People are Individuals - recent shootings

↑ marina ↓

Sun, Jul 10 2016, 1:32 pm

shoshanim999 wrote:

First of all, like you said, there is no comparison between drugs, pregnancy, violent crime in the jewish community and the black community. But that's off topic. The question is whether all this outrage in the black community is warrented when statistically the issue of cops killing blacks during an arrest amounts to 1 or 2 per 100,000? Is this really the biggest problem in their community? It certainly is generating the most outrage.

And this is not true either. There are hundreds of programs designed to target teenage pregnancy, drug use, drop out rates, etc. in poor urban communities. Hundreds in each one, most staffed by African Americans who are dedicated to improving others' lives. I could post a list of a hundred programs in Cleveland alone.

You don't know about them because you are underinformed. And you come on this thread and yell about things you've heard in the news and you think that's the sum total of what the AA community cares about.

You don't get to say what they - a whole entire race - cares about. Not your place, especially coming from the uneducated place that you do.

↑ marina ↓

Sun, Jul 10 2016, 1:47 pm

This was posted on FB by the woman in the picture below. Perhaps it will give some people in this thread a different perspective, since it's written by a Jew.

Quote:

Written by Tikvah Nadia Womack:
"To my black friends, my Jewish friends, my white friends, my ethnic friends, and multi-racial friends and all friends not covered under one of those descriptions. Please note I do not use Facebook often and I surely don’t use it as a platform, but I feel it is necessary today.

Let me explain to you ‪#‎blacklivesmatter‬ from my perspective (and please note I do not speak for all black people). It means that I have to raise an adorable son with his hard working professional father and pray to G-d that I was able to teach him enough manners and common sense not to get gunned down or hurt because of the way he looks, walks, or talks.

It means that I have to second guess whether I will allow my son to wear hoodies, not just so he doesn’t give off the wrong impression, but so he is not killed. It means I have to think about not just if the area he is going to is safe, but because of who he is, is it going to be safe, whether it is a different country or down the street.

It means that while I was pregnant with him and before I knew I was having a son, no exaggeration, I cried! I cried because he is black and Jewish and I had no idea what his future would look like, but I knew from both ends there would be moments he wouldn’t be safe and I wouldn’t be there. Hear me, I said SAFE, not uncomfortable, not unhappy, and I didn’t use maybe; I said I KNEW he wouldn’t be SAFE! Can you imagine, have you seen my son…but I know it is true!

I am writing this because I need you on some small level to hear my truth. You don’t have to agree with me, you don’t have to respond or like it, but it is my TRUTH and some of my friend’s truths. He cannot hide who he is, therefore maybe through my moments of speaking out when I can, I affect some thought, idea, or moment of potential change to try and protect him or at least through G-d’s help create an advocate or two for him.

Again, please understand this is where we (again speaking for my truth) are in 2016. If you know history, you know why this truth might exist for me and maybe for others. If you deny the present, that’s fine, but you cannot erase truth. And yes, more than one truth can exist, for a while, but inevitably one truth is followed. So in this moment, I have to say I am upholding my truth, because I cannot allow others truths to dominate mine in exchange for worry and pain. R.I.P to ANYONE lost in violence, and may we all find some way towards peace while in search of truth."

↑ gold21 ↓

Sun, Jul 10 2016, 2:46 pm

octopus wrote:

I think taking away amendment rights are a slippery slope. I would hesitate to go there.

Hi octopus how are u Tongue Out

Just want to reply to this- why cant we amend an amendment? The amendment amended the constitution, which tells us that it is not against US values to amend.

L'havdil, lets take, lets say the halachic ruling that men are not allowed to take multiple wives.... how was this allowed to be written into halacha? Slippery slope? Or not?

Im not a liberal. Im more of a conservative, but probably identify best as a moderate. I just like things to make sense to me.. .. I wonder what your thoughts are on this.

Last edited by gold21 on Sun, Jul 10 2016, 2:50 pm; edited 1 time in total

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Sun, Jul 10 2016, 2:50 pm

[quote="marina"]This was posted on FB by the woman in the picture below. Perhaps it will give some people in this thread a different perspective, since it's written by a Jew.

Quote:

Written by Tikvah Nadia Womack:

Wow. Thank you for cutting and pasting. You'll be happy to know that it didn't change my perspective at all as I don't think it needs changing. I woke up early Friday morning and put on a local radio station that has an early morning round table with producers and reporters and first heard of the Dallas tragedy there. This is a fairly but not exclusively conservative radio station. You could hear in the voice of the black producer her anger, fear and outrage and honestly, I have to honor it. Again, violence and disrespect, no, I don't honor that.

↑ gold21 ↓

Sun, Jul 10 2016, 2:53 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

Why was she outraged? Because she assumed it was a racial issue. She felt the man was targeted for his race.
But.... why is she assuming things before she gets the facts?
Were all males across the country outraged because they assumed he was targeted for his gender?

