urbanSTL

Here is TPM's coverage:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/c ... ters-clash

In a video that may actually merit a "this video will destroy your faith in humanity" tagline, St. Louis Cardinals fans taunted protesters demonstrating for Ferguson teen Michael Brown Monday night outside Busch Stadium by chanting the name of the white police officer who fatally shot him.

For those who were thinking protests would be bad for Saint Louis were right; but not b/c of the protestors... rather because of the troglodyte fans who come out from wherever our swamp caves are.

Greatest St. Louis wrote:

shimmy wrote:Well I had a four paragraph response written, but it disappeared when I pressed "submit" and was forced to log in again. That's probably for the best, as I probably got too smartass-y to be productive in the debate anyways.

But here's the gist of it:

The whole gun thing was an example to prove that you would not be in favor of me advocating for my rights the same way that you are advocating for yours. That's the definition of hypocrisy. Of course the rights we are advocating for a different, but that's not the point. The point is that everyone is endowed with certain unalienable rights (would you agree with that? I noticed that you aren't a fan of the founding documents and ideas that this whole debate of rights and freedoms revolve around), and everyone is equally entitled to those rights.

The fact that the Ferguson protesters are advocating for different rights from you is absolutely the point. They're advocating for those different rights that they don't have. They're on footing that is unequal to and less privileged than yours is. I don't know how to make it clearer than to repeat what I said: you're quibbling, at worst, over what kinds of guns the government is letting you play with. They're quibbling over, at worst, being given an equal shake in life for a job, for a good education, for an opportunity at advancement, for a better place to live in a nicer part of town, to be treated equally under the law in our criminal justice system, etc.

That is absolutely the point. Of all of this. Of this whole thing. That's why the protests are happening.

To say "that isn't the point" is to tacitly admit defeat. You're brushing off the whole point.

Of course I think everyone's rights and access to opportunity should be equal. Of course I strive for a purely egalitarian society. That is not what we have. And that is why the protests are happening.

shimmy wrote:My rights aren't more important than yours, and yours aren't more important to mine. So if you really want to argue for unalienable rights, then I'll shoot you a message when I find out the time and location of the next Friends of the NRA meeting.

Yeah, of course no one's rights are more important than another's. The problem is that these people are arguing for rights that they do not have, that you do have, as a result of your privilege (enjoy: http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/whi ... explained/)

shimmy wrote:As much as you dislike the Constitution, certainly you'd appeal to the First Amendment to defend your right protest. I'm sure you'll probably refer to the Fourth Amendment when you argue that "disenfranchised" people are in fact disenfranchised because of laws like stop-and-frisk, no? But the Second Amendment isn't important when arguing about inalienable rights. Gotcha. Nice consistency there.

Like I said, the Constitution was meant to codify an inherently unequal nation into law. Its rights and privileges afforded therefrom applied only to a certain group of Americans, and it was meant to perpetuate a nation for that specific group on the backs of other groups (namely: blacks, women, and non-landowning males). It was written by men who had nothing but time in their day to study history and philosophy because their slaves did all their work and earned all their wealth for them, so of course there are great ideas in there like freedom of speech. That does not by itself make the constitution an inherently great document or a source of equal protections for all peoples. Because it does not adequately protect all peoples and ensure equality for all peoples. BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO DO THAT.

shimmy wrote:As for your argument against the judicial system, I guess that means that you think a judicial system based on popular opinion is a better system to guarantee justice. Advocating for the indictment of Officer Wilson, regardless of what the evidence proves, isn't justice. It's a witch hunt.

Nowhere did I say or even imply that. I simply stated the fact that poor minorities (specifically blacks and Hispanics) face statistically worse results in our justice system, and that our justice system has serious issues that must be addressed. There is no way one could conclude from that, logically, that I think a judicial system based on popular opinion is a better system to guarantee justice. That's a straw-man argument, and one I won't dignify with a reply.

shimmy wrote:Now, if you want to advocate for this witch hunt by further embarrassing this city through obnoxious publicity stunts, then I'm not really sure what to tell you. I agree that there needs to be a serious discussion regarding race and policing in this city and in this country. That discussion can't be had when one side wants to shout down the other. And you know, that "other" side doesn't even disagree with them. They're simply saying, "Let the facts prevail. Let justice prevail."

Please refer to ud's reply to this.

We're clearly missing each other on the first point. I have voiced support for the protestors right to protest. I simply state that it should be done in the appropriate location, i.e. a public space or a private space where they were invited, not as a flash mob at a cultural institution that residents pay money to attend. I even went as far as to recommend highly visible and relevant alternate locations. I have no problem with protestors protesting peacefully outside of Busch in the public realm. My reasoning for this is because the tactics undertaken in the symphony have done nothing but solidify people's positions and turn the conversation hostile, hence the past three pages of this thread. If you think that such tactics are progressively moving the discussion forward because "any publicity is good publicity" then you are naive.

