[History] What was the Black Panther party all about?

[Deleted]

I'm pretty sure it had something to do with Wakanda's rich Vibranium deposits.

[breadisfunny]

They are essentially the minority version of the white supremacist militias. They dress it up in marxism but I doubt they even have a complete grasp on what that means. They are just tribal hate-mongers. Nothing more to it really.

Democracy Now is to the left of Chairman Mao.

well it wasn't long before the usual comments started showing up.
don't even know what to say to these comments other than wow.

[purebalance]

Sure, this is a nation where supposedly majority rules...

These groups weren't even a majority among the black community though... Which itself is a mere fraction of the population.

People seem to think yelling loud makes them the majority. Like the Sanders supporters that can't seem to understand he's not getting the nomination. "But but we have more people!" "No you're just loud"

- - - Updated - - -

well it wasn't long before the usual comments started showing up.
don't even know what to say to these comments other than wow.

Granted the second one was hyperbole, the first was spot on so I really don't know the point of your post other than spamming.

[breadisfunny]

it is called logic and critical thinking

population size is irrelevant what you would need to know which side has the most confrontations with the police and because Blacks commit over 50% of violent crimes they would have a larger number of confrontations with the police then whites but whites still get shot more often

while ignoring the fact that those crimes come from the fact most of them are born into abject poverty and have either the option of crime,minimum wage for shit wages that don't buy crap or starve to death. but don't let reality stop you vyxn keep on with your obvious agenda you've got going.

[Vyxn]

while ignoring the fact that those crimes come from the fact most of them are born into abject poverty and have either the option of crime,minimum wage for shit wages that don't buy crap or starve to death. but don't let reality stop you vyxn keep on with your obvious agenda you've got going.

I'm not debating the reason why just informing you it is in greater numbers for what ever reason. there for causing Blacks to have a larger rate of confrontations with the police then whites would have, but still whites get shot more often by the police then blacks with having less confrontations with the police

[Theodarzna]

your hyperbole isn't based on one shred of truth and reality

Police kill more whites than blacks
An analysis released last week shows that more white people died at the hands of law enforcement than those of any other race in the last two years, even as the Justice Department, social-justice groups and media coverage focus on black victims of police force.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ty-d/?page=all


but as usual with a SJW dam the fact dam the truth dam reality I have a narrative to progress

I am hardly an SJW, but one should mention as a proportion of population black people are significantly more likely to be killed by the police. Likewise as only 12 ish percent of the population they are also overwhelmingly incarcerated.

Which requires us to either believe black people are uniquely criminal, OR the law is unevenly enforced and black people are more often targeted by the police. The proportions matter, not raw numbers.

- - - Updated - - -

it is called logic and critical thinking

population size is irrelevant what you would need to know which side has the most confrontations with the police and because Blacks commit over 50% of violent crimes they would have a larger number of confrontations with the police then whites but whites still get shot more often

Then we must believe either one ethnic group is uniquely criminal or only one ethnic group is punished for crime.

In fact, its argued and pointed out that statistically ALL Americans break federal law or some statute every other day or so. So by the law, all of us are criminals, but curiously only one ethnic group gets overwhelmingly punished for it.

[breadisfunny]

I'm not debating the reason why just informing you it is in greater numbers for what ever reason. there for causing Blacks to have a larger rate of confrontations with the police then whites would have, but still whites get shot more often by the police then blacks with having less confrontations with the police

it is important to know what the reason behind it is so you have the context that is necessary to make an informed and educated observation. i like how your trying to race bait with that last sentence there since it has nothing to do with the black panthers. but please continue with this obvious biased tangent you have going.

[Vyxn]

it is important to know what the reason behind it is so you have the context that is necessary to make an informed and educated observation. i like how your trying to race bait with that last sentence there since it has nothing to do with the black panthers. but please continue with this obvious biased tangent you have going.

it isn't race baiting it is just simple common sense logic and critical thinking the group that commits the most crimes doesn't make a dam for what ever reason they do will have more confrontations with the police then a group that doesn't

[THE Bigzoman]

it is called logic and critical thinking

population size is irrelevant what you would need to know which side has the most confrontations with the police and because Blacks commit over 50% of violent crimes they would have a larger number of confrontations with the police then whites but whites still get shot more often

@TITAN308

Because i'm not going through the trouble to quote both of you.


Yes, he is wrong. Because we weren't talking about why a larger proportion of blacks were killed by cops. He originally made the claim that more whites are killed than blacks based on raw numbers.

It doesn't take a scientist to point out that blacks are fewer than whites in the west, so presenting those raw numbers as if they tell the whole story and disprove a narrative is bullshit.

I'm about as anti-SJW as they come by many people's definitions. But I just plain don't like arguments that rely solely are raw fucking data to make a point. Such "critical thinking and logic skills there, son"


He then went on to provide an explanation for why a higher proportion of blacks relative to whites are killed by cops. He indirectly proved/affirmed the point that I was trying to make before he turned tail and ran out of the scope of my issue.

People piss me off when they change the entire scope of the discussion at the drop of a hat, so i'm out. Maybe i'm just a pointdexter who loves numbers, but the argument that I actually beefed with isn't what's being discussed now.

[Vyxn]

I am hardly an SJW, but one should mention as a proportion of population black people are significantly more likely to be killed by the police. Likewise as only 12 ish percent of the population they are also overwhelmingly incarcerated.

Which requires us to either believe black people are uniquely criminal, OR the law is unevenly enforced and black people are more often targeted by the police. The proportions matter, not raw numbers.

- - - Updated - - -



Then we must believe either one ethnic group is uniquely criminal or only one ethnic group is punished for crime.

