Rich Dad, Poor Dad, Racist Dad...

[nereo]

Robert Kiyosaki, author of ‘Rich Dad, Poor Dad’ and financial huckster who pushes expensive ‘mentorships’ at his ‘financial seminars’ decided to weigh in on the Black Lives Matter protests on Twitter.

Why do we worship felons, losers, weirdos, and people without power or success? Why do we attack our police who protect us from these losers? Why do our gutless leaders kiss the losers asses? The police should take a month off. Let the losers and leaders kiss each other’s asses.

When asked to explain the tweets, a spokeswoman for Kiyosaki responded: To be perfectly clear: this was not a racial comment. Unfortunately, some people have interpreted ‘losers’ from Robert’s tweet to mean all Black Lives Matter protesters and that was never Robert's intent.

[GrayGhost]

Absurd. He was not at all clear that not all BLM protesters are felons, losers, and weirdos in his initial statement.

[Kris]

I re-read RDPD recently, for the first time since I was about twenty. I saw a pretty uncomfortable undercurrent of disdain and elitism for “the masses” (and a weird attraction to Donald Trump) that felt like it could easily warp into racist libertarianism.

So I’m not surprised at all.

[nereo]

Absurd. He was not at all clear that not all BLM protesters are felons, losers, and weirdos in his initial statement.

Nor did he offer any sort of support or acknowledgement of the validity behind the protests. Based on his previous statements he doesn't see much daylight between those who are victims of circumstance and societal injustice and those that are there because they are (to use his words) "freeloaders" and "losers".  If you aren't successful (as measured by your net worth), you aren't important. 

[nereo]

I re-read RDPD recently, for the first time since I was about twenty. I saw a pretty uncomfortable undercurrent of disdain and elitism for “the masses” (and a weird attraction to Donald Trump) that felt like it could easily warp into racist libertarianism.

I first read it as a teenager, nad it gave me an appreciation for the difference in spending your money on assets while avoiding liabilities. But then I listened to a bunch of his interviews and it was pretty clear that he used money as the measuring stick for a person's worth, and was resentful of welfare programs which (paraphrasing here) 'takes money out of my pocket'.

[talltexan]

RDPD can contain important principles for money management while also be written by a flawed author, some of whose advice ("My Cat is my business partner") is borderline fraudulent.

[Kris]

RDPD can contain important principles for money management while also be written by a flawed author, some of whose advice ("My Cat is my business partner") is borderline fraudulent.

Agreed. I gave it to my younger stepdaughter, and it seems to have been a life-changer for her. But as I said, I re-read it before I gave it to her, and was grossed out by some of the gross stuff just barely under the surface.

[ixtap]

That's the thing about the prosperity gospel and it's secular equivalents. If you value human life by net worth, then you will devalue the oppressed every time.

It also tends to lead to a view, once the leading view for common law, that the law, and hence law enforcement, have a primary duty to preserve property. Life, especially that of those who don't have money, is secondary, or lower.

[nereo]

RDPD can contain important principles for money management while also be written by a flawed author, some of whose advice ("My Cat is my business partner") is borderline fraudulent.

I would still recommend the book with reservations.  I'd try to provide a bit of context.
But I advise everyone to stay the hell away from the author, his 'wealth seminars' and most of all his ideological ramblings.

[Paper Chaser]

I've long held a theory that once you reach a certain net worth, tweeting can only be a bad thing for you. I haven't exactly nailed down the "net worth threshold" where tweeting becomes more costly than beneficial but it seems to get lower all the time.

[iris lily]

I didnt need to see or ascribe racist or  populist ideals to this author to dislike him personally. His writing style, the galloping breathless hucksterism, turned me off him.

But I give him credit for pounding the idea of “real estate as a liability” so that more people understood it.

[mathlete]

Doesn't surprise me at all that Kiyosaki is kind of an asshole.

ixtap, "secular prosperity gospel" is a great term for it.

If people find his advice helpful or transformative, that's good for them. Lord knows you don't have to agree with everything a person thinks or feels to appreciate their work. I love John Lennon's music even though he was a hypocrite who beat his wife. I know a lot of children of the 1980s have complicated feelings towards Bill Cosby.

There's only on Lennon and one Cosby. Luckily, there's lots of financial gurus out there, and Kiyosaki won't make the list of people I tell any future kids of mine about. All of the gurus are going to have their underlying philosophies woven in, but I think picking a guru who takes a Trumpian tact of breaking people down into winners and losers is a recipe for misery.

[Kris]

Doesn't surprise me at all that Kiyosaki is kind of an asshole.

ixtap, "secular prosperity gospel" is a great term for it.

If people find his advice helpful or transformative, that's good for them. Lord knows you don't have to agree with everything a person thinks or feels to appreciate their work. I love John Lennon's music even though he was a hypocrite who beat his wife. I know a lot of children of the 1980s have complicated feelings towards Bill Cosby.

There's only on Lennon and one Cosby. Luckily, there's lots of financial gurus out there, and Kiyosaki won't make the list of people I tell any future kids of mine about. All of the gurus are going to have their underlying philosophies woven in, but I think picking a guru who takes a Trumpian tact of breaking people down into winners and losers is a recipe for misery.

I completely agree. Normally, I would not have given his book to my stepdaughter. But she is intellectually challenged, and I sensed that the surface ideas presented in such a black and white fashion would resonate with her in a way that could stick in her brain. And thankfully, I was right. She's not a nuanced thinker, so I needed something that would stop her from throwing her money out the window the way she has been.

