Printable View
This is the manipulation. You've personified the inequality. Has Trump been in charge since MLK?Quote:
If people like me are being manipulated into thinking Trump is bad for equality...
The system is bad for inequality. Overthrowing Trump won't change the system.
But everyone isn't the same. How does living in a fantasy help to form a stable civilisation?Quote:
Treat everyone the same and they'll all feel like a part of the same community. Have you thought of that?
On a lighter note... a peek inside the brain of a genius.
It starts around 9:12, watch for around 20 seconds. The nodding to music at the end...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3m2kC2AD3E&t=551s
He's making things worse is my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Does everyone at least deserve the same treatment under the law? Can you go that far or no?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm not even sure about this. I mean, I definitely agree that people feel racial inequalities are worse under Trump, but do the figures support that? How many black people have died at the hands of cops during Trump's term, compared to Obama's last term? I've tried to find those figures but it's not easy. That would be a reasonable measure of whether things have actually got worse under Trump, as opposed to people just assuming it's worse because "aaaaargggghhh Trump".Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
But maybe things are actually worse. When Trump got into power, I was glad Clinton lost. The reason was because I knew Clinton was just a cog in the system, whereas Trump I wasn't so sure about. There was hope he was actually going to bring down the Clintons of the world. Now after five years of Trump, I'm thinking he's just part of the same bunch of cunts, he is one of the Clintons of the world.
Does everyone deserve equal treatment under law? Yes, to the degree this is practical and reasonable, at least. But of course, since we are not all equal, we cannot all afford equal legal defence, and so the system systematically discriminates against poor people when it comes to law. Is this fixable? Some lawyers are better than others, and the better lawyers will always go where the money is.Quote:
Does everyone at least deserve the same treatment under the law? Can you go that far or no?
It's not rocket science that when a nation's leader continuously dog whistles to racists and refuses to say anything against racists 'cause he knows they vote for him, it will make things worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So presumably you agree it's reasonable and practical that black people shouldn't be targeted by cops for bad treatment, and then the cops get off. Because that's what's been happening up till now.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Of course they shouldn't. Neither should white people, nor Native Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The same people who were moaning about Cummings are now celebrating the muppets in Hyde Park gathered to "demand justice" for something that happened in another country.
I know. Those idiots are spreading CV around. Don't see why they can't have a socially-distanced protest or an online protest or w/e. I seriously wonder how much of this is just people looking for an excuse to get out of the house.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I could understand the sense of urgency if this directly involved us, but other than to show solidarity, there's nothing to be gained by protesting. Our government can't do anything. I guess it serves as a reminder that we do have racial issues here that could boil over, but there is absolutely no need for any violent protest here whatsoever. Downing Street has come under fire from bottles and stuff. There are people actively looking to escalate things here in the UK. These people are pushing agendas, and it's extremely dangerous.
Most people are not violently protesting here, it should be said. That's not clear from my previous post. The vast majority of protesters here are just idiots showing complete disregard for social distancing.
Trump now saying he went to "inspect" the bunker. #BunkerBaby trending on twitter.
Meanwhile, paramilitary types with no insignia and name tags are serving as riot police in D.C.
Also, there is now at least one counter-protest going on by an open carry group. Standing on the boulevard holding assault rifles while the protesters walk by.
Someone actually tried to loot a gun shop.
It ended how you'd expect.
Trump didn't cause the problems we're protesting, no. That has never been said.
Trump is sowing division, not trying to unite. He's repeatedly used language from the 60's persecution of blacks during this crisis.
"When the looting starts the shooting starts"
"set upon with vicious dogs and ominous weapons"
while also bragging about how he "couldn't feel safer" in his ivory tower, protected by dozens of armed guards.
Every living ex-president has spoken out on this with a tone of reconciliation. Even Bush, the only living republican ex POTUS.
Yesterday, Trump held a press conference saying he was the president of "law and order"
Then he ordered DC police to fire munitions - tear gas and rubber bullets - at a group of peaceful protestors in Lafayette Park.