5*Mom

Sun, Jul 10 2016, 3:39 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

I think it's understandable that people assumed that they got the facts from the fiancé's video.
It would be...interesting? can't think of a good word, if FF's source that says that this guy perfectly fit that profile is true. I listen to Salem radio, too much of it for my own good (nothing against Salem, I just listen to too much radio Tongue Out

) and I didn't hear a peep in that direction this whole week.

I don't think that rush to make assumptions with a teeny tiny piece of incomplete information is understandable at all. Isn't that what this thread is about? (FTR, I did it too and I'm quite embarrassed.)

As for matching the suspect's profile, just look at the pictures side by side. Whether or not the deceased and the armed robber are one and the same, the resemblance is striking enough for probable cause.

m in Israel ↓

Sun, Jul 10 2016, 3:48 pm

gold21 wrote:

Hi octopus how are u Tongue Out

Of course amendments to the constitution can be changed or even undone (the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment, for example). There have been 17 constitutional amendments passed since the initial "Bill of Rights" (the first ten amendments that were ratified at the same time as the Constitution itself). Many of those have to do with civil rights and voting -- like the 13th, which abolished slavery, or the 15th and 19th which prohibited denying the right to vote on the basis of race, color, or previous slavery (15) or gender (19). And the 24th and 26th which abolished poll taxes and changed the voting age to 18. Others change aspects of how elections work, such as the 12, 17th, 22, and 23rd.

But there is a process to enact these changes -- and it is intentionally not an easy one. The "Bill of Rights" is considered a key foundation to freedom in the U.S. for very good reason. I think even many people who believe in stricter gun control policies will be nervous attempting to tamper with any part of the Bill of Rights. And in any case, there is no way at all that anyone is going to succeed in passing a constitutional amendment that will in any way undo the the 2nd amendment -- it is just not happening for many, many reasons.

↑ BasMelech120 ↓

Sun, Jul 10 2016, 6:15 pm

The so called 'altruistic' responses on this thread stink of liberal leftist idiocy. And you know what, I will not tell anyone that it's time for them to 'shut the h*** up' or that there 'should be a law against embarrassing themselves' because although I fully disagree with you, I will defend your First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Unlike many of you on this thread.

Now, using anti-semetism and issues in the Jewish community is in no way comparable to BLM and their portrayal of black issues, or of the social issues within the black communities - issues that are created and perpetuated by the people themselves. 'Eisav soneh es Yakov' is a halacha in the Torah; but 'whites being responsible for every issue in the black communities' is not. Or, is our Torah too 'bigoted' for you as well???

Which brings me to my next point. Yelling 'bigot' or 'racist' to shut down an argument is no longer effective. It's so 2010. Keep up with the times. In fact, the definition of 'bigot' is someone who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions than they do. Hm. So far, I have welcomed conversation and feedback on every single on of my posts, and have made it clear that I defend the right of everyone to state their opinions as part of their individual rights. Those on here preaching leftist propaganda, however, have not expressed the same sentiments. So take a good, long, hard look in the mirror.

Finally, I won't even take the time to respond to all the arguments over policing, 'racial profiling', social problems in the black community, or all of the above combined. And yes, without giving out to much of my personal identity, let me make sure you know that I have not only worked with the black community at large, but I have worked with black professionals and have even done research on a pertinent issue within predominantly black communities. My knowledge is not just based on reading articles or quoting research, although I can do both of these as well. However, I do suggest one thing: how about start listening to 'black' persons who have lived in the 'hood and have experienced this upbringing. Or listen to accounts of police officers, police chiefs, or sheriffs - those that have put their life on the line for YOUR protection. In fact, here are some links to a talk by Sheriff David Clarke - a black man who has lived his life as a black man and has risen to the ranks of Sheriff. Take a listen, and then see if you want to dispute what he has to say or if there might be some truth there that you really do not want to see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTpLS9Us4yI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0gFyeag4tc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo90MirkK_k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhpSMLt7nHw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...../url]

He is black. He is a well respected sheriff. And I am letting HIM talk for me since your bigoted stance will not allow you to hear it from a 'white, privileged, cisgendered female'.

↑ marina ↓

Sun, Jul 10 2016, 7:37 pm

BasMelech120 wrote:

1. The First Amendment has nothing to do with this thread because it is not hosted by a government agency.

2. No idea how "eisav soneh es yaakov" fits in here- I don't understand that entire paragraph you wrote.

3. Here's the definition of bigot http://www.merriam-webster.com.....bigot

4. Earlier you asked for examples of racism, claiming that there aren't any. Then I gave you a whole list of them and now you're all " I won't even take the time to respond."

5. I don't care how many black people you have worked with in your life - if you're still not sure that racism exists, that number is not enough.