[DadJokes]

I've long held a theory that once you reach a certain net worth, tweeting can only be a bad thing for you. I haven't exactly nailed down the "net worth threshold" where tweeting becomes more costly than beneficial but it seems to get lower all the time.

Not tweeting can get you in trouble too.

A few weeks ago, athletes & organizations were getting called out for not tweeting about racial inequality. I saw people with freaking spreadsheets keeping track of which NHL teams tweeted what, including check boxes for specific words/phrases, including "George Floyd," "murder," etc. Bullying people & organizations into saying what you want them to say doesn't do anything to solve racial inequality.

One athlete specifically called out major stars in a couple sports (Tom Brady & Sidney Crosby) about not tweeting about the incident. Sidney Crosby doesn't even have a Twitter account, but that didn't stop people from following that athlete's lead and calling him out.

We live in very Orwellian times. However, instead of the government trying to control everyone's thoughts and actions, we have keyboard warriors bullying anyone who doesn't toe the line.

As for RDPD's post, that was a pretty dumb thing to say. I've long considered him a scam artist, so it's not like my opinion of him has changed.

[RetiredAt63]

Doesn't surprise me at all that Kiyosaki is kind of an asshole.

ixtap, "secular prosperity gospel" is a great term for it.

If people find his advice helpful or transformative, that's good for them. Lord knows you don't have to agree with everything a person thinks or feels to appreciate their work. I love John Lennon's music even though he was a hypocrite who beat his wife. I know a lot of children of the 1980s have complicated feelings towards Bill Cosby.

There's only on Lennon and one Cosby. Luckily, there's lots of financial gurus out there, and Kiyosaki won't make the list of people I tell any future kids of mine about. All of the gurus are going to have their underlying philosophies woven in, but I think picking a guru who takes a Trumpian tact of breaking people down into winners and losers is a recipe for misery.

The Cosby stuff was a shock.  So is the John Lennon stuff, I had no idea.  Another statue of its pedestal, metaphorically speaking. 

[mathlete]

I've long held a theory that once you reach a certain net worth, tweeting can only be a bad thing for you. I haven't exactly nailed down the "net worth threshold" where tweeting becomes more costly than beneficial but it seems to get lower all the time.

Not tweeting can get you in trouble too.

A few weeks ago, athletes & organizations were getting called out for not tweeting about racial inequality. I saw people with freaking spreadsheets keeping track of which NHL teams tweeted what, including check boxes for specific words/phrases, including "George Floyd," "murder," etc. Bullying people & organizations into saying what you want them to say doesn't do anything to solve racial inequality.

One athlete specifically called out major stars in a couple sports (Tom Brady & Sidney Crosby) about not tweeting about the incident. Sidney Crosby doesn't even have a Twitter account, but that didn't stop people from following that athlete's lead and calling him out.

We live in very Orwellian times. However, instead of the government trying to control everyone's thoughts and actions, we have keyboard warriors bullying anyone who doesn't toe the line.

As for RDPD's post, that was a pretty dumb thing to say. I've long considered him a scam artist, so it's not like my opinion of him has changed.

I didn't see the spreadsheet stuff. That seems silly. But pressuring public figures and leaders to speak out against injustice doesn't seem that bad to me.

Tom Brady and Sidney Crosby are going to be fine. Brady is about as apolitical as public figures get. He famously had a MAGA hat in his locker and has been friendly with Donald Trump. But I don't think I've ever heard him express a political opinion in my life. And he's fine. At 43, he's the most bankable name in the NFL and just signed a $50 million fully guaranteed contract. And I think most people still like him. Including me, who hopes Donald Trump's heart will stop today. Brady is gonna be okay.

The bold is an extremely odd thing to write when we're seeing the government send stormtroopers into crowds to beat and gas people who are using their first amendment rights.

Cancel culture is weird and kind of crappy, but let's not lose sight of problems that actually matter.

[nereo]

IDK - if you are a pro-athlete today you are expected to be a role model to some degree, even moreso if you are a superstar pulling in 7 or 8 figures a year.  And in a way I get it... your insane wealth is at least in part because you are selling jerseys and tickets, people are coming to see you.  So neurality and silence isn't much of an option.  At the same time I think we look up to sports figures more than we should.  Why should a young guy who can hit harder or kick further or endure pain longer than most have more insight into our world than, say, a teacher or city selectman who is twice their age?

[mathlete]

IDK - if you are a pro-athlete today you are expected to be a role model to some degree, even moreso if you are a superstar pulling in 7 or 8 figures a year.  And in a way I get it... your insane wealth is at least in part because you are selling jerseys and tickets, people are coming to see you.  So neurality and silence isn't much of an option.  At the same time I think we look up to sports figures more than we should.  Why should a young guy who can hit harder or kick further or endure pain longer than most have more insight into our world than, say, a teacher or city selectman who is twice their age?

It's just the way things are. In an ideal world, the strongest role models in a young person's life would be their parents and teachers. My nephew's father is a felon and (thankfully) now absent, though not before doing some serious damage. His mother is a good person, but struggles with mental health issues and has to work all the time. He's moved schools several times because of his mom's work or his own behavioral problems, so building relationships with teachers is hard too. I'm a pretty great role model if you'll forgive the immodesty. But I'm just an uncle. And I don't even live close anymore, so my availability is limited.

