Boston University Catholic chaplain forced out of his position after email to Catholics there suggesting that the killing of George Floyd was not an a

[Polak]

Why does he not have to mention it. 95% of the media has not mentioned one word of it

Oh I agree the media should be doing their jobs and reporting that. The mainstream media has an ideological narrative though, sadly. You’re also right, it is good that other not so big media sources, even independent ones, do cover the facts the mainstream media choose to ignore.

I just think in this case, a priest bringing up criminal past in an email wasn’t going to do anything to help an already charged situation. All it was going to do was piss people off, because they’d see it as excusing the cop. ‘Oh so it was okay to kill him because he had a criminal record?’ Obviously the priest isn’t implying that and even says it later in his email (as I mentioned) but students are young, they don’t always think before they react, so the ‘know your audience’ argument is valid to some degree. Most of the people the cops have altercations with have criminal records, so it was a given this was likely to be the case here too. It really doesn’t make much different to the fact that the killing was wrong. Him having a criminal record certainly doesn’t mean people don’t have a right to be angry about the way he was killed, but again, totally agree, seeing him on banners and murals is way over the top.

 

[StudentMI]

The inability of today’s students to think critically is a shame. The knee jerk reaction you mentioned happens everywhere nowadays, including on these forums. It’s sad.

 

[StudentMI]

And yes the murals are ridiculous. I read of one with Floyd having angel wings. Someone apparently was photographed prostrating before it. Give me a break.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Oh I agree the media should be doing their jobs and reporting that [that Floyd had a criminal record].

So I see we’re back to this…remember that little story about casting the first stone? Here’s a fun video clip of your favorite Fox news personalities…and their criminal records:

Did you know that Laura Ingraham was convicted of shoplifting? Why is the media (esp. Fox News) not reporting this? I love how all these convicted criminals are so adamant about upholding law and order. Maybe they got straight in jail. But it’s a fun few minutes! I love the mug shots!

 

[Poet]

we are ALL racists. We prefer our own ethnic group (or even sub-group–proud to be English, but even prouder to be from Liverpool). This is natural and not evil in itself. And you can easily test your implicit racism: who would you want to move in next to you? Who would you want your daughter to marry? Who would you want your boss to be at work? And if you were a policeman, would you be equally likely to shoot a black man or a white man in the back? A

I have long since come to believe the statement that what we believe of others reflects more on what we ourselves are than on others. So…speak for yourself.

I’ve spent my life living in foreign countries, seeing my parents work with people of every race, living and working and going to church with every race myself, and my children have spent their lives in church/schools/neighborhoods that are about a quarter each of white, Hispanic, black, and Asian. 95% of my daughter’s friends in high school were a different race. Her boyfriend was a different race. Another potential boyfriend was from India and he sounded great and I wish it had worked out. One of my brothers in law was raised by parents from two different countries and another raised by a mother from a third. My husband is an immigrant.

No, I don’t care what race my neighbors are. I don’t care what race my kids marry. I don’t care what race my boss is.

I care that they’re good people.

And part of the offense of such statements as yours to many millions of people is that there are those in this country who JUST. CAN’T. BELIEVE. that millions of us simply care that our friends, neighbors, and in-laws are GOOD PEOPLE.

Have you ever, EVER ONCE, stopped to consider that maybe most people actually really care more about their neighbors and sons and daughters in law being good people than about race?

If you believe everyone is racist, it just might say more about you than about other people. We do tend to assume that others are like us.

 

[Poet]

, I invite you to take a well known implicit bias test: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html There are many tests–on page two select the “race” test, and if you want to go further, the “skin tone” test.

Interesting test. First, it asks you MANY questions that have NOTHING to do with ‘racism.’ Age, education, zip code, race. Then it asks you to select whether you identify an image as lighter or darker skinned. Then it asks you to identify specific words as good or bad.

…THEN… it tells you to look at avatars of light and dark skinned people and say ‘good’ or ‘bad.’