In fact, its argued and pointed out that statistically ALL Americans break federal law or some statute every other day or so. So by the law, all of us are criminals, but curiously only one ethnic group gets overwhelmingly punished for it.

it doesn't make a fuck why that isn't the point I'm referring to. just pointing out common sence and logic. a group for what ever fucking reason commits more crimes then another group the group that commits more crimes will have more confrontations with the police then the group that commits less

[breadisfunny]

it isn't race baiting it is just simple common sense logic and critical thinking the group that commits the most crimes doesn't make a dam for what ever reason they do will have more confrontations with the police then a group that doesn't

no because critical thinking involves multiple steps you utilize to make an informed statement about something. you seem to be skipping quite a few of them such as context, using relevant examples, you also seem to be twisting the data to support your own flawed conclusions.

[Vyxn]

@TITAN308

Because i'm not going through the trouble to quote both of you.


Yes, he is wrong. Because we weren't talking about why a larger proportion of blacks were killed by cops. He originally made the claim that more whites are killed than blacks based on raw numbers.

It doesn't take a scientist to point out that blacks are fewer than whites in the west, so presenting those raw numbers as if they tell the whole story and disprove a narrative is bullshit.

I'm about as anti-SJW as they come by many people's definitions. But I just plain don't like arguments that rely solely are raw fucking data to make a point. Such "critical thinking and logic skills there, son"


He then went on to provide an explanation for why a higher proportion of blacks relative to whites are killed by cops. He indirectly proved/affirmed the point that I was trying to make before you turned tail and ran out of the scope of my issue.

People piss me off when they change the entire scope of the discussion at the drop of a hat, so i'm out. Maybe i'm just a pointdexter who loves numbers, but the argument that I actually beefed with isn't what's being discussed now.

and as I pointed out population size is irrelevant what is relevant who has the most confrontations with the police and it would be the group that commits more crimes

[breadisfunny]

it doesn't make a fuck why that isn't the point I'm referring to. just pointing out common sence and logic. a group for what ever fucking reason commits more crimes then another group the group that commits more crimes will have more confrontations with the police then the group that commits less

no now your just repeating what you have stated about three times now with no new contextual information to back up those statements. in fact your not even TRYING.

[Vyxn]

no because critical thinking involves multiple steps you utilize to make an informed statement about something. you seem to be skipping quite a few of them such as context, using relevant examples, you also seem to be twisting the data to support your own flawed conclusions.

ok lets make it simple because you seam to lack simple understanding
I will start out with a simple question
who has more confrontations with the police? Blacks or Whites? doesn't make a dam the reason why that is irrelevant. just that who does?

- - - Updated - - -

no now your just repeating what you have stated about three times now with no new contextual information to back up those statements. in fact your not even TRYING.

and if you wouldn't keep ignoring it and trying to interject the reason why which has no relevancy to the discussion I wouldn't need to keep repeating it

[breadisfunny]

ok lets make it simple because you seam to lack simple understanding
I will start out with a simple question
who has more confrontations with the police? Blacks or Whites? doesn't make a dam the reason why that is irrelevant. just that who does?

- - - Updated - - -



and if you wouldn't keep ignoring it and trying to interject the reason why which has no relevancy to the discussion I wouldn't need to keep repeating it

the context is relevant and you saying it isn't doesn't make it so. but it's quite obvious you have an agenda to push so i'm just going to not answer that question since it's only there to support your narrative.

[Vyxn]

the context is relevant and you saying it isn't doesn't make it so. but it's quite obvious you have an agenda to push so i'm just going to not answer that question since it's only there to support your narrative.

if I say I have four oranges and three apple and you say oranges are sweeter then apples how is your statement relevant to what I said?

and still waiting for your answer to this simple question

who has more confrontations with the police? Blacks or Whites? doesn't make a dam the reason why that is irrelevant. just that who does?

[breadisfunny]

if I say I have four oranges and three apple and you say oranges are sweeter then apples how is your statement relevant to what I said?

and still waiting for your answer to this simple question

who has more confrontations with the police? Blacks or Whites? doesn't make a dam the reason why that is irrelevant. just that who does?

ignoring context is a great way to make a statement that ignores reality completely. it's as useless as collecting data in a vaccum.
why do you insist on asking this question that completely ignores why something happens?

[Vyxn]

ignoring context is a great way to make a statement that ignores reality completely. it's as useless as collecting data in a vaccum.
why do you insist on asking this question that completely ignores why something happens?

because why it happens is not relevant because I'm not debating the reason why I'm debating the numbers who has more confrontations with the police Blacks or Whites a question you refuse to answer
now you can answer and give your reason why doesn't make a dam to me just answer

[breadisfunny]

because why it happens is not relevant because I'm not debating the reason why I'm debating the numbers who has more confrontations with the police Blacks or Whites a question you refuse to answer
now you can answer and give your reason why doesn't make a dam to me just answer

if your not addressing the reason as well then the conclusion you reach is flawed and has a shaky premise. the reason is important because for the LAST TIME it explains why something happens. you just want me to answer the question so you can go AHA black people are inherently more violent! this proves it's true without looking at WHY which is JUST AS IMPORTANT which then gives you a different conclusion altogether that whites and blacks are not inherently more violent than one another but are made so by circumstance. but of course this isn't the conclusion or answer you want. you just want to engage in presenting loaded questions that reach conclusions you have already affirmed in your head are true.

[Spectral]

In October of 1966, in Oakland California, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale founded the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. The Panthers practiced militant self-defense of minority communities against the U.S. government...

The bolded is either a lie or a hell of a euphemism. Here's read about these characters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_P...ns_of_violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_...and_Mark_Clark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_...f_Alex_Rackley

The BPP was and is a violent, racial supremacy organization. Their core message is anti-white and anti-American.