You know who is always available though? Minecraft youtubers (or sports figures or actors or whomever speaks to the kid in a way that resonates with them).

Everyone can have their own opinion on whether it's Tom Brady's responsibility to speak out against systemic oppression that has benefited him against the extent of others. I'd be nice if he did, but he's kind of a dummy. And there are other, better people in his profession to speak on those issues. I'm just happy that he doesn't say anything super shitty like what Kiyosaki said.

So celebrities don't have to be role models. But I think it's better if they are.

[solon]

IDK - if you are a pro-athlete today you are expected to be a role model to some degree, even moreso if you are a superstar pulling in 7 or 8 figures a year.  And in a way I get it... your insane wealth is at least in part because you are selling jerseys and tickets, people are coming to see you.  So neurality and silence isn't much of an option.  At the same time I think we look up to sports figures more than we should.  Why should a young guy who can hit harder or kick further or endure pain longer than most have more insight into our world than, say, a teacher or city selectman who is twice their age?

I think it's the opposite. BECAUSE your insane wealth comes from selling jerseys and tickets, it's very important that you not alienate any portion of your fan base. As soon as you take a side, the other side is no longer buying your tickets. A lot of celebrities are staying silent for this reason. And the ones who do take a side have a polarizing affect.

[solon]

I think it's important to bring your brain to a book (or speaker, or teacher). Most authors have something valuable to say; NO author is completely correct about everything. Robert Kiyosaki introduced me to the idea of buying assets that produce income, and I am indebted to him for that. The rest of his book is mostly fluff, however, and we need to be able to find the good parts and throw out the bad parts. Even MMM is like this. I love most of what he says, but not everything. In fact, I challenge you to find one single author who you agree with on everything.

[DadJokes]

IDK - if you are a pro-athlete today you are expected to be a role model to some degree, even moreso if you are a superstar pulling in 7 or 8 figures a year.  And in a way I get it... your insane wealth is at least in part because you are selling jerseys and tickets, people are coming to see you.  So neurality and silence isn't much of an option.  At the same time I think we look up to sports figures more than we should.  Why should a young guy who can hit harder or kick further or endure pain longer than most have more insight into our world than, say, a teacher or city selectman who is twice their age?

I think it's the opposite. BECAUSE your insane wealth comes from selling jerseys and tickets, it's very important that you not alienate any portion of your fan base. As soon as you take a side, the other side is no longer buying your tickets. A lot of celebrities are staying silent for this reason. And the ones who do take a side have a polarizing affect.

I'm all for athletes coming out with a statement about the state of racial inequality. I don't think that's a political issue. However, I'm not for calling people out who choose not to make a statement.

I did greatly respect Michael Jordan for staying out of endorsing politicians when people wanted him to and especially loved his line, "Republicans buy sneakers too." Like, who is going to be swayed to vote one way or another because an athlete/entertainer speaks their mind?

[mathlete]

I'm all for athletes coming out with a statement about the state of racial inequality. I don't think that's a political issue. However, I'm not for calling people out who choose not to make a statement.

I did greatly respect Michael Jordan for staying out of endorsing politicians when people wanted him to and especially loved his line, "Republicans buy sneakers too." Like, who is going to be swayed to vote one way or another because an athlete/entertainer speaks their mind?

I think it can have an impact. Public support for the BLM movement was actually negative for the first few years of its existence. Slowly, it turned positive, and it's skyrocketed in the past few weeks.

I think part of that is that people now realize that guys like Colin Kaepernick tried to bring attention to the issue of police brutality in a peaceful and constructive manner and were shut out. Now, police brutality has reared its head in a very public fashion and we have civil unrest, violence against protesters from the police, violence against businesses from agitators.

I believe there's a lot of people rethinking the whole Kaepernick episode right now.

[Padonak]

I've long held a theory that once you reach a certain net worth, tweeting can only be a bad thing for you. I haven't exactly nailed down the "net worth threshold" where tweeting becomes more costly than beneficial but it seems to get lower all the time.

That cut-off is minus infinity. In other words, tweeting can only be a bad thing for you.

[DadJokes]

I'm all for athletes coming out with a statement about the state of racial inequality. I don't think that's a political issue. However, I'm not for calling people out who choose not to make a statement.

I did greatly respect Michael Jordan for staying out of endorsing politicians when people wanted him to and especially loved his line, "Republicans buy sneakers too." Like, who is going to be swayed to vote one way or another because an athlete/entertainer speaks their mind?

I think it can have an impact. Public support for the BLM movement was actually negative for the first few years of its existence. Slowly, it turned positive, and it's skyrocketed in the past few weeks.

I think part of that is that people now realize that guys like Colin Kaepernick tried to bring attention to the issue of police brutality in a peaceful and constructive manner and were shut out. Now, police brutality has reared its head in a very public fashion and we have civil unrest, violence against protesters from the police, violence against businesses from agitators.

I believe there's a lot of people rethinking the whole Kaepernick episode right now.

One person with a cell phone camera did more for BLM than Kaepernick ever did. That's not a knock on Kaep, but just reality.

It's unfortunate that we had to see racism with our own eyes before we decided do anything about it.

[AlanStache]

I'm all for athletes coming out with a statement about the state of racial inequality. I don't think that's a political issue. However, I'm not for calling people out who choose not to make a statement.

