Blues artist Lady A blasts Lady Antebellum for stealing her name

I like it that you refer to teaching against racism. Yes.

But this particular text... when I read:

Georgette: The most common mistakes white activists make are 1) setting an agenda with the illusion of inclusion, and 2) having to have a franchise on comfort.

I paused. First to shake my head: "Huh?", and then to wonder what or how that speaker thought a teacher should teach, so that anyone could learn how to avoid those particular mistakes.

Another death. Rayshard Brooks, deceased, black, shot dead by a white police officer. Atlanta.
As usual, initial reports not consistent. It seems that the man was asleep in his car in the parking lot of a Wendy's take-away. Police were called [and they woke him?] to do an alcohol test. He resisted. There was a scuffle. A police officer was about to use his Taser, but the man grabbed it from him and ran. He aimed [or did not aim?] the Taser at the police. As he ran away, he was shot dead by the police. There is a video of part of the events.
Friday 13th June 2020
https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/t...DOGYTKCY5S7FA/

It is about a few activist women from 4 different racial/ethnical backgrounds, no-one is teaching anything. They all fight for the same cause. Exactly that was the point, that no-one is the teacher, least of all the white activist. If everything, "Georgette" - a black woman - is spot on IMHO


In other news, yesterday in London

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53037767

In some newspapers these incidents are presented as clashes between "alt-right thugs" and innocent human rights protesters.



Racist thuggery. lol

Oh, and another good one from the same article here.

Thanks, greenmount, for your extra explantions. I wrote because it seemed to me to be a teaching website.

The part I do understand, of Georgette, is that 1) and 2) are "mistakes" and therefore to be avoided, at least by "white activists" (whether self-named, or so described by others).

I think I just genuinely didn't (and perhaps still don't) know what "having a franchise on comfort" (or thinking that one has such a franchise?) means, nor "setting an agenda with the illusion of inclusion". Although I re-read parts of it, especially those you quote, I don't know how one (who?) would, by ommission or commision, be making those mistakes, what they would entail, nor how one would, likewise, avoid so doing.

Maybe that's why I feel like Omtatsat, on this, not because I agree or don't agree with Georgette, but because I really don't know what she is saying.
On another visit to online, when I get back here from Real Life, I might have another look.

Particularly, I wonder if there is something in that discussion which could prevent yet more deaths, or might have helped to kept Rayshard Brooks alive.

I don't think it's explicitly stated in the article but something along the lines of 'don't resist arrest or steal the policeman's weapon' probably would have helped.

Yeah, I can see why omtatsat made that remark. It probably looks like intellectual BS to many. IMHO, without debate there's no real progress. I don't think they approached that particular theme you are interested in though.

I have a feeling those 4 activist women* had never have to deal with police the way those they try to protect are....classic.

* and despite of what they all may think, each and every single one is highly privileged.

They already burned down the Wendy's where it happened.

It's too common sense, I guess....

Btw, he didn't resist arrest. He resisted, as per doropfiz's summary, an alcohol test. The policemen didn't really try to arrest him no questions asked.

He resisted arrest.

https://twitter.com/ReporterBlayne/s...35571205058566

OK, thanks. I didn't check... I think the whole thing has turned into a big fiasco.

YouTube > Police Activities
Get an idea of what the police in the US face everyday.

This is different than George Floyd. Much different. Brooks resisted, ran, grabbed a taser and possibly aimed. I agree he shouldn't have been shot dead but the situation could have been serious to bystanders as well.

I think it's a shame people are combobulating this situation as another example of the police vs. blacks. The situation was not the same.

It's seen as another example of police over-reacting and using excessive force. A bullet to the leg would have been fine here according to many.

Here's why police don't shoot to wound in the case of deadly force
https://www.ajc.com/news/national/he...r8FaEMj78u1bO/

It's almost as if people are just looking for more reasons to protest now.

I understand the protests against what happened to Floyd and against racism and police brutality in general, but to take every situation where a black is killed by the cops and warp it into a situation where the person was innocent is delusional. Rage tends to make people irrational, so I don't know... maybe that's the problem. Still not sure the guy deserved to be shot and killed for resisting arrest and taking the cop's taser, though. But it's common sense that that's something you shouldn't do... and particularly not if you don't want to get shot by the police.

Something occurred to me the other day... Many of these protests are, in essence, against racism and people and police generalizing that all blacks are violent (e.g. cops using their guns for fear that a black person has a gun). But if generalizing against blacks is wrong (and it is), then why do protestors feel that it is okay to generalize that all cops are bad and/or that the police should be de-funded? It just seems a bit hypocritical to think that generalizing against blacks is wrong but that to generalize against all cops is okay. Also, if people want the police to have more / proper training in regard to unnecessary force, racism, etc., de-funding the police doesn't really seem like a good place to start. But maybe I just don't have a good understanding of what "de-funding the police" really means... or maybe I'm just missing something.

FC's article has some good explanations, particularly with the Supreme Court rulings. Police don't train to shoot legs or arms. They train to shoot torsos and heads, which are the biggest targets. They are also trained to shoot to kill, not to injure, which generally means unloading the clip just to be sure.

We'll see what comes out of the Brooks investigation, but I'll never be convinced a cop is in life-threatening danger when they shoot someone in the back as the suspect was running away from them.

Officer has been sacked. Seems even the police agree he did the wrong thing.

In my second sentence I was referring to the protests/riots, not this particular case. It's really hard to keep up with every case that happened/happens there these days. Why anyone here in Europe would even want to follow that anymore.