Why would anyone in their sane, rational mind continue such a ‘test’ at this point. In fact, I find it incredibly offensive, insulting, and juvenile for a test to ask people to say good or bad based on skin tone.

I have childhood memories of a man of a different race from me who died standing up for good and right…he died because he stood up for it. I have met other men of this race who behaved badly.

This has NOTHING to do with race. Why would I look at a picture of a light or darker skinned person and say good or bad?

This is a poorly constructed ‘test’ and anyone who answers good or bad based on an avatar should be deemed a fool, rather than a racist. And frankly, so should the person who constructed such a ‘test.’

Maybe the true value of this test is in seeing how many people said WTF, are you kidding me, and quit because the test ASSUMES that people are going to judge another’s goodness on skin tone.

 

[Lea101]

If someone has biases and prejudices that they make decisions not to act upon, they aren’t a racist.

Wouldn’t that mean that person is racist though? If I say in my head “Indians are smelly and gross”, that would mean I’m a racist for believing it, even though I didn’t verbally say it.

Unless you’re saying the person immediately recognises that the thought is racist and aims to correct that (e.g. Telling themselves that that thought was sinful). Then I would agree that person isn’t racist, because they are trying to prevent themselves for believing in racist thoughts.

I would approach it the way Catholics approach sin. “I’m a sinner, I repent and I will not sin again”. That sort of thing.

but you still call me a racist, then what’s the point of not acting them out?

Ideally, you don’t act them out because it’s a sin and people shouldn’t be treated based on their skin color/race…not because they don’t want the label, if im being honest.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I’ve spent my life living in foreign countries,

I spent 7 years living in the Middle East. I’ve spent virtually every vacation travelling abroad.

And part of the offense of such statements as yours to many millions of people is that there are those in this country who JUST. CAN’T. BELIEVE. that millions of us simply care that our friends, neighbors, and in-laws are GOOD PEOPLE.

You are–like several other people here–jumping to a conclusion and making an assumption that is the opposite of what I have said in almost every single post. So here we go again: Implicit racism has nothing to do with having good friends, spouses, parents, whatever of different races. Nor is it an accusation of some sort of wrong doing. All it means is that almost (maybe you are a rare exception?) everyone has an unconscious preference for a certain racial / ethnic group. That has been shown by study after study. And it doesn’t mean you always prefer your own group–blacks (as I said earlier…) often show a preference for whites. It is different than explicit, overt racism (although it could contribute to it). As I’ve said over and over.

Have you ever, EVER ONCE, stopped to consider that maybe most people actually really care more about their neighbors and sons and daughters in law being good people than about race?

Of course. But you are missing the point. Again–I’ve said it multiple times!–the ideal is what you are describing. You get to know and like someone and you no longer see them as “my black friend,” you see them as “Darren.” You see the person, not the race / ethnic group. Again, I’ve pointed out that children generally are like this (unless they’ve been taught otherwise).

And the point about “Who would you like to move in next to you?” is a generic question, not a question about a specific person or situation. Say, for example, you lived in a university compound (as I did for years) where all the residents are highly educated and more or less the same socio-economic class. Would I care who moved in next to me? No. But that’s a special situation.

Please read what I actually wrote. Please do not make up a whole set of conclusions that have nothing to do with what I wrote.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Interesting test. First, it asks you MANY questions that have NOTHING to do with ‘racism.’ Age, education, zip code, race.

Of course it does. So does the census. They want to be able to sort the results by gender, age, location, etc. It’s nothing to do with the test itself.

I have childhood memories of a man of a different race from me who died standing up for good and right…he died because he stood up for it. I have met other men of this race who behaved badly.

Read my reply to you above. What you are saying is true, but is has nothing to do with implicit racism. You are talking about individuals. Implicit racism is about categories. Stereotypes if you like. Apples and oranges.

This has NOTHING to do with race. Why would I look at a picture of a light or darker skinned person and say good or bad?