I did greatly respect Michael Jordan for staying out of endorsing politicians when people wanted him to and especially loved his line, "Republicans buy sneakers too." Like, who is going to be swayed to vote one way or another because an athlete/entertainer speaks their mind?

I think it can have an impact. Public support for the BLM movement was actually negative for the first few years of its existence. Slowly, it turned positive, and it's skyrocketed in the past few weeks.

I think part of that is that people now realize that guys like Colin Kaepernick tried to bring attention to the issue of police brutality in a peaceful and constructive manner and were shut out. Now, police brutality has reared its head in a very public fashion and we have civil unrest, violence against protesters from the police, violence against businesses from agitators.

I believe there's a lot of people rethinking the whole Kaepernick episode right now.

One person with a cell phone camera did more for BLM than Kaepernick ever did. That's not a knock on Kaep, but just reality.

It's unfortunate that we had to see racism with our own eyes before we decided do anything about it.

The stage first had to be set, how may other videos of excessive force have been out there that did not spark the current environment?

How could anyone have not been seeing racism?

[Chris22]

IDK - if you are a pro-athlete today you are expected to be a role model to some degree, even moreso if you are a superstar pulling in 7 or 8 figures a year.  And in a way I get it... your insane wealth is at least in part because you are selling jerseys and tickets, people are coming to see you.  So neurality and silence isn't much of an option.  At the same time I think we look up to sports figures more than we should.  Why should a young guy who can hit harder or kick further or endure pain longer than most have more insight into our world than, say, a teacher or city selectman who is twice their age?

“Republicans buy sneakers too.”

-M. Jordan

Also: “Fuck them kids” - MJ. lol


Edit: didn’t read far enough to see DadJokes brought this up too

[Chris22]

IDK - if you are a pro-athlete today you are expected to be a role model to some degree, even moreso if you are a superstar pulling in 7 or 8 figures a year.  And in a way I get it... your insane wealth is at least in part because you are selling jerseys and tickets, people are coming to see you.  So neurality and silence isn't much of an option.  At the same time I think we look up to sports figures more than we should.  Why should a young guy who can hit harder or kick further or endure pain longer than most have more insight into our world than, say, a teacher or city selectman who is twice their age?

I think it's the opposite. BECAUSE your insane wealth comes from selling jerseys and tickets, it's very important that you not alienate any portion of your fan base. As soon as you take a side, the other side is no longer buying your tickets. A lot of celebrities are staying silent for this reason. And the ones who do take a side have a polarizing affect.

I'm all for athletes coming out with a statement about the state of racial inequality. I don't think that's a political issue. However, I'm not for calling people out who choose not to make a statement.

I did greatly respect Michael Jordan for staying out of endorsing politicians when people wanted him to and especially loved his line, "Republicans buy sneakers too." Like, who is going to be swayed to vote one way or another because an athlete/entertainer speaks their mind?

A neighbor and I were talking about this when it first started. We aren’t anywhere near Brady or Kaep or Jordan rich, but we are privileged upper middle white straight suburban dads. Why the fuck does anyone care what we might have to say on the issue?  Anything I might say feels cheap and pandering and virtue signally. So I didn’t say a word about it, although there were a couple videos and articles I liked and shared.

But it’s like that video game company and the rainbow logo we discussed in another thread; if you say a little people wonder why you didn’t say more. Or some people on the other side get mad you said anything. Or you said it the wrong way or whatever. Or you just parrot the party line and come off as pandering. I’m guessing most people don’t have anything truly profound to say. So STFU seems the best strategy.

[J Boogie]

I'm all for athletes coming out with a statement about the state of racial inequality. I don't think that's a political issue. However, I'm not for calling people out who choose not to make a statement.

I did greatly respect Michael Jordan for staying out of endorsing politicians when people wanted him to and especially loved his line, "Republicans buy sneakers too." Like, who is going to be swayed to vote one way or another because an athlete/entertainer speaks their mind?

I think it can have an impact. Public support for the BLM movement was actually negative for the first few years of its existence. Slowly, it turned positive, and it's skyrocketed in the past few weeks.

I think part of that is that people now realize that guys like Colin Kaepernick tried to bring attention to the issue of police brutality in a peaceful and constructive manner and were shut out. Now, police brutality has reared its head in a very public fashion and we have civil unrest, violence against protesters from the police, violence against businesses from agitators.

I believe there's a lot of people rethinking the whole Kaepernick episode right now.

One person with a cell phone camera did more for BLM than Kaepernick ever did. That's not a knock on Kaep, but just reality.

It's unfortunate that we had to see racism with our own eyes before we decided do anything about it.

Well, you've got quite a few more factors to throw in the mix, notably a pandemic.

I think another factor that has benefited BLM quite a bit recently is just HOW unjustified the police killings of black people have been lately.

I think BLM had so many more detractors a few years ago because of their bias in evaluating any violent altercation between police and a black person.

A good example of a questionable protest from BLM was the Thurman Blevins shooting in Minneapolis in 2018.  Officers responded to a complaints they received about a man firing a weapon into the air. They found the shooter, told him to drop his weapon, and he fled. They chased him and when he pointed the gun in their direction they shot and killed him.

It was announced that no charges would be filed against the officers, and BLM blocked intersections in downtown Mpls.

I am, and I suspect others are, far more sympathetic to a cause when the protesters are protesting a clear instance of injustice.