He ordered this so he could stroll across the park for a photo op at a church where he did not kneel down, did not pray, did not meet with any clergy, and held up a bible like it was a fish.
Even the clergy of that church were driven off by the police.
Lafayette Park has been a locus of peaceful protests in the US for over 100 years, holding protestors who frequently set up tents and stay for days or weeks.
The protestors fired upon were peaceful. They were not throwing rocks, not throwing water bottles, not rioting, not looting.
They were given 10 minutes notice to disperse, without any direction of to where they should disperse. They weren't given enough time for the crowd to digest the information and comply.
Then our president of "law and order" stayed out after the city-wide curfew for his precious photo op.
Earlier in the day, he held a phone call with all the state's governors and said they were fools to not "dominate the protestors," making no distinction between peaceful protestors vs rioters and looters.
This is unconscionable. He's ordering attacks on peaceful protestors exercising their constitutional right to peacefully protest, in a place that is historically exactly where these protests happen.
This is not a political rant. You know that I've repeatedly said that vilifying the POTUS is low-hanging fruit, and that it's puerile to pretend we have access to his level of information, and therefore hubris to judge his actions like he's someone "like us." I'm not a "bleeding heart liberal," and you know that about me.
This is an affront to democracy. This is unconstitutional.
And, I haven't heard anyone say it in any news media, but to me, this is a breath away from treason. This is one move away from actively inciting war against Americans.
All against his boogeyman villain of antifa. A name without an organization, for a "group" without a leader, without meetings or newsletters.
Trump claimed antifa is a terrorist organization, a claim which he has no legal authority or framework to make. There is literally no law that allows any politician to declare an American group as terrorists.
Trump claims he can instate the insurrection act against peaceful protestors.
If this is allowed to continue, without opposition, America will be a police state.
I think you mean "sowing". And so is the entire political establishment. So is everyone on Twitter. So are the looters, the gun people, the police, the footballers, the media.Quote:
Trump is sewing division
Welcome to neoconservatism, which is basically fascism. Vote for the neoliberals instead, which is basically a different brand of fascism.Quote:
Yesterday, Trump held a press conference saying he was the president of "law and order"
You're missing the important points to focus on trivialities.
(Thanks for the spelling correction, I guess. I fixed it.)
Sorry if I'm not the world's best public speaker.
And your statement, "not being murdered isn't a privilege," is how it should be, but the reality is that it's not.
If you're saying that you think that's how it should be, then you should probably recognize that it's not, and not blindly assert that the letter of the law is how it is enforced, because there's an overwhelming amount of evidence that the reality is not what it should be.
idk if Antifa are even really a thing or not, and anyone here who pretends to know is lying. Maybe it's like Anonymous where you just basically need to buy the tee shirt to join, or maybe someone somewhere is funding and organising left-wing mobs. Fucked if I know.
This is for anyone who wants to hear a lawyer's take on the events surrounding that photo op.
He gets emotional, and is speaking as a citizen, not in his capacity as a lawyer, but his position is colored by this.
@ong, it's over 18 minutes, so ... you know... I don't really expect you to watch it.
If you're going to spend the 18 minutes, you'd be much better served watching the Trevor Noah vlog I posted recently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z56j06plUgs
What important point? That Trump is an asshole? I know he is. He's showing his true colours here, everything he has done in response to these riots points towards fascism. But his opponents are also showing their true colours, exploiting the death of a black man to oust a president they don't like, or worse, to incite civil unrest.Quote:
You're missing the important points to focus on trivialities.
What's the endgame? Is this how they go about imposing China-style totalitarianism on the western world? Create the conditions for civil war, and then impose a fascist clampdown on civil rights?
I don't think I'm focusing on "trivialities", on the contrary it appears to me that you're missing important points, like what agendas are at play here. The fascists want us fighting each other so they can take away our rights.
