Dallas police officer enters man's apartment and shoots him (split from anthem thread)

[pondwater]

But what if, instead of a 75 year old grandmother, it's some thugged out loud talking white guys with massive tats/piercings are walking toward him?

If you want to get a realistic bearing on someone's racial triggers, you should probably avoid comparing thugs to grandmothers...

Why? Because it's the truth? It's a simple question? Would he or any rational person act differently? Keeping with the topic of statistics. Black people are statistically more likely to be violent criminals. That doesn't mean that the 75 year old grandmother isn't a serial killer with an affinity for expensive watches. What it means is that over time people develop prejudice or bias because it's human nature. Everyone does it.

[Tenshot13]

But what if, instead of a 75 year old grandmother, it's some thugged out loud talking white guys with massive tats/piercings are walking toward him?

If you want to get a realistic bearing on someone's racial triggers, you should probably avoid comparing thugs to grandmothers...

I'd feel the same either way.  

I also think if I told someone "I was scared this thugged out loud talking white guy with massive tats/piercings walking towards me in the street was going steal my rolex" would be taken differently than if I told someone "I was scared this thugged out loud talking black guy with massive tats/piercings walking towards me in the street was going steal my rolex".  In the former, there is no way someone would call me racist, but in the later there is a possibility it would be followed up with, "why, because he is black?"  I think that has to go with people assuming and jumping to conclusions, which is done a lot on here, let alone everywhere else.  

[pondwater]

I am certainly in favor of consistency.  So I propose a compromise: if Kaep's picture was taken in 2016 or later, I will concede that the OK signal is innocent. But if Kaep's picture is before 2016, and the picture of the picture of the cop's brother is from 2016 or later, you'll concede the OK signal in the latter was intended to signal support for white supremacy.  Deal?

Why would anyone concede anything like that? It's already been debunked that the OK gesture is a white power gesture and was a 4chan hoax. The cop's brother already said that he was doing a "69" gesture. You, me, or anyone else is in no position to decide what he was doing with his hands. Unless of course you are a mind reader? Can you read his mind Spider?

[pondwater]

I'd feel the same either way.  

I also think if I told someone "I was scared this thugged out loud talking white guy with massive tats/piercings walking towards me in the street was going steal my rolex" would be taken differently than if I told someone "I was scared this thugged out loud talking black guy with massive tats/piercings walking towards me in the street was going steal my rolex".  In the former, there is no way someone would call me racist, but in the later there is a possibility it would be followed up with, "why, because he is black?"  I think that has to go with people assuming and jumping to conclusions, which is done a lot on here, let alone everywhere else.  

Black people do the same shit. Bring up black on black crime and to black people and then the topic becomes about how all white people are rapist, child molesters, and mass shooters. Or maybe how all white people smell like wet dogs. Prejudice and bias isn't unique to white people, it's unique to all people...

[Tenshot13]

^I've heard that white people smell like piss, never heard wet dog, lol.

[Sunstroke]

I'd feel the same either way.  

Me too...and have.

I also think if I told someone "I was scared this thugged out loud talking white guy with massive tats/piercings walking towards me in the street was going steal my rolex" would be taken differently than if I told someone "I was scared this thugged out loud talking black guy with massive tats/piercings walking towards me in the street was going steal my rolex".  In the former, there is no way someone would call me racist, but in the later there is a possibility it would be followed up with, "why, because he is black?"  I think that has to go with people assuming and jumping to conclusions, which is done a lot on here, let alone everywhere else.  

But now we're talking about societal mores, rather than an individual's racial preconceptions and how they influence their behavior. Don't get me wrong...I completely agree with your assessment of how people would react. Who could argue against that, with the proof being right there in the comments section of virtually every article on the internet, whether the article has any bearing on race or not. I just think that if we each police our own thoughts/actions, most of the social issues surrounding race would disappear like a rich fart on a breezy Summer night.

Would that be setting the bar for humanity a wee bit too high?  I sure hope not.

[Pappy13]

I am certainly in favor of consistency.  So I propose a compromise: if Kaep's picture was taken in 2016 or later, I will concede that the OK signal is innocent. But if Kaep's picture is before 2016, and the picture of the picture of the cop's brother is from 2016 or later, you'll concede the OK signal in the latter was intended to signal support for white supremacy.  Deal?