[nereo]

IDK - if you are a pro-athlete today you are expected to be a role model to some degree, even moreso if you are a superstar pulling in 7 or 8 figures a year.  And in a way I get it... your insane wealth is at least in part because you are selling jerseys and tickets, people are coming to see you.  So neurality and silence isn't much of an option.  At the same time I think we look up to sports figures more than we should.  Why should a young guy who can hit harder or kick further or endure pain longer than most have more insight into our world than, say, a teacher or city selectman who is twice their age?

I think it's the opposite. BECAUSE your insane wealth comes from selling jerseys and tickets, it's very important that you not alienate any portion of your fan base. As soon as you take a side, the other side is no longer buying your tickets. A lot of celebrities are staying silent for this reason. And the ones who do take a side have a polarizing affect.

I'm all for athletes coming out with a statement about the state of racial inequality. I don't think that's a political issue. However, I'm not for calling people out who choose not to make a statement.

I did greatly respect Michael Jordan for staying out of endorsing politicians when people wanted him to and especially loved his line, "Republicans buy sneakers too." Like, who is going to be swayed to vote one way or another because an athlete/entertainer speaks their mind?

A neighbor and I were talking about this when it first started. We aren’t anywhere near Brady or Kaep or Jordan rich, but we are privileged upper middle white straight suburban dads. Why the fuck does anyone care what we might have to say on the issue?  Anything I might say feels cheap and pandering and virtue signally. So I didn’t say a word about it, although there were a couple videos and articles I liked and shared.

But it’s like that video game company and the rainbow logo we discussed in another thread; if you say a little people wonder why you didn’t say more. Or some people on the other side get mad you said anything. Or you said it the wrong way or whatever. Or you just parrot the party line and come off as pandering. I’m guessing most people don’t have anything truly profound to say. So STFU seems the best strategy.

My issue with the 'STFU' strategy is that this is very likely what has allowed these issues to persist for as long as they have.
NOT talking about something rarely ends well, even when talking about it can be a minefield.

Here's food for thought; my neighbor was talking to me about some training his workplace was doing, and it included discussions about race, racism and what was and wasn't appropriate and what some people found offensive or a challenge that wasn't even an issue for your standard white educated male.  Everyone in his training session was white. One guy told the person leading the discussion that he didn't feel comfrotable even discussing these topics and asked to leave.  According to my neighbor this guy was also the one who had the most issues and harbored a bunch of negative stereotypes, even though he described himself as "not caring about a person's skin color".

[mathlete]

One person with a cell phone camera did more for BLM than Kaepernick ever did. That's not a knock on Kaep, but just reality.

It's unfortunate that we had to see racism with our own eyes before we decided do anything about it.

It's the confluence of a lot of things. Sadly, one thing we're not short on is video footage of the police brutalizing or killing unarmed black men. Eric Garner comes to mind, from 2014. Also a black man detained by the police for a petty crime. Also choked. Also begged for his life (11 times). Also on camera.

Kaep isn't solely responsibly for the last month. But he played his part. In 2016/17, white America resoundingly said "no" to his means of peaceful protest, and as such, they completely gave up moral authority to criticize the 2020 protests.

[mathlete]

Well, you've got quite a few more factors to throw in the mix, notably a pandemic.

I think another factor that has benefited BLM quite a bit recently is just HOW unjustified the police killings of black people have been lately.

I think BLM had so many more detractors a few years ago because of their bias in evaluating any violent altercation between police and a black person.

A good example of a questionable protest from BLM was the Thurman Blevins shooting in Minneapolis in 2018.  Officers responded to a complaints they received about a man firing a weapon into the air. They found the shooter, told him to drop his weapon, and he fled. They chased him and when he pointed the gun in their direction they shot and killed him.

It was announced that no charges would be filed against the officers, and BLM blocked intersections in downtown Mpls.

I am, and I suspect others are, far more sympathetic to a cause when the protesters are protesting a clear instance of injustice.

If only they had chosen better incidences to protest. If only they hadn't disrespected the troops I mean disrespected the flag I mean tried to make our sport with military flyovers political. If only they had made the slogan "All Lives Matter" instead of being divisive.

There is no logical reason for it. There is no standard of conduct that white people truly believe that Kaep or BLM could have held themselves to before they would collectively say, "Okay, now we're talking. Let's address inequity since you're doing it 'the right way'." They just simply didn't care, or they were openly hostile because they didn't want to think about how maybe America isn't the perfect meritocracy while turning their brain off to some football.

People don't listen until you make them listen, and they don't care until you make them care. Racial inequity is and always has been the problem of racists. Not with how BLM or anyone else has conducted themselves.

It also bears mentioning that someone does not have to be a perfect angel to merit humane treatment from the police that they pay for. This happens with every victim. Thurman Blevins sounds like an idiot, but remember that Dylan Roof, James Holmes, and any number of white men who committed mass murder, were taken into custody unharmed. Rayshard Brooks shouldn't have been drinking and driving and falling asleep in the Wendy's drivethru, but he's a different skin color away from this being a "Lol Floridaman" story. etc.

[Roland of Gilead]

Rayshard Brooks shouldn't have been drinking and driving and falling asleep in the Wendy's drivethru, but he's a different skin color away from this being a "Lol Floridaman" story. etc.

I think they are going way overboard with the Rayshard Brooks charge of felony murder on the cops.  From what I have read, the guy stole a taser and shot one officer, then ran away, turned and pointed it at the officer who then shot him (the taser has 2 charges from what I read).  There have been other cases where lawyers have argued a taser is in fact a deadly weapon so the shooting could be justified based on that.