6. Sheriff David Clarke is not a spokesman for the black community. Because the black community is an entire race and includes many different people's voices. Kind of like Max Blumenthal doesn't speak for all Jews.

↑ BasMelech120 ↓

Sun, Jul 10 2016, 8:54 pm

marina wrote:

1. Freedom of speech is covered anywhere and everywhere under the first amendment, and people telling other people to 'shut the h*** up' is simply oppressing that right. Again - you have the right to tell that to a person, but it shows your value of others freedoms.

2. Eisav Soneh es Yakov fits in here because of yours and others comparisons of 'racism' to Antisemitism. So I just thought I'd bring that perspective up.

3. Even with this definition, both of us could still be considered bigots. For just as you think I am a bigot for not conforming to the leftist views of babying minority groups into victimhood and submission, I can look at you the same way for not being able to hear another point of view on this matter.

4. Non of the issues you brought up added up to systemic racism. I'm sorry, try again.

5. The amount of black people I've worked with actually does make a difference. Contrary to what you might believe, many of them actually shared sentiments closer to my views than to yours - or do you not consider those people 'real black people'?
*Just as a by-the-way, have you ever worked with the black population? Because you seem to believe you know quite a lot about their everyday struggles, their available programs, as well as everything there is to know about 'police brutality' within this group. I really want to hear about your experiences.

6. Just as you posit that Sheriff David Clarke is not a spokesman for all black people, so too are the police officers involved in the shootings of the two black men last week not spokespeople for or representatives of 'racist cops'. You can't have it both ways.

↑ marina ↓

Sun, Jul 10 2016, 9:57 pm

BasMelech120 wrote:

1. The First Amendment bars (sometimes) the government from restricting your speech (some of it). Nothing else. No one's constitutional rights are oppressed if their fellow citizen (non-government agent) tells them to shut the hell up.

Since you seem to be a fan of the Constitution, perhaps it might interest you that police brutality violates at the very least the 4th and 14th Amendments. Because police are government agents.

2. Yes, you restated it, but I still don't understand. You think nonJews hate Jews, so how is this relevant to the conversation?

3. Bigotry is not about refusing to conform to ideas or not being able to hear about another view point. It's about unfairly disliking whole races or religions. Like in the definition.

4. I'm not sure what your thought process is here. You think that black people don't experience the types of prejudice I described? Or that all of those aren't systemic? Or that they're not significant enough? And also- how do you get to decide?

It's like some midwestern farmer Charlie Bob announces THERE IS NO ANTI SEMITISM! And when people point out, hey, Charlie Bob, did you know that in some places X and Y and Z, and Charlie Bob still insists THAT DOESN'T ADD UP TO ANTI SEMITISM SORRY TRY AGAIN. Lol who are you to decide whether anti semitism exists?

5. I just want to clarify what you're saying now. You've worked with many black people, most of whom think there's no institutional / systemic racism?

6. I don't know that I ever said anything about the two guys representing or not representing racist cops. Have I? What can't I have both ways?

↑ BasMelech120 ↓

Sun, Jul 10 2016, 10:37 pm

fmt4 wrote:

Marina, what I think she is saying in reference to #2, is that you can't compare racism to anti semitism, because we know that when bad things happen to Jews, it's simply because of esaiv hating yakov for no reason, whereas the bad things that happen to black people are their own fault. Rolling Eyes

Blacks were used as slaves. That was an example of racism - they were not considered humans but were counted as property. In 1863, slavery was abolished. However now, over 150 years later, many in the black community (BLM as the forefront) are still going on about how this has affected every particle of their being today, including something like getting pregnant at a young age and raising the child without a father. Instead of taking responsibility for their actions, many in this community would rather blame it on white people, 'white privilege', and everything with less melanin in their skin - but not on their own choices.

Let's compare a different situation: During (and before) WWII, Jews were marginalized because of who they are. They were forced to wear a yellow star, were considered as less than others, and had to abide by the Nuremburg laws, which also degraded them in many ways. During the war, over 6 million Jewish people were killed - just because of who they were. Now, less than 75 years later, Jewish communities around the world have flourished socially, economically, academically, vocationally, and more. Do Jewish communities around the world have problems? Absolutely. Many problems. But we don't blame them on anyone else. Let's take s-xual abuse - we might try to push the blame from the parents to the teachers to the schools, but no one has ever blamed Antisemitism for this problem! No one has ever blamed the Germans! No one is blaming 'Arian privilege' because they oppressed us almost 100 years ago!

That's the difference. I agree that there was a time in history where black people were truly oppressed, really marginalized, and not even considered 'human'. But that is not the case today. Black people have every single right that white people have. The victimizing of this population is a tactic that the government has coined in order to keep communities dependent on them, and the people perpetuating this ideology are all part of the problem.
If you can't expect more from a person because of the color of their skin, the problem is with you.