I don't need to be told the photo op was stupid and outrageous. His handling of this seems to be deliberately belligerent.Quote:
@ong, it's over 18 minutes, so ... you know... I don't really expect you to watch it.
“And for those who have been talking about protests, just remember, this country was founded on protest. It is called the American revolution,” [Obama] said. “And every step of progress in this country, every expansion of freedom, every expression of our deepest ideals, has been won through efforts that made the status quo uncomfortable. And we should all be thankful for folks who are willing in a peaceful, disciplined way to be out there making a difference.”
-Barack Obama
Obama said that? Cheeky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Oscar_Grant
Oakland riots in protest at the police shooting of an unarmed black man under restraint after having already been kneed in the head by a cop. Police respond to riots with force. This was fresh into Obama's first term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy...ent_crackdowns
Quick summary of how the Obama govt clamped down on the Occupy Wall Street protests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Oakland
Is there something in the water in Oakland?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_C...ummit#Protests
More tear gas for people protesting police brutality against black people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Oakland_riots
Oakland again. Are there like ten cities in USA called Oakland?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooti...Antonio_Martin
Pepper spray.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_B...ence_escalates
Journalist beaten by riot cops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooti...ansur_Ball-Bey
Tear gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_D..._rally_protest
Trump takes office, fisticuffs in Chicago.
I missed a fair few out because in some cases it wasn't clear if the cops responded to protest with force, even though they likely did.
Responding to "protest" with force is standard for any govt. Obama was a much better public speaker than Trump is, but Obama was still a ruthless leader willing to do what had to be done.
So you ignore all of my words, and don't watch the videos that I think help show my perspective, but you can find a whole slew of links to respond to a quote from someone else.
Tell me... did Obama order any of those instances of police brutality? 'cause I'm not reading 9 wikipedia pages that I doubt you yourself read.
Or do you have 18 minutes of time to rage over an Obama quote, but not 18 minutes to understand something that I posted?
You aren't conversing in good faith. You're not trying to understand what your friend is saying.
I've made responses to what you've said, and tried to understand your perspective, but I'm not seeing any reciprocity.
I'm not here to lecture you, and I'm not here to be lectured at. This is a conversation between friends trying to understand each other, or it's a waste of my time.
Look at that, there's an organization collecting data on a lot of aspects of police brutality, as well as what has happened in response to prior attempts at reform, with data about how various methods of reform have worked.
There are people actually trying to science the shit out of this.
My people.
https://www.joincampaignzero.org
You moan at me for not reading your posts, but you clearly missed this from me...Quote:
Tell me... did Obama order any of those instances of police brutality? 'cause I'm not reading 9 wikipedia pages that I doubt you yourself read.
Yes I checked each link to ensure there was actually a reference to police reaction to riots. Did Obama order any of these instances of brutality? In the case of the Occupy Wall Street protests, yes he most certainly did. That was a federal matter. The others, idk.Quote:
I missed a fair few out because in some cases it wasn't clear if the cops responded to protest with force, even though they likely did.
Obama is great at saying things, but he's no different to anyone else when it comes to doing things.
Don't be triggered by how I choose to spend my time.Quote:
Or do you have 18 minutes of time to rage over an Obama quote, but not 18 minutes to understand something that I posted?
If you think this, ignore me.Quote:
You aren't conversing in good faith.
Nobody is trying to understand what I'm saying. Everyone just thinks I'm pro-Trump, pro-right, because that's how the world works. If I oppose the deranged left, I therefore stand shoulder to shoulder with racists.Quote:
You're not trying to understand what your friend is saying.
Look, these constant back and forths, quoting this and that, respond point by point, it's tiring. Reading some wikipedia pages is education. I wanted to know if there were problems with black people being shot, and riots, and police response to riots, during Obama's time in office, and guess what? There were. People are arguing that this is Trump's fault, but the eivdence suggests otherwise. This has been an ongoing problem for a long time, but the left are fixated on one man because he's the bogey man. Never would they actually dare to critisise that well spoken black man who they hold in such high regard. It's just easier to ask questions like "yeah but did he order it" when he's the actual president and if it was Trump people would be saying he still takes responsibility. If he didn't order it, then he should speak out against the police immediately, since he's so pro-protest and all.
