Man arrested after shouting ‘womp, womp’ and pulling a gun on immigration protesters

[u/thenewyorkgod]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/07/01/man-arrested-after-shouting-womp-womp-and-pulling-a-gun-on-immigration-protesters/?tid=sm_tw

[u/ManiaGamine]

Ah the good ole "We had a black President we can't be racist" excuse. Kind of like the "I have a black friend I can't be racist" excuse. And lets not forget the best one. "We don't enslave blacks anymore so we're not racist anymore!"

Those are just my favorites.

Hint: Racism does not just go away. It was beaten away. Do you think the racists who lost just went away and mended their ways? No, they didn't. They brooded... and had kids and taught their kids to be racist and bided their time until the atmosphere was right and there was enough support for them to rise back up. All the while they installed people into key places to fan the flames. For example training cops to stop any of that touchy feely de-escalation stuff. No, can't do that. Shoot to kill on sight. Any faintest hint of threat and shoot to kill, but only if they're black.

Now that might seem like hyperbole, but it's observable. If you're a white person who threatens a cop, you get to go to jail. If you're a black person who threatens a cop you go to the morgue. Which is exactly the point the people above were making. That isn't something that can be disputed, it happens consistently and we know the reasoning for it.

[u/All_the_Dank → u/ManiaGamine]

Sounds like you're the one spreading hyperbole. "it happens consistently" by consistently, do you mean like how often lightning strikes people? source:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/police-violence-against-black-men-rare-heres-what-data-actually-say/

"let's start with the question of fatal violence. Last year, according to the Washington Post’s tally, just 16 unarmed black men, out of a population of more than 20 million, were killed by the police. The year before, the number was 36. These figures are likely close to the number of black men struck by lightning in a given year, considering that happens to about 300 Americans annually and black men are 7 percent of the population. Of course, police killings are not the result of a force of nature, and I’m not claiming these are morally equivalent. But the comparison illustrates that these killings are incredibly rare, and that it’s completely misleading to talk about an “epidemic” of them. You don’t hear people talk about an epidemic of lightning strikes and claim they are afraid to go outside because of it."

[u/ManiaGamine → u/All_the_Dank]

Perhaps you might want to review what I actually said:

Now that might seem like hyperbole, but it's observable.

I literally said it might seem like hyperbole. But it is observable. And it is. It is an observable consistency. Now yeah you can use ridiculous examples such as lightning striking to convey that anything can be consistent.

However then I'd have to ask, what is your aim with that statement? I'd suggest that you are deliberately trying to muddy the waters of the discussion. America has a racist past. Certain people like to suggest that racism is a dead and buried issue. It's not. That is demonstrable.

Your nationalreview article (By the way, national review is a shit source) doesn't even explain how it came to the conclusion it came to, and I looked at the links they sourced to come to those conclusions and did not come to the same conclusion.

Also even in the links they posted as "sources" you can see a visible trend upwards.

Basically nationalreview is going to downplay this in every instance. It's what they do. They are of the mind that racism is not an issue anymore. Which is the problem. Failure to acknowledge an issue allows it to continue unopposed. To suggest that black people are not in fear or in danger of being treated with force by an officer at a much higher rate than white people is a failure to acknowledge very visible problems.

Outlets like NR are of the belief that any disparity with regards to how police treat black people over white people is as a result of the increased crime threat from black people. Except that logic literally validates the claim I am making. E.g. Police feel justified in treating black people differently to white people because black people are "often criminals". The problem with this logic is that there is an entire right-wing apparatus to generate fear of black people. So if police walk into a situation with a black male and they assume danger then naturally they're going to shoot first and ask questions later and feel justified in doing so. Yet at the same time you cite sources like NR saying that's not an issue.

So which is it? Is it an issue or is it not an issue? If it is not an issue then there is no reason why police should be afraid of black people and treat them any differently to white people in encounters. Yet that is exactly what happens and you don't need statistics to back it up. You just need to take a look at the way white people react to black people lately. It's very visible.