It seems a much different situation than choking a unarmed man for 9 min on the ground.

(I also probably am biased here, not on race, but on the drunk driving, which I view as attempted murder.  I had a very close friend killed by a drunk driver)

[ixtap]

Rayshard Brooks shouldn't have been drinking and driving and falling asleep in the Wendy's drivethru, but he's a different skin color away from this being a "Lol Floridaman" story. etc.

I think they are going way overboard with the Rayshard Brooks charge of felony murder on the cops.  From what I have read, the guy stole a taser and shot one officer, then ran away, turned and pointed it at the officer who then shot him (the taser has 2 charges from what I read).  There have been other cases where lawyers have argued a taser is in fact a deadly weapon so the shooting could be justified based on that.

It seems a much different situation than choking a unarmed man for 9 min on the ground.

(I also probably am biased here, not on race, but on the drunk driving, which I view as attempted murder.  I had a very close friend killed by a drunk driver)

How do you shoot someone in the back if you are in danger of being shot by them with a taser?

[js82]

Rayshard Brooks shouldn't have been drinking and driving and falling asleep in the Wendy's drivethru, but he's a different skin color away from this being a "Lol Floridaman" story. etc.

I think they are going way overboard with the Rayshard Brooks charge of felony murder on the cops.  From what I have read, the guy stole a taser and shot one officer, then ran away, turned and pointed it at the officer who then shot him (the taser has 2 charges from what I read).  There have been other cases where lawyers have argued a taser is in fact a deadly weapon so the shooting could be justified based on that.

It seems a much different situation than choking a unarmed man for 9 min on the ground.

(I also probably am biased here, not on race, but on the drunk driving, which I view as attempted murder.  I had a very close friend killed by a drunk driver)

You omitted the part where afterwards, the cop kicked him while he was on the ground, bleeding to death.

Regardless of whether you think responding to taser fire with gunfire is a legitimate act, there is nothing that can justify kicking a defenseless man who is lying on the ground, bleeding to death.  That's clear criminal behavior.

[J Boogie]

Well, you've got quite a few more factors to throw in the mix, notably a pandemic.

I think another factor that has benefited BLM quite a bit recently is just HOW unjustified the police killings of black people have been lately.

I think BLM had so many more detractors a few years ago because of their bias in evaluating any violent altercation between police and a black person.

A good example of a questionable protest from BLM was the Thurman Blevins shooting in Minneapolis in 2018.  Officers responded to a complaints they received about a man firing a weapon into the air. They found the shooter, told him to drop his weapon, and he fled. They chased him and when he pointed the gun in their direction they shot and killed him.

It was announced that no charges would be filed against the officers, and BLM blocked intersections in downtown Mpls.

I am, and I suspect others are, far more sympathetic to a cause when the protesters are protesting a clear instance of injustice.

If only they had chosen better incidences to protest. If only they hadn't disrespected the troops I mean disrespected the flag I mean tried to make our sport with military flyovers political. If only they had made the slogan "All Lives Matter" instead of being divisive.

There is no logical reason for it. There is no standard of conduct that white people truly believe that Kaep or BLM could have held themselves to before they would collectively say, "Okay, now we're talking. Let's address inequity since you're doing it 'the right way'." They just simply didn't care, or they were openly hostile because they didn't want to think about how maybe America isn't the perfect meritocracy while turning their brain off to some football.

People don't listen until you make them listen, and they don't care until you make them care. Racial inequity is and always has been the problem of racists. Not with how BLM or anyone else has conducted themselves.

It also bears mentioning that someone does not have to be a perfect angel to merit humane treatment from the police that they pay for. This happens with every victim. Thurman Blevins sounds like an idiot, but remember that Dylan Roof, James Holmes, and any number of white men who committed mass murder, were taken into custody unharmed. Rayshard Brooks shouldn't have been drinking and driving and falling asleep in the Wendy's drivethru, but he's a different skin color away from this being a "Lol Floridaman" story. etc.

You're lumping a valid complaint of BLM in with a bunch of invalid ones.

My point is that BLM has demonstrated time and time again that the truth is less important to them than furthering their cause. 

The idea that the importance of a cause would require accepting dishonesty from those entrusted with leading it doesn't make sense to me.

I supported the cause and the statement BLM since the beginning but have always disliked the organization's disregard of facts.

[Bloop Bloop]

I think what Kiyosaki said was reprehensible.

I also think BLM protestors are mainly doing it in good faith.

There are some who are not, though. The Australian BLM rallies have been infiltrated by the usual socialist-left political interest groups. I also disagree with the central message of the Australian BLM rallies which is that 430 indigenous Australians have died in custody over the past 30 years (or whatever), therefore there must be a problem with police treatment of blacks. Because that figure includes accidental deaths, suicides, overdoses etc (you cannot in good faith attribute that to police brutality). And also because the figure is in line with usual rates of death in custody.

The actual problem is that more indigenous Australians are incarcerated than white Australians and Asians. It's not that they are treated particularly badly once in custody.

The high rate of incarceration might be due to police bias but it might also be due to judicial bias or societal bias. But of course that dilutes the messaging so the BLM organisers focus on "police brutality" though there is simply no evidence of that here in Australia.

So I'm quite sceptical of the messaging and the politics of the BLM movement here in Australia even if I agree with the notion that there is racial inequality that needs to be addressed.

