
Originally Posted by
valade16
First, again, you actually stood and defended it for Stop and Frisk. So while you profess the idea that police shouldn't be allowed to violate people's rights, you argue for the opposite.
Second, This is the heart of it. You don't care about any of these issues, you're just using it as a way to get what you want politically (the abolishment of Unions).
Third, Sure, there's ambiguity in what is racist, but I hope we all objectively agree that racism in broad terms is bad and should be abolished. You're confusing the specifics with the over-arching ideology.
Fourth, When I speak about racism, I'm talking racism that objectively negatively impacts communities. Your problem is that you cannot comprehend abstract concepts. If you don't see the paint-by-numbers A to B, you don't believe it's happening. If someone rapes someone else, you can see the effects. But if it's an indirect effect, it doesn't count.
I have posed this hypothetical on here several times, but it's illustrative of the stunted way in which you view the problem. Suppose a police officer sees two identical vehicles speeding down the road at identical speeds, with the only difference being one was a black driver and one was a white driver. Who does the officer pull over? The answer is: it doesn't matter. Both are breaking the law, so he can randomly pull over either. Suppose he randomly pulls over the black driver. No problem there. Now suppose this same scenario plays out 100 times and in all 100 instances the police officer "randomly" pulls over the black driver. Is that racist?
According to your thinking, it isn't. Because even though it is so statistically unlikely that police could randomly pull over the black guy 100 straight times it is for all intents and purposes impossible, there is no direct evidence that what he did was racist. So you say "it's not racist". Then when people bring up the discrepancy of how often the black guy is pulled over than the white guy you say "well the reason he is pulled over more is he speeds more, just look at how many times he's been pulled over for speeding" thereby cementing your circular reasoning.
Fifth, People's rights are being compromised, that's what people are protesting/rioting about. So the idea that rights are an objective measures is erroneous because you disagree the notion that those rights are being violated.
And yes, that is technically a compromise, but it's not a compromise related to this issue. It's adding irrelevant political goals into a debate and then demanding a compromise include those. It'd be like me saying "fine, we lower the weeks at which you can get an abortion, but in exchange you have to pass the Green New Deal". That compromise isn't actually a compromise of the situation, it's extracting a separate political win
Which goes back to my original point: there can be no compromise on this issue because you don't actually believe in the issue. That's why you have to add in other political goals, because there is no compromise when your position is non-existent.