If this conversation is not thrilling enough for you, just withdraw. If you're unhappy with my efforts, don't waste your effort engaging me. But whatever you do, don't allow people on the internet to get on your nerves by not replying as you expect and hope.
Poop doesn't moan at me when I ignore 3/4 of his post, and I don't moan at him when he does it, other than to perhaps mock him ignoring something that he didn't want to answer.
I'm not sure what it is you're trying to make me understand, mojo, other than Trump is bad. I know he is. But Obama was bad, Bush was bad, Clinton was bad. The system is rotten, but people focus on one man like he's the problem. I did the same when it was Bush and Blair, I was all over them both like a deranged left wing nutjob. I gleefully quoted Bush comments like "the problem with the French is they don't have a word for entrepreneur". I didn't even care if he really said it, or if it was brilliant irony, it just summed up beautifully how I felt about Bush. It's easy to get sucked into the game of hating the person supposedly in charge. But after Bush and Blair, things don't change, the system remains rotten, I lose faith in the entire political system, I stop seeing them as opposing politics, and start to see them as different brands of the same politics.
Hating (or supporting) Trump is exactly what they want. It doesn't matter which, just so long as you take a side. Social division.
You must realize this is an obvious strawman. I haven't seen anyone claim, least of all here, that Trump is responsible for hundreds of years of oppression. He's being blamed, imo legitimately, of causing further divide and inciting violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Who is "they"? And what does Obama have to do with any of this? Did Obama by his words or actions make things worse, and even if he did, how would that absolve Trump? If Obama did something bad or insufficient (which he obviously did), that's a completely separate discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If I decide to smash my room up because of what you just said, did you incite violence? These riots didn't happen because of something Trump did or said, it's because of decades of inequality, and because of an incident of unreasonable force by the police.Quote:
You must realize this is an obvious strawman. I haven't seen anyone claim, least of all here, that Trump is responsible for hundreds of years of oppression. He's being blamed, imo legitimately, of causing further divide and inciting violence.
Yes he's causing further division. That's his agenda. It's also the agenda of his opponents. Why is Trump's attempts to cause division a problem for you but not when his opponents do it?
"They" in this context are the deranged left. Mojo decided to quote Obama, who was celebrating protest. I pointed out the hypocrisy. That's why Obama is a topic right now.Quote:
Who is "they"? And what does Obama have to do with any of this? Did Obama by his words or actions make things worse, and even if he did, how would that absolve Trump? If Obama did something bad or insufficient (which he obviously did), that's a completely separate discussion.
I think most people would agree that there are degrees of bad. Are any of those people perfect? Hell no. Are there some of them who look only after themselves, and some that even try to do the right thing most of the time? I think so. If you think all these people are equally bad, why is it only Trump that you feel the urge to defend?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Just out of curiosity, name one politician you like, or that you think means well, in any country?
I'm making it sound like I think mojo is the "deranged left". I don't think that, I just get carried away sometimes.
Poop and oskar are the "deranged left". mojo is just "the left" with cocco.
I don't think I do "defend" Trump, this is once again social division. I don't oppose him in the same way you guys do, therefore I am defending him. You see me as "on his side".Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I "defend" Trump because I know he's not the problem. The system is rotten.
A politician I like? Anne Widdecombe. She's a bitch, but she's honest.
