and I don't feel like it's my fault. I agree with BLM like 95% and I think they're (and you!) making a tactical mistake of trying to push me away (and successfully pushing away others, as evidenced by polling data) and all you want to do is argue about the 5% and mischaracterize my beliefs about the 95%.
I've had two rounds of discussions with you. I really don't know what percentage of your view is in agreement with BLM (in so far as there is such a thing as a pan-BLM view). I can only discuss what you write down here.
It's fascinating how you read their positions and behaviors with such understanding and can come away from my initial post believing I hold the exact opposite stance that I actually hold. Did you miss my final paragraph? Was it confusing? Did I say they drove me to oppose even a single reform I believed in before they existed? Maybe in the abstract you think BLM and criminal justice reform are the same thing, but concretely you have to know they're not, right?
I am arguing that your perception of BLMs positions shouldn't affect your view on criminal justice reform. You stated, as the title of your original post "BLM almost lost me to the policing reform cost".
I am saying you shouldn't have gotten to the "almost". You seem to be patting yourself on the back for it being only "almost" and not "completely". I hope our disagreement is clear, now?
I guess you win the drama award?
Uh thanks?
So you still don't believe me, I guess.
This really isn't about belief. I don't disbelieve you that you are pro police reform. I'm arguing that your post that who BLM supports, especially if they're "really bad dudes", colors your view in any way for the need for policing reform, then that is wrong.
No, I'm responding to the immediate quote of yours I posted before my response to it. That's basically how conversation works on this board.
No I didn't. I needed to read it to understand why BLM takes a large role in a wide-ranging argument over a shooting in Ferguson and stuff like Eric Garner's killing is barely on the radar.
Whose radar is Eric Garner's killing not on? Certainly not true for BLM, or most of the coverage of criminal justice reform issues in the dreaded "mainstream media". I see the Garner case being brought up as often as Ferguson or Tamir Rice or Philando Castille.
It may well be true that in a certain section of media that is hostile to discussion of criminal justice reform, Ferguson is all that is brought up. It would certainly explain Cannoli's line that Garner died due to his being unfit. Though what would explain his idea that Emmett Till was attempting to mug an undercover cop, I don't know. Is that what you mean by Eric Garner being "barely on the radar"?
I really don't know what to say here. I'm sure I agree on a lot of issues with any number of people I debate things with. But I was discussing a very specific statement of yours. As far as I know, there's no reason that our general agreement of most things should change our disagreement on this thing.
Like, it would definitely matter if we were working together to fight this, or something. But this is a forum board where we're discussing our views. Shouldn't specific points we disagree on matter more than what we agree on?
Also, my goal here really isn't to "find cracks" to prove anything about you. I'm not labeling you as anti-criminal justice reform, or in charge of letting you in or not into some club. I do not define you. I can rebut your views that you state. And you can rebut my rebuttal, and so on. And that is all.
I have a view I think is correct. I didn't say I was losing support for my view. I said I can't support them, and your form of argument turns me off to you, which you say you don't care about, except you can't stop arguing over it. I still hold the same views as before.
Maybe you can explain to me what "almost lost me to the policing reform cause" means, then. How is that not losing support to a view you asserted you believe?
Maybe I read you wrong, but your post seemed to state that BLMs activism on behalf of "Really bad dudes" made you question your support for policing reform (you used the phrase "step off the train"
. Then, you read Toxoplasma of Rage and it made sense to you again, and you're back on the train.
To me, that says you changed your view on policing reform, almost stopped supporting it, then came back to the fold. Are you saying that is not what you meant in your original post?
What is interesting is that you feel so defensive that you insist that I have an agenda to "find cracks" and "misrepresent" you. I'm responding to what you wrote. Maybe in your mind your views are broader/different. But I cannot divine that. I can only answer to what you post. And you specifically posted that BLMs support for the rights of "really bad dudes" almost turned you off from the policing reform views you held.
I find that mystifying. The goal shouldn't be to make the police system work for good guys but not for "really bad dudes", especially because the goal of that system is to actually figure out who is "really bad" vs. "not really bad".
If you want to litigate in the public forum the issue of how policing is filled with errors, if you only focus on the "nice" cases where the victim was entirely free of any errors in judgement or behavior, then all you're really going to end up with is the other side working doubly hard to prove that every victim is actually a "really bad dude". which is what is happening, both in the media, and in this very thread.
The goal shouldn't be "good guys shouldn't get shot by the police". It should be that police shootings should be minimal, and we should fund better training to achieve this. For that, you need to raise more awareness of the inequities in the way police shootings occur, and whether those shot are "good guys" or not is really besides the point if they're disproportionately of one race. Unless you buy Cannoli's view that it isn't disproportionate, black men are more likely to be criminal for whatever effed up reason Cannoli comes up with.
But it just doesn't seem to me you buy that. So what I'd like to know is, why does it matter if the guys shot are "really bad dudes". Because if you think it is okay for the police to shoot "really bad dudes", what you will get is bad cops claiming that is what they thought the next unarmed black guy they kill was. No matter if it is a 12 year old, a guy selling cigarettes, or a man in his car with his child in the backseat who does everything right.
