe about race so wrong? Because, just like the medieval noble, a country needs to "mix" to combine. Ingroup bias tears countries apart. Mixing is thus in the "national interests" of every country. And every country is fundamentally amoral, secular, and universal.

Every patriotic American should marry someone of another race, because the only solution to the race problem, is to mix everyone together until there ceases to be race. Some seem to welcome this, others oppose it. But eventually it will happen regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

Last edited by Redshadowz; 08-26-2020 at 11:11 AM..
 
Old 08-26-2020, 11:09 AM
 
121 posts, read 81,984 times
Reputation: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadyclem View Post
I always keep wondering if there are gains or benefits for being a racist. Does being racist makes one live a better quality of life, have things easily and makes one's life more happy and fulfilling? I really want to know because the division and destruction caused to innocent people and businesses by acts of racism is getting very alarming and I want to know if the benefits for being a racist surpass such negative aftereffects of such acts. Just a curious individual wanting to know what the benefits for being a racist are.
People are racist because they hate their own lives. It is rage at their own diminished state, and rather than take responsibility for their own lives and work to better them, they blame their failures on others. And because they are weak people without integrity or personal responsibility, they only see the elimination of whatever groups they hold responsible for their failure in life as the answer to their problems. They become filled with hate and work to destroy others because it is the coward's way out. And they support whatever demagogue promises to destroy the other groups for them.
 
Old 08-26-2020, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Florida
7,740 posts, read 6,310,376 times
Reputation: 15707
Racism is very much a two way street. If one has enough bad experiences, then one works at avoiding all contact with the other race. This tends to be a lifetime lesson.
 
Old 08-26-2020, 11:11 AM
 
121 posts, read 81,984 times
Reputation: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I'm probably biased because I have a rather possessive personality. I want people associated with me to have my name and to look like me, and to look like my family. I love to see my mother and my sisters in my nieces. And this might sound bad, but I don't even like seeing "the fathers" in my sister's kids. I much prefer them to look like my sisters, like "my" family. It even bothered me when my sisters got married and changed their names. I still want to call them "their names". They're still "my" sisters.

Being military and moving around from state-to-state, my sisters were often my only friends. I would still make other friends, but sometimes my sisters were all I had. I'm also the youngest, and I watched my sisters, their relationships, their behaviors, their interactions. I'm an observant person, a kind of student of human-nature. I can tell in five minutes what kind of person someone is, and whether a relationship will "work".

Ironically, although I consider myself the "most racist person on this forum", my real goal is harmony. There is a line from the bible, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God."

I am a peacemaker, a problem-solver. And as to the race problem, miscegenation is merely an extreme, it might be easy to see but it isn't "the problem". If the goal is harmony, I would take it much much further than race.

To understand my point-of-view, think of "arranged-marriages". Arranged doesn't mean "forced" btw, it is more like "parent-approved". Generally the parents arrange for their son/daughter to meet "candidates" who are pre-approved, and then select from that list.

If you had a daughter and you were looking for her a partner, what kind of guy would you pick? I would assume most people would pick someone a lot like themselves. You can refer to this phenomenon as "ingroup bias".

https://dictionary.apa.org/ingroup-bias

The problem with ingroup bias is that it leads to tribalism. Countries where people tend to marry within their own groups are usually a bunch of semi-hostile clans. To bridge the gap between clans, they would promote intermarriage. The daughter of one chief or noble would marry the son of another. This would unite the two groups by bonds of blood.

Once mixed they cannot be unmixed. And so most governments for hundreds of years have promoted policies to encourage mixing to a greater degree. A lot of this was done through social taboos about consanguineous-marriages.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419292/

Ironically, the most successful couplings are something like second and third-cousins, but here in the "West" we generally think of this as incest. In fact, this social taboo has become so extreme that some people even think white people dating other white people is incest, regardless of how distantly-related.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...is-best-kissi/

A lot of people seem to think the more distantly-related people are, the healthier their offspring will be, because they will be the least "inbred" of all. But distantly-related people can have genetic incompatibilities, and there is certainly no evidence for any kind of "hybrid-vigor" among distantly-related populations. In fact, mixed-race people seem to have far more problems, especially mental-health problems and behavioral/learning disorders.

https://yorkshiretimes.co.uk/article...Mental-Illness


So why is everything we believe about race so wrong? Because, just like the medieval noble, a country needs to "mix" to combine. Ingroup bias tears countries apart. Mixing is thus in the "national interests" of every country. And every country is fundamentally amoral, secular, and universal.

Every patriotic American should marry someone of another race, because the only solution to the race problem, is to mix everyone together until there ceases to be race. Some seem to welcome this, others oppose it. But eventually it will happen regardless of what anyone thinks about it.
You really need to seek help.
 
Old 08-26-2020, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,858 posts, read 8,163,032 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
There is also a segment of people who are very angry, believe that there would never be justice, and were ready to exact revenge against society. What I see are people who believe in being vindictive, who want to destroy the rest of society because they view the rest of society, as well as the police, as they enemy.
Are they wrong? What does enemy even mean? Am I your enemy? Do you think these people are your friends? Do they care about you at all?

Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
Some of these persons I dealt with were likely always like this, but it never came up verbally, and then social media showed a side I never expected.
It gave them a platform, and they were emboldened because they found plenty of people who felt the same way. The internet is kind of like the Emperor's New Clothes.
 
Old 08-26-2020, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,858 posts, read 8,163,032 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caro42 View Post
You really need to seek help.
Can you tell me where I'm wrong? And be as specific as possible. Give me the science.
 
Old 08-26-2020, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Native of Any Beach/FL
35,421 posts, read 20,805,343 times
Reputation: 14152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
Racism gives you someone else to blame and scapegoat for your failures and failings. It means you blame someone else if you don't have a job, instead of accepting that you're too lazy and irresponsible to go to work. To demand handouts because you're "oppressed". To justify stealing from others, so long as they are a different race. To demand "reparations" for things that happened 150 years ago, over 100 years before you were born. "Racism" justifies banging and knocking up multiple women, and leaving as many children as possible with no father to support them and encourage them. Racism justifies attacking and killing police officers and people of other races, because they don't see them as human beings.

Racism provides justifications for attacking others with lies about non-existent "systemic racism" and "white privilege".

Racism is highly profitable though-just look at the income stream of BLM.
But you can't possibly see the other side of the coin, can you?? hmmm
 
Old 08-26-2020, 11:21 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
25,901 posts, read 24,622,730 times
Reputation: 9715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caro42 View Post
You really need to seek help.
I actually agree with some of the things he said.
I have been saying it for a long time, diversity cannot be the goal, but it is an unstable condition that eventually needs to be removed by mixing. As long as there are visual minorities as the Canadians call it, there will be racism. When everyone looks mixed and racially undefined, there is no more point for a to feel superior to or different from b. Some countries and regions in Latin America are already much farther down the road in that respect.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top