Personally I think the US is heading for splitting up, and I advocate for a peaceful split up. Then Portland can implement whatever the brownshirts want and the rest of the country can go on an Americans (even if we have a new name).

And there's the rub. I can't think of a supranational force that I'd entrust to run more than a lemonade stand. The UN is an utter joke, completely corrupt and political. The UN pursues expediency over what is right at every turn. I recognize that life is not black and white, there's a ton of gray, but I really can't think of a supranational organization that comes close to having the ethics required to be a trusted, fair, and impartial final arbiter. Moreover even if there was such an organization it wouldn't be accepted by corrupt and vicious regimes. Can you imagine China giving a care when told to stop disappearing Falon Gung or Uighurs?

Do you have proof that black lives are given the least priority? They get special privileges in terms of college admissions, affirmative action in the workplace, minority set asides for small businesses. That does not sound like a group with the least priority.

This is an interesting criticism regarding accepting the status quo. I disagree. If the goal is to end police brutality, specifically cases that result in death, then All Lives Matter isn't bad. It also includes all groups within the US across ethnicity / socioeconomic / religious / etc. If All Lives Matter is too politicized at this point I could accept that too but something more neutral and inclusive should be found.

I hear this occasionally, but there's no getting around Black Lives Matter does not come off as inclusive. Moreover BLM is silent whenever police brutality happens to any group other than blacks, which further proves that it is specific to police brutality on black people and everyone else is on their own. Then the very BLM protesters have the nerve to ask very loudly why everyone doesn't join them at their protests. When you're not an ally to others it's disingenuous to loudly complain when others aren't an ally to you.

That one sounds mixed as a curfew (due to previous rioters) was in place for the city and the protesters weren't moving. I'm always torn as I like both order as well as the right to protest. In this case it looks like the order crowd may have been a bit hasty but the protesters weren't as innocent as it sounds.

It's a big country. It's likely that someone somewhere may have overstepped the bounds and did attack a peaceful protest. On the other hand there is no denying that those windows got broken and fires started by someone. Do you have a specific incident in mind or are you throwing out generalities?

My point exactly. A random poster on /. is the best example that gets can dredged up lol

I like what you did there. MAD is exactly what has kept us out of nuclear war.

I like this response, it's given me something to ponder which is great. Thank you.

Bad idea to guess others motives, it's merely shooting in the dark. To be honest I'm not sure what black empowerment means. They are by law as empowered as anyone else, more if you consider that they get extra perks (eg college score boosts, affirmative action, set asides, extra privileges, etc). I'm really not sure what additional empowerment that community is looking for. What right do they not have that others do?

Yet it's only rarely stated. Moreover when police do something awful to anyone who isn't black it's crickets chirping from BLM. That speaks volumes about how much the BLM is a self serving organization. BLM asks for allies yet is never an ally itself.

Bottom rung of a system is more complicated than you're letting on and really could be a thread in it's own right.

At core I find the phrase borderline offensive because I'm a fan of everyone following the same rules, not special rules for favored groups. To that end singling any one group out goes against my grain. If you want to hold up banners or the like only for your tribe that's your right. I support holding police to account when they do bad deeds regardless of the race of the victim.

Sounds like you're confusing rioters for protesters. Once fires and looting starts the rules change.

You misunderstand the idea behind an eye for an eye. Human nature is to do unto others what they did to you plus a little. Eye for an eye keeps it from escalating.

Or stand up to them. Antifa came to my area and was soundly beaten. However they were shown a mercy that they don't give others, no serious damage was done and the locals stopped once they had made their point. Call us hicks but no buildings were burned here and although many guns were present nobody was shot.

Your self righteous rant ignores that one group was peaceful - ie no fires or looting.

You're ignorant of all the gains made by Ghandi and MLK? Wow. That has to be either an amazing level of ignorance or you fit your own words of "It's total bullshit hypocrisy and you damned well know it."

Sounds like in Canada some animals are more equal than others. One of the oddities in life is liberals typically talk a lot about equality but are seeking equality of outcome and thus prefer to distort the situation to get that (eg quotas, special sentencing guidelines for certain groups, set asides in government contracts, affirmative action, etc). This results in massive inequalities at the personal level as individuals are sacrificed on the alter of the greater good as envisioned by said liberals. Conservatives favor one set of rules for everyone and call that equality. Neither system is fair in the sense that all factors are accounted for but the conservative approach of one set of rules for everyone seems to come the closer and is definitely easier to explain than "too many Asians have been admitted to this college already so your test scores must be 140 points higher" or "not too many qualified black applicants so their test scores get a boost of 230" all in the name of equality.

You say that but where's the proof? You have to go to trolls at the margins to find anyone supporting the specific case of holding down George Floyd. I've read many a commentary, both liberal and conservative, but haven't seen anyone saying that the police were justified in that case. As close as I've seen is do an investigation then charge, which is how the justice system is supposed to work, so even that isn't a show of support. Please show something that supports your claim.