I don't think any reasonable person would say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yes, and again I haven't seen anyone claim anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So it's ok to incite violence if it's his agenda, or if someone feels someone else before him has done it? If you point me to a case where one of his opponents has suggested using force to attack peaceful protesters, you can be damn sure I'll see that as a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The right to protest is in the 1st amendment, what's wrong with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If it's a matter of optics I apologize, but it sure feels like every time anyone says anything negative about him, there's a good chance you'll be there defending him. It might also be worthwhile to think why you're doing it (what seems like) only with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
This is drifting into "deranged". It didn't say it's ok for him to incite violence, I argued that if people respond to his comments with violence, that doesn't mean he's inciting violence. But you also confirm what you actually mean by "inciting violence", and that is riot police responding to protest. I can';t seriously believe that this surprises you in any way. He may have chosen aggressive language, but his actions are no different to what any president would do when faced with riots. Deploy the police, then the national guard, and potentially the military. That isn't "inciting violence". I would use that term to describe making public comments like "get them off the roads or I will do it with my supporters", like what some Indian guy said before his supporters decided to start killing Muslims (Feb 2020). Saying "when the looting starts the shooting starts" is not inciting violence, it's just a reckless method of leadership.Quote:
So it's ok to incite violence if it's his agenda, or if someone feels someone else before him has done it? If you point me to a case where one of his opponents has suggested using force to attack peaceful protesters, you can be damn sure I'll see that as a problem.
Nothing.Quote:
The right to protest is in the 1st amendment, what's wrong with it?
That's because you guys are obsessed with him, it's a fixation bordering on sexual. The vast majority of topics discussed are about Trump, like he's the problem with the world. If the people who hate him spent half as much effort attacking the system instead, we might actually make some progress.Quote:
If it's a matter of optics I apologize, but it sure feels like every time anyone says anything negative about him, there's a good chance you'll be there defending him. It might also be worthwhile to think why you're doing it (what seems like) only with him.
Four people on the Deranged Left side (I'm including Mojo now since he went on a pretty good rant there, and I'm assuming a certain passion is a requirement in order for one to be considered deranged), and only one on the We're all Pawns of the System side.
Ong please save us from our derangement. Show us the light.
poop thinks a small circle jerk means something.
If we still had an active forum here like the old days, you four would be outnumbered and outgunned by the right, and nobody would even pay attention to me.
mojo isn't deranged, and neither is cocco. oskar definitely is, while you're not quite as deranged as oskar but more so than mojo.
idk what I even mean by deranged, I just like the word, it goes well with "left". The "deranged left". It's catchy. I guess I mean extreme, measured by your hatred for Trump.
Using force against looters is perfectly fine, in fact endorsed. Using force against peaceful protesters, children, reporters etc is fascism and tyranny.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That has been the point from the beginning, glad we finally agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Like that time when Obama dispersed a crowd of protesters with tear gas and rubber bullets to walk to a photo op during the 2015 Baltimore Riots? Or when he demanded governors to "dominate" the peaceful protests or he'd send in the military? None of that ever happened, did it, and you'd have to find a dictatorship or a banana republic to find any examples of such actions in recent history.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Well Ong, your last ally on the deranged right got banned 'cause he couldn't be civil to even the people who agreed with him. And spoon was only a troll, and you're mostly a troll, so your side isn't doing so hot in the debating department.
Yep. Like I said previously, I do think he's showing his true colours here. But rather than default to "Trump bad", I'm going in the direction of "the system is still rotten". He's not draining the swamp, he's wallowing in it. I'm not going to become obsessed with Trump because he's only a symbol, the personification, of the problem. Don't hate the player, hate the game.Quote:
Using force against looters is perfectly fine, in fact endorsed. Using force against peaceful protesters, children, reporters etc is fascism and tyranny.
This is basically a war between cunts and cunts. I don't want to be on either side, but most people just pick the side which in their opinion is better at making the other side look worse. That's pretty much how politics works, that's how they sell the illusion of choice.
I don't think it's aggressive enough to qualify as "inciting violence" though. I haven't seen him say protesters should meet force, just looters.Quote:
That has been the point from the beginning, glad we finally agree.
He didn't take a photo op at a church while riot police beat protesters, what a guy.Quote:
Like that time when Obama dispersed a crowd of protesters with tear gas and rubber bullets to walk to a photo op during the 2015 Baltimore Riots?