[Roland of Gilead]

You omitted the part where afterwards, the cop kicked him while he was on the ground, bleeding to death.

Regardless of whether you think responding to taser fire with gunfire is a legitimate act, there is nothing that can justify kicking a defenseless man who is lying on the ground, bleeding to death.  That's clear criminal behavior.

Kicking someone who just shot at you might be criminal behavior but it isn't felony murder worthy.

[ixtap]

You omitted the part where afterwards, the cop kicked him while he was on the ground, bleeding to death.

Regardless of whether you think responding to taser fire with gunfire is a legitimate act, there is nothing that can justify kicking a defenseless man who is lying on the ground, bleeding to death.  That's clear criminal behavior.

Kicking someone who just shot at you might be criminal behavior but it isn't felony murder worthy.

It says a lot about your state of mind when you shot them, though, which is how these things are determined.

[Roland of Gilead]

It says a lot about your state of mind when you shot them, though, which is how these things are determined.

Oh, I am sure the officer was in a pissed off state of mind.  If I had been dealing with a drunk person in a car who fired a weapon at me I would be in a kicking mood too.  Now personally, I don't think I would kick someone after I shot them, unless I was making sure they were not faking or I was just mad that the situation escalated to that point.

I think the officer should be fired but felony murder is overboard.   Felony murder should be the situation where a police officer is dealing drugs on the side and gets involved in a shootout with dealers, something like that, not this.

[ixtap]

It says a lot about your state of mind when you shot them, though, which is how these things are determined.

Oh, I am sure the officer was in a pissed off state of mind.  If I had been dealing with a drunk person in a car who fired a weapon at me I would be in a kicking mood too.  Now personally, I don't think I would kick someone after I shot them, unless I was making sure they were not faking or I was just mad that the situation escalated to that point.

I think the officer should be fired but felony murder is overboard.   Felony murder should be the situation where a police officer is dealing drugs on the side and gets involved in a shootout with dealers, something like that, not this.

That sounds like capital murder.

[marty998]

It says a lot about your state of mind when you shot them, though, which is how these things are determined.

Oh, I am sure the officer was in a pissed off state of mind.  If I had been dealing with a drunk person in a car who fired a weapon at me I would be in a kicking mood too.  Now personally, I don't think I would kick someone after I shot them, unless I was making sure they were not faking or I was just mad that the situation escalated to that point.

I think the officer should be fired but felony murder is overboard.   Felony murder should be the situation where a police officer is dealing drugs on the side and gets involved in a shootout with dealers, something like that, not this.

I haven't seen the video of the incident (all 41 minutes of it) but from the news reports I've read:

- The officers were with Rayshard for almost half an hour before things escalated, asking questions and performing a breathalyser test. The test returned 0.108.
- They had already determined he did not have a weapon via a pat down.
- The officers attempted to handcuff him and had not read him his rights. A scuffle started.
- He stole a taser in the scuffle. The taser had already been used twice (during the scuffle?) so is inoperable.
- Rayshard was 18 feet away from the officer when he was shot twice in the back. Clearly running away, and at a distance where a taser is regardless ineffective.
- A third bullet was fired and was found lodged in a car waiting in the drive-through line

Officers need to be held to a higher standard. The potential for abuse from authority is so high that a higher standard needs to be set. If he can't deescalate a situation with an unarmed drunk person then he has no business being an officer.

Absolutely this is felony murder, you don't just go shooting people in the back when clearly someone is running away from you. You also don't recklessly fire a weapon into another bystander vehicle, putting the public in danger.

Throw the full force of the law at the guy. If it was a random citizen shooting a random citizen after an incident of for example road rage we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[Bloop Bloop]

The problems that American society faces mostly stem from the American obsession with guns as a symbol of masculinity, power, etc

In most countries if you like guns (for anything other than strictly controlled sport shooting or non-sport hunting) you're seen, rightly I think, as a weirdo with something to compensate for. In America you have all these people of not a great deal of intelligence walking around with penis substitutes pointing them at one another. This includes a lot of cops who don't have the intellect or emotional stability to practise de-escalation.

American culture encourages gun violence. It's sad and a little pathetic that so many men (and it's almost always men) feel the need to compensate for their little penises by carrying around a weapon.

[marty998]

The problems that American society faces mostly stem from the American obsession with guns as a symbol of masculinity, power, etc

In most countries if you like guns (for anything other than strictly controlled sport shooting or non-sport hunting) you're seen, rightly I think, as a weirdo with something to compensate for. In America you have all these people of not a great deal of intelligence walking around with penis substitutes pointing them at one another. This includes a lot of cops who don't have the intellect or emotional stability to practise de-escalation.

American culture encourages gun violence. It's sad and a little pathetic that so many men (and it's almost always men) feel the need to compensate for their little penises by carrying around a weapon.

America is 330 million people. Fair to say not all of them glorify the use of guns. Just as you wouldn't want me lumping you in with your garden variety boorish drunk Aussie with southern cross tatts who can be found being a dickhead in Bali?

[Bloop Bloop]

Look, we Aussies have a real problem with alcohol/macho culture, I'm not gonna deny that. And even if I'm not one of those singlet wearing bogans, I can still contribute to it every time I normalise excessive drinking, getting drunk, etc. We each have a role to play by calling it out and Americans also have a role to play by trying to get rid of the macho bullshit.