If you do advocate for this form of immature protest, and if you do admit that equal rights (whatever you base that belief on) are of the highest importance, then you should also condone the use of tactics in defense of rights that people feel are threatened, even if you don't agree with those rights at all. Either that, or you're arguing that everyone should only be focused on the problems that you want them to focus on, not the problems that they as individuals perceive. As far as your argument against the Constitution, and it not being a "source of equal protections for all peoples. Because it does not adequately protect all peoples and ensure equality for all peoples," I would like for you to point out one right that I am guaranteed as a white man that any other citizen of the United States isn't guaranteed. Now, if you're saying that it doesn't provide equal opportunities because those opportunities haven't been realized, or because failed policies have made those opportunities less available, then that is a different argument entirely. That is an argument that should be taken up in the democratic forum, which the right and ability to protest plays a major role in. But the ultimate way to bring about that change is to vote, not to prematurely convict a person of a crime by disregarding the process that is in place to ensure that all facts are considered.

You say that it is a straw man argument that I compared your critique of the justice system to popular justice. You act insulted by it, but it's a legitimate question. If you're advocating for Officer Wilson to be indicted, I ask on what grounds? Do you have all the facts? The answer is no. Do the protestors have all the facts? The answer is no. Does the grand jury have all the facts? Yes. So the argument that the public demands justice, and that the only justice is an indictment, is to demand that the facts of the case be disregarded.

Again, I ask this: If the bigger issue is to have this discussion about race, inequality, the "system", etc. and to find solutions for those problems, then will you be content if the grand jury rules that the evidence against Officer Wilson is not sufficient to bring the case to trial, or that the evidence acquits Officer Wilson of any wrongdoing, if this discussion is had?

So, the bottomline is we have two issues here. The first is an illegal form of protest that does nothing productive as it only further embarrasses the city and further divides people. I don't support that. The second is the topic of the protest, which while I disagree with their viewpoint, I support their right to say it in the appropriate (meaning public or welcomed private) location.

Also, as I'm weary of these long responses, I just want to summarize and to point out that all myself and the likes of threeonefour have done is express our support for:

1) Responsible and respectful protest
2) That idea that the right to protest should apply to all causes and all citizens equally
3) The importance of due process and the pursuit of the truth

St. Louis is such a DUMP - especially after looking at that Busch Stadium video. Stupidity on both sides. I never thought I would say this in my lifetime, but this time I hope the Cardinals lose. LOSE! Not even the Cardinals can bring St. Louisans together. Go Dodgers!

BTW, I had a conversation with a white woman (47 years old) who grew up in South St. Louis and attended a private Christian high school. She now lives in Texas. During our conversation, I advised her to pray for "our" city (St. Louis).

She said, "Oh why? Because of the riots in Ferguson?"
I replied, "Yes".
She said, "Oh, okay". (Seemingly disconnected)
She added, "It's a mess, and I hate to see conflict where people are hurting one another."
She said, "I am so glad I don't live in St. Louis anymore".
She added, "I love and miss my Imo's, I love my Cardinals and I still have family there".
She finished, "But I am happy I don't live there anymore. It's a sad place. Nothing has changed."

Real conversation.

Part of me, however, is still hoping all of this ugliness is an unfortunate necessity to begin the healing.

bigmclargehuge wrote:^Very childish remark and by a moderator. But your entitled to your opinion

You are entitled to your opinion of me. You are right, I am a moderator with an opinion.

And at the end of the day, I don't embrace your statement and I am not impacted by it whatsoever.

bigmclargehuge wrote:clearly you were since you responded

Actually, no.

I just dropped a love note to you.

southsidepride wrote:Yes Arch City, Go Dodgers. Because L.A. certainly has never embarrassed itself when it comes to race relations!

Ummm. I'm not from L.A.

I'm from St. Louis. Therefore, the tomfoolery in St. Louis is way more personal and disturbing.

St. Louis doesn't deserve a championship if people are going to be IDIOTS like this.

I'd rather S.F. or L.A. or even Kansas City.

Get your sh*t together, St. Louis.

threeonefour wrote:I'd submit that there are bad actors in both the pro-Brown and pro-Wilson camps who have harmed our city's image significantly when all of the related events over the last two months are taken into consideration.

I'm not sure things can be broken down as easily as pro-Brown versus pro-Wilson camps, but could you be more specific on anything the protestors have done to give Saint Louis a bad image compared to what seems to be a pretty decent size of blatantly racist creeps out there? Some of whom have had to be fired from police forces? (And rioters and anarchist agitators who are just opportunists and not protestors.) As for those troglodytes at the ballpark last night. it was like the nation got a taste of the comments at http://www.stltoday.com on any story dealing with race. Those types of people are in every city, but unfortunately they are on full display here.