Banana was definitely the deranged right. Spoon was very much reasonable when he wasn't trolling or being a dick. And I'm not that close to them politically, just closer than I am to you. In your world, that makes us allies, because it's all so binary. Banana wasn't my ally, I would literally rather meet all of you guys irl than him. We simply both had contempt for the left. That puts us on the same side from your pov. Us vs them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Banana was a deranged person who happened to be right on the political spectrum. You're more center-right, and who knows what spoon is/was 'cause he never engaged in a serious conversation afaict. So yeah, I consider you individuals despite your rather sad attempts to turn every one of our arguments into a criticism of my character, which is pretty reminiscent of banana, even if your ad bananums are more restrained than his were.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I say it like I see it. As you do. Often your posts have a tone of judgement too, thought I doubt it's usually your intention.
This is the deranged left. This is a world where opposing the EU is literally worse than child porn.Quote:
Originally Posted by twitter
I very much appreciate the change in tone in today's discussion. There's just too much for me to respond to it all, and a forum like this isn't conducive to that kind of "everyone respond to everything someone else said," so I'm not going to do that.
I don't think what I did was a rant against Trump. It was a rant against 1 particular hypocrisy and 1 particular event that strikes me as a flagrant disregard for the constitution and specifically the first amendment. The fact that Trump was the one who did it is incidental, not central, to my rant.
Though, I wish I hadn't posted that part about being a breath away from treason, as it does reflect a fear of mine, and not necessarily a reality.
I'm not even on the left, ong. I'm about as central as you can be. I strongly support the right to bear arms, which I do not want to bring up as a topic to discuss right now, but just to give an example of how my opinions can be called right or left depending on the topic.
Ong, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I am very much trying to understand what you're saying. I'm not talking over you or past you. Multiple times I've made statements that weren't even directed to you and you took offense to them. That doesn't really feel like you're trying to understand me, so much as defend a perceived miscommunication. Let's both try to understand what is triggering to each other and avoid those phrases, and express our desire to both be heard and to listen equally.
I'm going to try to take a step back and examine my emotional response for what it is before responding to you for a while, out of respect.
If I've pushed your buttons, I apologize. It wasn't my intent, but it also hasn't been my intent to not push your buttons, either, so I can accept that as unfair when the topic is as heated as this.
@poopadoop - Spoonitnow expressed his political views a few times, and quite well, as you probably can imagine with someone of his intelligence and verbal skills. He was far more active on this forum before you joined.
FWIW, he and I butt heads a lot over almost everything, and yet, when it came time for the mods to vote if I should be invited to be a mod, he was vocal in his support of me.
That's solid character, IMO. He and I may not agree on anything, but we respect each other as people.
So this is what you consider myself, Oskar, and occasionally others here to be a part of?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
People who say things like that are idiots. I strongly suspect none of us would agree with that.
First of all, I agree with what he's sayingQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Secondly, why oh why do people use this strange....halting....way of talking sometimes? It started in movies/TV about 20 years ago and it sounds like the person speaking has brain damage. Now people do it in videos. How did this ever become a thing?
I get caught up in the division too. I'm not oblivious to my own hypocrisy. I moan about people sticking me in "the right" when I'm happy to stick you all in "the left", despite knowing full well it's not that binary. I mean, I don't seriously think anyone agrees with that tweet I quoted above, that hating the EU is worse than child porn, that's the view of a truly deranged person.Quote:
I'm not even on the left, ong. I'm about as central as you can be. I strongly support the right to bear arms, which I do not want to bring up as a topic to discuss right now, but just to give an example of how my opinions can be called right or left depending on the topic.
I tend to read a lot of what you guys talk about, and see it from a different angle. It's my opinion, perhaps wrongly, that the left are generally blinded by hate towards Trump, and that's not something that clouds my judgement. Weed clouds my judgement instead!