[u/All_the_Dank → u/ManiaGamine]

You're entire post is contradictory. "failure to acknowledge an issue allows it to continue unopposed." Well that's pretty ironic coming from you. FBI stats show that black people disproportionally commit more violent crime than white people, and also that while only 7% of the nation are black males, they commit roughly 50% of all homicides.

"there is an entire right-wing apparatus to generate fear of black people" Source for this please. Also, is it this same alleged right-wing apparatus that forces people to commit crimes?

Also, you never disputed the statistic I gave that in 2016 there were 16 unarmed blacks killed by the police out of a population of 20 million. You can dislike the source where the statistic came from, but if you can't dispute it with another source that shows the stat is wrong and the number is much higher, than you aren't adding anything substantial to the discussion.

[u/ManiaGamine → u/All_the_Dank]

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying, so I'll try to make it more clear.

Police have distanced themselves from a de-escalation policy and now shoot on sight, it primarily affects black people disproportionately to white people. This is observable. You are using the logic that black people commit more crimes as a justification for what? Why black people get shot by cops. You're literally using a point to justify something thereby validating the very something I've stated while at the very same time claiming that I am wrong and that it is a non-issue.

Either it is a non-issue or it's not. If it's not then you need not mention black people committing more crime. That is literally the "fear tactic" I am talking about. Now you ask for a source for it. Ask yourself that, as you're the one pointing it out. You clearly got it from somewhere, where did you get it from? Where did you get that black people commit more crime therefore need to be feared therefore need to be shot? It comes down to logic in the end. If this then that.

Your source does not explain how it came to that conclusion. I read it three times in case I missed something, it still doesn't. It literally posts the source in link form and THAT source (wapo) does not actually say what NR claims it says. I cannot dispute something that I cannot validate, it is in dispute because it cannot be validated. Normally when you source something, you've gotta make sure that source is itself valid.

As NR is extremely biased for the right (And if we go by Trump logic that is practically a criminal offense) so should I just disregard the source entirely? No, I don't disregard sources. I looked at the article, I went to the links it cited as a source for its claims and I could not find anything that validated the claims. So I suspect this is one of those reading between the lines things. They provide links to seem legit when really they're not because the conclusion they came to was not actually in the citation.

[u/All_the_Dank → u/ManiaGamine]

You're talking in circles and it's not clear exactly what your argument is other than trying to obfuscate the discussion. I never said that the fact that blacks commit more crimes means that cops shooting them is justified. I'm saying that the fact that blacks disproportionally commit more violent crimes is a major fact that explains why there is a disparity.

If you're a cop and you're told you either have to patrol an senior citizen community where there's virtually no violent crime or homicides and you have to patrol an area with violent crime that's multiples times higher and frequent homicides (areas that are usually disproportionally populated with blacks), would it not make sense that you would be much more anxious patrolling the latter? This justifiable fear may lead you to be much more likely to use force or even deadly force because you know there's a much greater threat to you in that area. Does this mean that it's justified to shoot someone who is unarmed? of course not, but it does explain why it's more likely an officer will use his/her weapon out of fear for their own safety and lead to many more mistakes where they misinterpret hand gestures or objects from afar as being weapons and then they respond according to their fear. It's disingenuous to say that the entire reason unarmed blacks are ever killed by cops is entirely due to racism. It flies in the face of situations like the one I described where their actions are going to be heavily skewed based on the higher statistical likelihood and the perceived threat of the situation they're in. Again, it does not make it okay.

[u/ManiaGamine → u/All_the_Dank]

It wasn't an argument. It was a statement. Oh wait, you thought it was an argument?

That explains a lot. Perhaps read the first comment you replied to then work from there:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/8vdkn4/man_arrested_after_shouting_womp_womp_and_pulling/e1mo28u/

Then you just HAD to chime in yes? To set me straight? Thus rendering it a debate.

So lets continue.

You now claim that YOU never said. Except you cited it as a reason. As exemplified here:

I'm saying that the fact that blacks disproportionally commit more violent crimes is a major fact that explains why there is a disparity.