Well, to make it relevant to what’s happening right now, the problem is that the police do it with regularity. Remember the 12-year-old black boy in Cleveland who was playing with a toy gun in a park? And the police pulled up and shot him immediately? Would they have shot a blonde little girl who was playing with a toy gun? If you think so, most people would say you are delusional.

This is a poorly constructed ‘test’ and anyone who answers good or bad based on an avatar should be deemed a fool, rather than a racist. And frankly, so should the person who constructed such a ‘test.’

So are you saying that we shouldn’t bother to find out if people have implicit racism? Is this some sort of forbidden topic that we can’t investigate? Or are you saying this particular test is so flawed it’s worthless? If so, feel free to construct a better test. But this type of test is very common in psychology for all sorts of subjects.

 

[StudentMI]

I spent 7 years living in the Middle East. I’ve spent virtually every vacation travelling abroad.

Lucky…

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Lucky…

Not really. I still have nightmares.

 

[Lea101]

THEN… it tells you to look at avatars of light and dark skinned people and say ‘good’ or ‘bad.’

There’s some debate about the testing behind this in recent times, but the purpose is to track how automatic your thought process is regarding certain topics. You’re supposed to do it as quickly as possible, with as little thought as possible. It has something to do with one’s schemas about said topic. E.g. The word “dark” is often immediately associated with bad/evil, and it’s theorised that you would immediately press ‘bad’ when that word is flashed to you.

I wouldn’t look at the results to determine ones level of racism, even the creators warn against it. If anything, it should just serve as a tool for reflection: e.g. Why did I immediately press that button when presented a white face? Why didn’t I press a button immediately when presented with xyz.

But that’s it. You’re definitely NOT supposed to sit there and consciously pick one it’s definitely not a racism diagnosis

 

[Norseman82]

The problem is, his audience for this wasn’t a bunch of CAF philosophers and apologists. It was a campus community full of students and also non-students who were already upset.

It appears to me that this is EXACTLY why people need to be told to step back and think things through.

If you ask the average person in Chicago what they remember about the aftermath of the George Floyd killing, what will they remember - the fact that a CNN news crew were arrested LIVE AND ON AIR, or the live news chopper feeds showing mobs looting beauty supply stores, and the reports that looters were renting U-HAUL trucks to carry away the loot? How many people are following the fact that the ex-cop charged with his death knew him from a side security job and that one of the things being investigated is whether he may have used his badge to settle a personal score (which makes this WORSE)?

If we want to make a dent in these problems, we need to be thinking with clear heads and not “governing by slogans”.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

the purpose is to track how automatic your thought process is regarding certain topics. You’re supposed to do it as quickly as possible, with as little thought as possible.

Exactly, thank you. Obviously (?) if you sat there and consciously linked a dark face with a “bad thing” that defeats the purpose of the test. Everyone could sit there, take their time, and get the “right” answers. But the question is, what is your subconscious reaction?

I wouldn’t look at the results to determine ones level of racism, even the creators warn against it.

Exactly, and thank you again. I’m assuming “racism” in your sentence is explicit, overt, open racism. And the test does not measure that AT ALL. You could be black, be the president of the NAACP, and still have a subconscious preference for white people.

it’s definitely not a racism diagnosis

See comment above. Again, that’s it. You can be 100% anti-racist in your thoughts, words, and deeds and still have implicit racism.

Now a lot of people, even if they have accepted the concept of implicit racism, have said, “So what? What good will knowing that do?” As it happens, I have an example from yesterday’s trip to the grocery store. The cashier (male, white) couldn’t figure out how to handle coupons. He called over the supervisor (a young black woman). Acknowledging that I am implicitly racist, I made a little joke about the computers and made the young black woman laugh. Would I have made the little joke if she had been white? No. I would have stood there quietly. The point is that you can make a conscious decision about your words and actions and adjust them if necessary. At least the young black woman will have had at least one pleasant encounter with a white person that day.