Clearly not all 330 million Americans are pro-gun, but enough of them are (even if they don't themselves buy/use guns) that there's a huge cultural miasma, just like too many of us Australians allow the drinking culture to flourish. We have to call out that cultural poison when we see it.

[Travis]

Since we're talking about Atlanta here, apparently it's possible to deal with a suspect shooting you with your own  taser without killing them.

https://www.fox43.com/mobile/article/news/york-county-man-accused-of-using-taser-device-on-state-trooper-while-resisting-arrest/521-42183b3e-a5c2-45d1-a675-1cd4e58aecff

[2Birds1Stone]

Y'all have to realize that Roberts white privelage blinds him to this very sensitive topic. RDPD was trash anyway.

[talltexan]

Pretty sure Robert Kiyosaki is not white. It doesn't rule out that he might have benefitted from other kinds of privilege.

In Hawai'i, he may have been better than white. But I think the real estate transactions that made him wealthy all took place on the mainland.

[mathlete]

Well, you've got quite a few more factors to throw in the mix, notably a pandemic.

I think another factor that has benefited BLM quite a bit recently is just HOW unjustified the police killings of black people have been lately.

I think BLM had so many more detractors a few years ago because of their bias in evaluating any violent altercation between police and a black person.

A good example of a questionable protest from BLM was the Thurman Blevins shooting in Minneapolis in 2018.  Officers responded to a complaints they received about a man firing a weapon into the air. They found the shooter, told him to drop his weapon, and he fled. They chased him and when he pointed the gun in their direction they shot and killed him.

It was announced that no charges would be filed against the officers, and BLM blocked intersections in downtown Mpls.

I am, and I suspect others are, far more sympathetic to a cause when the protesters are protesting a clear instance of injustice.

If only they had chosen better incidences to protest. If only they hadn't disrespected the troops I mean disrespected the flag I mean tried to make our sport with military flyovers political. If only they had made the slogan "All Lives Matter" instead of being divisive.

There is no logical reason for it. There is no standard of conduct that white people truly believe that Kaep or BLM could have held themselves to before they would collectively say, "Okay, now we're talking. Let's address inequity since you're doing it 'the right way'." They just simply didn't care, or they were openly hostile because they didn't want to think about how maybe America isn't the perfect meritocracy while turning their brain off to some football.

People don't listen until you make them listen, and they don't care until you make them care. Racial inequity is and always has been the problem of racists. Not with how BLM or anyone else has conducted themselves.

It also bears mentioning that someone does not have to be a perfect angel to merit humane treatment from the police that they pay for. This happens with every victim. Thurman Blevins sounds like an idiot, but remember that Dylan Roof, James Holmes, and any number of white men who committed mass murder, were taken into custody unharmed. Rayshard Brooks shouldn't have been drinking and driving and falling asleep in the Wendy's drivethru, but he's a different skin color away from this being a "Lol Floridaman" story. etc.

You're lumping a valid complaint of BLM in with a bunch of invalid ones.

My point is that BLM has demonstrated time and time again that the truth is less important to them than furthering their cause. 

The idea that the importance of a cause would require accepting dishonesty from those entrusted with leading it doesn't make sense to me.

I supported the cause and the statement BLM since the beginning but have always disliked the organization's disregard of facts.

I think calling it an organizational disregard for fact is too harsh. Any cause paints things in the light that is most positive for them. That’s a fundamental criticism of human beings and I’m sure you could have said similar things about the Civil Rights movement.

If you think protesting Thurman Blevins’s death was a bad miscalculation, then I accept that as a reasonable disagreement in opinion. I think it was probably a net good because BLM is about more than wrongful police killings. It’s about disproportionately bad treatment at the hands of police and other institutions. But if you think the optics weren’t worth it, I understand that. What I really disagreed with though, is decisions like that is why BLM as a movement has had an uphill climb. You’ve been on board since the beginning because you’re a non racist person and probably a critical thinker. Opposition to BLM thus far has been from racists and people who haven’t wanted to deal with the discomfort that comes from critical thinking. I don’t think you change those minds be shrewdly electing not to protest for Blevins.

[mathlete]

Pretty sure Robert Kiyosaki is not white. It doesn't rule out that he might have benefitted from other kinds of privilege.

In Hawai'i, he may have been better than white. But I think the real estate transactions that made him wealthy all took place on the mainland.

Lol yeah. Kiyosaki would be a pretty interesting last name for a white man.

IMO the problem with Kiyosaki is that he sees wealth as the ultimate validation. And I suspect that
He has little regard for how that wealth came to be.

[Kris]

The problems that American society faces mostly stem from the American obsession with guns as a symbol of masculinity, power, etc

In most countries if you like guns (for anything other than strictly controlled sport shooting or non-sport hunting) you're seen, rightly I think, as a weirdo with something to compensate for. In America you have all these people of not a great deal of intelligence walking around with penis substitutes pointing them at one another. This includes a lot of cops who don't have the intellect or emotional stability to practise de-escalation.

American culture encourages gun violence. It's sad and a little pathetic that so many men (and it's almost always men) feel the need to compensate for their little penises by carrying around a weapon.

America is 330 million people. Fair to say not all of them glorify the use of guns. Just as you wouldn't want me lumping you in with your garden variety boorish drunk Aussie with southern cross tatts who can be found being a dickhead in Bali?

I mean, I’m an American gun owner, and I kinda agree with Bloop on this one.