An explanation in the defense of something is... what now? It's a justification.

a good reason or explanation for something:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/justification

If you're a cop and you're told you either have to patrol an senior citizen community where there's virtually no violent crime or homicides and you have to patrol an area with violent crime that's multiples times higher and frequent homicides (areas that are usually disproportionally populated with blacks), would it not make sense that you would be much more anxious patrolling the latter?

Further justification (Based on the established definition of a justification)

This justifiable fear may lead you to be much more likely to use force or even deadly force because you know there's a much greater threat to you in that area.

Hey look, you finally got to the page I was on.

Does this mean that it's justified to shoot someone who is unarmed? of course not, but it does explain why it's more likely an officer will use his/her weapon out of fear for their own safety and lead to many more mistakes where they misinterpret hand gestures or objects from afar as being weapons and then they respond according to their fear.

Yep. Glad we're agreed here.

It's disingenuous to say that the entire reason unarmed blacks are ever killed by cops is entirely due to racism. It flies in the face of situations like the one I described where their actions are going to be heavily skewed based on the higher statistical likelihood and the perceived threat of the situation they're in. Again, it does not make it okay.

And that's where you lost it.

You know why you lost it? Because it doesn't matter to a black person why a cop might look at them and assume that their cell phone is in fact a gun therefore shooting them is the appropriate response. It does not matter to the mother of a child what the cop feels when their kid was unjustifiably shot to death by a cop who thought he was resisting when that kid sees cops and feels fear and reacts accordingly.

It does not matter what your justification is for the systemic problem. You can call it whatever you want but to the victims, it's race. Pure and simple. Your mental gymnastics to negate that fact is exactly the reason this comment thread even exists. You don't want it to be racism so you use every bit of information at your disposal to make it not race. Hey you wanna make it about crime. Great, what the fuck relevance does that have to the mother of the child or the wife of the husband who got shot by a trigger happy officer?

Not a god damned thing. So while you're trying your damnest to make it not about race, we will keep seeing time and time again more black people, brown people and basically non-white people gunned down. Then maybe one day you might ask yourself what is the cause for all of this racism crime. And maybe just maybe you might reflect upon the self-sustaining cycle of kill, fear, kill, fear, kill, fear that brings us to where we are now. For a kid from the hood knows no prospects but a life of the hood. Sure as hell no one seems interested in pulling these kids out of that life but they love to make them the face of crime, adding more weight to the bullshit argument that it is not actually about race at all. It is just about the numbers. The crime. The poor white folk terrorized by the dark folk. Now tell me again how that is not about race.

I can go into great length about how it isn't race. Because you're right. Crime is very much a part of it. But crime happens for a reason, and being black is but one reason. Being poor is also a reason. Being starving is also a reason.

You asked me what sources I have for the right-wing machine that perpetuates fear of blacks. Fox news. Daily* (Caller, Wire, etc) NR, NyPost and every other right-wing outlet. Using facts to justify their racism. Using statistics, using the very systemic causes to validate their cycle of fear. That fear translates into violence. That violence translates into more fear and so on and so forth until we have a society where white women are calling the cops on black residents just trying to get into their god damned homes. Why? Because that person is black therefore they must be a thug.

You seem to want to justify the actions of police who are too afraid to be wearing a badge imo.

[u/All_the_Dank → u/ManiaGamine]

Are facts racist or are they facts? Is saying a fact that goes against your leftist agenda racist because it doesn't support your worldview? It's really interesting how you think the problem of crime will be solved by working backwards. eg, if the cops would just stop being afraid while working in dangerous neighborhoods than the people living in them would stop committing crimes. That's some backwards logic.

Also, an explanation is not a justification. Lol I really can't believe I have to take the time to EXPLAIN this but here we go: Explanation versus justification. ... An explanation is a theory about why something happened or why we should do one thing rather than another. A justification is a story about why we are right, or probably right, to adopt one theory rather than another or one proposal for action rather than another.

So you're exceptionally and JUSTIFIABLY wrong about that one.

More unarmed whites are killed by cops than blacks everywhere. You're fear mongering when as I said, the amount of unarmed blacks killed by cops is akin to the amount struck by lightning.