 

[StudentMI]

First they came for Father Moloney... | Catholic Culture

 

[Polak]

Did you know that Laura Ingraham was convicted of shoplifting? Why is the media (esp. Fox News) not reporting this?

Assuming this is true, and I have not found any credible source to back this up, she did this is in 1983, when she was in her teens and nobody knew who she was. Why would the media have reported it? There are many petty crimes that don’t get reported unless they are committed by somebody in the public eye.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I have not found any credible source to back this up

Ingraham Theft | The Smoking Gun A photo of the actual docket

Why would the media have reported it?

Clearly you haven’t watched the video clip I posted. Watch it. The point is that the very people who are railing against the protesters’ lack of respect for law and order are themselves convicted criminals. Where I’m from, we call that hypocrisy.

Laura takes it a step further: “Look at the Democrat dominated California, where shoplifting and theft now are exploding. Five years ago the state passed prop 47. That downgraded any theft below $950 from a felony to a misdemeanor. Well, this, together with selective enforcement that focuses more on violent crimes, has resulted in thieves running amok.” This is Laura on Nov. 1 2019. Source? Fox News-- 'The Ingraham Angle' says goodbye to Beto O'Rourke | Fox News

Now don’t you think it’s just a tiny bit weird that a convicted shoplifter goes on and on about bad, bad shoplifters?

 

[Polak]

That smoking gun website is the only ‘source’ I could find too. Doesn’t seem very credible to me. I’ve never even heard of that website before. How do we know that Criminal Docket hasn’t been doctored? It isn’t hard to do.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

That smoking gun website is the only ‘source’ I could find too. Doesn’t seem very credible to me. I’ve never even heard of that website before.

Smoking Gun: founded in 1993. From Wikipedia: " The Smoking Gun is a website that posts legal documents, arrest records, and police mugshots on a daily basis. The intent is to bring to the public light information that is damaging, shocking, outrageous, or amazing, yet also somewhat obscure or unreported by more mainstream media sources. Most of the site’s content revolves around historical and current events, although it also features documents and photos relating to out-of-the-ordinary crimes and people." It’s pretty reliable. If you’ve never heard of it, I’m not sure where you have been for the last 23 years. It’s quoted pretty often.

And of course Laura has never denied that she was a shoplifter (as far as I know). It seems to me that if it were some scurrilous lie, she would say so.

How do we know that Criminal Docket hasn’t been doctored? It isn’t hard to do.

And we’re off again into that fantasyland where “proof” is equated to logical, mathematical proof. Proof that is absolutely, totally 100% bullet proof. I’ve posted about this multiple times on this thread alone. This is a new meaning the right wing has latched onto. Can anyone “prove” that there were thousands of empty seats at the rally in Tulsa? You show them a photo. “The photo must have been doctored.” or “The photos must have been taken 4 hours before the rally started.” Then you show them videotape that’s time stamped. “That doesn’t mean anything, it’s possible someone tampered with the time.”

In other words, as I’ve said over and over and over we enter the alternative reality of “could have” or “it’s possible.” As I said before, it’s possible I’m a Chinese agent in Peking infiltrating this thread. It’s possible that “Polak” is an alien from out space. Please. Spare me.

Since I’ve been accused of “changing” the meaning of racism, I make the counter-charge of “changing” the meaning of “proof.” Just for the record, here is the Oxford dictionary definition:
“Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.”

Evidence. Argument. NOT 100% certainty in a mathematical sense.

 

[Polak]

That wikipedia description is quite short, and was most probably written by the website’s creators. At the top Wikipedia even states ‘this article has multiple issues’. It says it contains content that is written like an advertisement (hence why I suggest it was probably written by the website’s creators) and also states the article lacks a lot of citations.

Yes I have never heard of it.

Laura has never denied she was a shoplifter? Was the question ever even put to her?

And we’re off again into that fantasyland where “proof” is equated to logical, mathematical proof.

I stopped reading after this.