How about this. We both concede that both pictures mean exactly zero without knowing all the facts around those pictures? You know what I had suggested with the first picture when it first came out.

[Sunstroke]

Why? Because it's the truth? It's a simple question? Would he or any rational person act differently? Keeping with the topic of statistics. Black people are statistically more likely to be violent criminals. That doesn't mean that the 75 year old grandmother isn't a serial killer with an affinity for expensive watches. What it means is that over time people develop prejudice or bias because it's human nature. Everyone does it.

Why does the radical right always bring up the same old tired "75-year old serial killer pimp grandmother" argument...

 

[Spider-Dan]

It's already been debunked that the OK gesture is a white power gesture and was a 4chan hoax.

Again, when actual white supremacists like Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopoulos start using your "fake hoax" hand signal, it is no longer fake.

The cop's brother already said that he was doing a "69" gesture. You, me, or anyone else is in no position to decide what he was doing with his hands. Unless of course you are a mind reader?

I see.  So when Urban Meyer said his wife never told him about his assistant coach's wife coming to her with domestic violence issues, do we have to take him at his word because none of us are mind readers?

Maybe he was making a 69.  Or maybe he's covering his tracks after his wife deleted the post.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

But what if, instead of a 75 year old grandmother, it's some thugged out loud talking white guys with massive tats/piercings are walking toward him?

If you want to get a realistic bearing on someone's racial triggers, you should probably avoid comparing thugs to grandmothers...

Bingo.  I am going to react the same to a white person in a business suit as I do a black person in a business suit.  I am going to react the same to a white person with a KKK neck tattoo as to someone with an ms13 tattoo. 

[Pappy13]

Maybe he was making a 69.  Or maybe he's covering his tracks after his wife deleted the post.

So until we know or at least until we have some real evidence to suggest one way or the other how about we don't judge him or her? That's all that I'm asking. Is that too much to ask? Apparently it is for many.

[Spider-Dan]

How about this. We both concede that both pictures mean exactly zero without knowing all the facts around those pictures? You know what I had suggested with the first picture when it first came out.

There is a rather ridiculous level of intellectual dishonesty going on here.

To be clear: the implicit premise of citing that picture of Kaep - a man blackballed from the NFL for protesting police brutality against minorities, mind you  - is that if the OK sign is a racist signal, I guess he must be racist too, checkmate libs!

It doesn't work like that, and we all know it.  Words and symbols are not 100% racist or 100% innocent; context matters.  If you find a picture of Jesse Jackson appearing to do a Nazi salute, that does not mean that the only two conclusions are a) Jesse Jackson is actually a Nazi or b) the Nazi salute has nothing to do with racism.

[Tenshot13]

So until we know or at least until we have some real evidence to suggest one way or the other how about we don't judge him or her? That's all that I'm asking. Is that too much to ask? Apparently it is for many.

He can't hear you, his tinfoil hat is covering his ears.

[pondwater]

There is a rather ridiculous level of intellectual dishonesty going on here.

To be clear: the implicit premise of citing that picture of Kaep - a man blackballed from the NFL for protesting police brutality against minorities, mind you  - is that if the OK sign is a racist signal, I guess he must be racist too, checkmate libs!

It doesn't work like that, and we all know it.  Words and symbols are not 100% racist or 100% innocent; context matters.  If you find a picture of Jesse Jackson appearing to do a Nazi salute, that does not mean that the only two conclusions are a) Jesse Jackson is actually a Nazi or b) the Nazi salute has nothing to do with racism.

And by the same token just because you found a picture of a white supremacist using the OK gesture doesn't make that a white supremacist gesture by default. Nor does it mean that the cop's brother is using the gesture in any other manner than he's already explained. The point is that YOU DON'T KNOW unless you are a mind reader.

[Spider-Dan]

So until we know or at least until we have some real evidence to suggest one way or the other how about we don't judge him or her?

Actually, we do have some evidence already.  The evidence we have is that a cop walked into another man's apartment and shot him dead as an "intruder," was not arrested for several days, and then after all that time to think over the events and get her story straight, offered conflicting versions of (still ridiculous) explanations for this homicide.

You are bending over backwards to give every benefit of the doubt to this woman and her family, ascribing the most innocent explanations whenever possible.  She killed an innocent, unarmed man in his own home seconds after entering.  Perhaps she does not deserve your generosity.