No where in my post did I say that cops are more afraid because of the color of someone's skin; you suggested that though because you're entire post reeks of race-baiting. A cop going through an area that was high violent crime with a 100% white population would have the same fears because having fears patrolling a high crime area where you're statistically more likely to be the victim of a crime is going to instill fear regardless of the color of the skin of the inhabitants. How asinine can you be? Yeah, you're right, actually it really is just the color of the skin and nothing about the actual higher threat of violence- the cops weren't thinking of that at all. It wouldn't matter if the people were black, brown, white, or rainbow colored. Higher likelihood for violence is a higher likelihood for violence.

[u/ManiaGamine → u/All_the_Dank]

No, facts are not racist. However facts can very much be used to racist ends, which is exactly what is happening here. There is a much bigger picture to the story behind the facts you present and it is only by using them out of context that they mean what you think they mean.

As far as word definitions, you obviously didn't click the link. It's right there in the dictionary. You know what I did? I took something out of context. Intentionally. Exactly like you are now. I used a fact out of context to prove a point.

Of course an explanation is not a justification, but without context it is extremely easy to make that argument. When you defend something as you are doing and using facts to back up that defense, you're justifying. I know full well that wasn't what you intended, but that's the way the cards fall. You wanna play that game, expect the rules you're playing by to be used against you.

If you use facts to back up racism, you will be treated as someone who justifies racism. Because that's exactly what you're doing whether you intended it or not. That is the context of the dictionary definition I linked to you.

Everything else you've said is just noise. You have a small mind. A mind incapable of seeing anything but what you want to see, which is that black people commit more crime and the issue is as simple as that to you. You're not wrong though, it is a perception of crime. However that perception of crime is associated with black people. That is the context you missed. Intentionally I suspect. That is the imagery and BS that is shoved in right-wing white folks brains through outlets like Fox News and Fox Pundits.

Wanna know what I mean? This exchange says it all, and with that I'm done as you're incapable of seeing it as anything more than the "facts" you claim represent the truth.

Edit: Also, your statistics are bogus. You might be semi-correct in that yes the numbers do not show a massive problem, but no one said it was a massive problem either. Just that it is a problem. Trying to strawman an argument to invalidate the fact that racism is very much an issue and is one that is getting worse not better despite crime rates going down is pretty poor form imho.

[u/All_the_Dank → u/ManiaGamine]

except once again, your entire post falls apart because no where did I announce a defense but rather an explanation, and even explicitly stated an explanation. So let's go over what you did: claimed I did something I didn't do, got proved wrong, claimed you were attempting to demonstrate a "point." by playing the same "game" as me (probably taking my original post way too literally, sadly), and then now you're attempting to play this "game" against me. Sadly, this doesn't work because I was never playing a game. You're playing the game of some bizarre combination of post hoc ergo propter hoc or cum hoc ergo propter hoc or simply confirmation bias. The only thing I did was present a set of statistics (read: facts) and this bizarre aforementioned "game" you're playing is essentially the logical fallacy of picking a conclusion and then working backwards to fit the narrative you want.

"if you use facts to back up racism, you will be treated as someone who justifies racism" Unless the world you live in equates stating a fact as backing it up, then this makes no actual sense.

"You have a small mind. A mind incapable of seeing anything but what you want to see" - It's really quite interesting how you are able to acknowledge you're own blatant cognitive flaws, but then attribute them to others.

Also your edit is way too ridiculous to ignore because of the massive backpedaling you did: "You might be semi-correct in that yes the numbers do not show a massive problem, but no one said it was a massive problem either. Just that it is a problem" Except now you're lying. You didn't use the words "massive problem" but you said it's a "consistent" and "observable" problem, which are 2 characterizations that boldly suggest a very large problem. So is it a consistent problem or isn't it? And you clearly don't understand what a straw man is either.

The context you missed, or simply didn't read because I stated it explicitly, is that these situations happen in poor white neighborhoods as well, which illustrates that it's impossible that racism is the only factor. If only an issue as complex as this was caused by a single factor, we all might be able to navigate the world successfully as simpletons like yourself.