Not at all, and even if you had you shouldn't apologise to me. I'm not sorry when I inadvertently push peoples' buttons, and when I'm triggered I blame myself for reacting that way rather than the person who triggered me, at least I do when I'm not triggered any more.Quote:
I'm going to try to take a step back and examine my emotional response for what it is before responding to you for a while, out of respect.
You forget that I actually enjoy arguing with people on the internet. I try to keep things civil here because I do like you guys, but when we're talking about such emotional subjects it can get a bit draining.
That current events are orchestrated, designed to increase social tensions. This outpouring of hatred towards Trump is part of the game, it's the reaction they want, a reaction they've been fostering for his entire term. Trump is just the current face of the system. Black people are being manipulated, so are white people by means of "privilege", nothing that we as a society are doing right now is helping to heal the sense of racial inequality that exists, on the contrary it is getting worse.Quote:
Ong, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I am very much trying to understand what you're saying.
I feel like the whole world has been duped into a propaganda war, that we need a huge "red pill" event to snap the world out of this bullshit. Until then, they'll keep us divided.
This is an election year. There's plenty more politics to come.
No. If you read my recent post to mojo, you'll see I don't actually think that. That tweet is truly deranged. If I call you guys deranged, I'm just using a juicy word because it's a trigger word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I feel like saying "current events are orchestrated" paints a very wide brush that includes organized peaceful protests, and organized agitators inciting otherwise peaceful protests into confrontations, and organized looting and other criminal acts.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm sure there's plenty of all that in the news, but also there's plenty of spontaneous acts of both peace and kindness as well as violence and confrontation coming from both protestors and police.
I've cried tears of despair and tears of joy in reading various news stories about the protests. There are copious amounts of both, and it's hard to see what the balance is when it's all coming through various biased news sources.
I see very little in the protests that is targeting or mentioning Trump. There's is very little of that. By and large, the protests are focused on the civil rights violations and police use of excessive force (which isn't well defined). Of course politicians are politicizing things. The fact that there seems to be a partisan divide on the issue of police brutality is baffling to me. I can definitely understand people disagreeing on various solutions to this problem, but the data is truly clear that black people are disproportionately killed by police, and disproportionately under-served by hospitals. We can argue about what to do about those data, but I can't see why people can't agree on the numbers.
Here is a very short page to look at which shows data on the problem. You can read and digest the information in a couple minutes, tops.
https://www.joincampaignzero.org/problem
Propaganda is part of life, and I'd be hard pressed to disagree that at all times throughout history, the pulpit of the pen was the true catalyst for motivating people. Protests don't change much, but the words they inspire - the ideas that become memes (not the internet joke sense) - are what truly change our societies.
Yes, the political side of this will only continue.
One thing that stands out is - why does it take a video of unmistakable police brutality for the fact that ANY bias in policing exists to be heard? Why do we implicitly trust police to do good when we know that simply cannot be true? All people make mistakes. Every profession has bad actors.
I think he was either genuinely emotionally distraught, or was trying to portray as much in the video. There are moments where it looks like he's about to cry. There are abrupt jump cuts that are not his usual editing style, so it feels like this was more off-the-cuff and thrown together than his usual manicured style.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I don't think he uses that halting style of speaking in his other videos, but maybe I'm not perfectly understanding what you mean.
EDIT: He does a few distinct styles of videos.
He did a video on the Ahmaud Arbery incident, which is the closest in content to the video I just shared. This is in the style of presenting an actual legal case or potential case as facts on the ground. I find his presentations are about as impartial and unbiased as I've found.
He has done a couple animated videos where he delves into a case that may not be high profile, but which made its way up the appellate courts to have a higher legal impact.
He also does "legal meme reviews" and "[movie or TV show] gets lawyered" which are just light-hearted content.
I think you're looking at things a bit too cynically. To take it to the extreme, one could argue the events were orchestrated by the left who paid this cop to murder Floyd. I don't think anyonew would buy that no matter how many spliffs they smoked.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So then, if the murder of an unarmed and non-resisting black man by a white cop while three other cops did nothing, if that 'spark' was real, then what part of the ensuing events was orchestrated? Again, you'd have a hard time convincing people that 10s of thousands are being suckered into protesting against an obvious systemic problem against their will. Just because you aren't outraged personally by something doesn't make it implausible that others are.
