>but the ones centered around police brutality, injustice, etc
>are generally the ones that inspired it.
>


because as i see it, those in power stay in power
by making everything a "debate."

"yeah, it was wrong for the cops to shoot that Black person,
but lets look at both sides. this kid had an unprofessional facebook profile. or he might have stolen some cigars. or he shouldn't have been selling loose cigarettes. or whatever."


the fact that "we" (rubs skin) are debating about
Black on Black crime and kids sagging their pants in a conversation
that started about a cop shooting an unarmed Black person
is a travesty.


because it's a way to get us to avoid talking about
the fact that Black ppl, for all intents and purposes,
live under a police state, and the penalty for non-compliance
could be extreme violence at the hands of law enforcement.



anything that shifts the conversation AWAY from that is a dangerous dialouge.

so yeah, i'll ridicule and use ad hominems and condescend in those posts. because that is the tactic that "they" use against us
whenever we bring up a legit grievance.


they trivialize it, deny it, attack the tactics we use to make our point... do ANYTHING to avoid talking about the fact that
a cop killed an unarmed Black person. Again.

the "dialouge" seems like a diversionary tactic,
and it's dangerous because it leads to many ppl feeling
that maybe Black kids just deserve the treatment they get from cops because they are just bad.

inferior.

no.

i don't think that's a dialouge we need to have or even entertain.


that's why i post that way.
i doubt i'll stop.