A better argument might be that some are taking advantage of the situation for political gain, and maybe egging things on; that much I could buy. But, in that case you'd have to also accept that the egging on is coming from both sides. Taking Trump as an example (because his actions are so public), he's basically done nothing to quelll the unrest, and much that could easily be construed as fomenting it. But, unless he's a lot smarter than all available evidence suggests, he's not doing it for any strategic purpose but rather because that's just who he is.
Also worth noting a lot of weird shit going on, like cops smashing windows and other random shit like goon squads impersonating protesters to justify police overreactions.
I'm not having a go at him so much as noting how much that way of talking annoys me. It doesn't really matter, /rant.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I don't think this is the case, but then again I'm not in USA. Certainly I'm pretty sure that all parties here, for the most part, agree that police brutality is a problem that needs addressing. What people don't agree on is the cultural reasons for the disproportionate number of black people killed by cops. On the one hand, some say that institutional racism is the cause, on the other hand some say that black people need to be more accountable for their community. In all liklihood it's a mixture of both, with neither party willing to address their own faults while blaming the other for not addressing theirs. It's not unreasonable to compare how poor black people and poor white people live. The "white trash" we think of are rednecks. Are they hanging around in gangs with guns? Are they robbing places? Being economically disadvantaged is a reason, but not an excuse, from criminal behaviour. This criminal behaviour seems to affect black people disproportionately, too. This needs addressing too, but anyone who points this out gets slapped down by the noise makers and branded a racist.Quote:
The fact that there seems to be a partisan divide on the issue of police brutality is baffling to me.
Now if black people are more likely to commit a crime, it's not unreasonable to deduce that black people will be more likely to encounter the police. On the other hand, if the police are disproportionately attending incidents involving black people, this only serves to reinforce their already bigoted views.
It takes action from both sides to deescalate tensions.
This is kinda the price you pay for your gun freedoms. We don't have guns, so our regular cops don't need to be armed. So when our cops show a bit of brutality, it's nothing more than a truncheon to the head or a kicking in the cell. It's hard for me to know if these figures are excessive or not, since USA is an armed nation and that changes the landscape in which the police have to work in.Quote:
Here is a very short page to look at which shows data on the problem. You can read and digest the information in a couple minutes, tops.
I don't trust the police. I expect them to "look out for each other", that mentality is inevitable. They are power hungry, aggressive people, they have a sense of impunity, it's like politics, it tends to attract a certain kind of person. In the case of politics, it attracts sociopaths, with the police it's control freaks. There are aspects of the job that are essential to a stable society, and I respect them for that much, but then they also arrest kids for saying mean things on Twitter about a dead American guy. Police brutality isn't just direct violence, it's using law enforcement as a tool to erode our rights. It's more subtle than rubber bullets and tear gas. This is the neofascist world we live in.Quote:
One thing that stands out is - why does it take a video of unmistakable police brutality for the fact that ANY bias in policing exists to be heard? Why do we implicitly trust police to do good when we know that simply cannot be true? All people make mistakes. Every profession has bad actors.
Fascism has been creeping in for a long time, longer than Trump has been in power. This is why I don't consider him to be the problem.
The outrage is real. But I think I'm leaning full conspiracy with this, that they intended to kill him to spark this off. Who called the order is anyone's guess. Maybe Trump, maybe someone who wants Trump to lose the election, maybe someone who wants to start a civil war.Quote:
So then, if the murder of an unarmed and non-resisting black man by a white cop while three other cops did nothing, if that 'spark' was real, then what part of the ensuing events was orchestrated? Again, you'd have a hard time convincing people that 10s of thousands are being suckered into protesting against an obvious systemic problem against their will. Just because you aren't outraged personally by something doesn't make it implausible that others are.
And don't be fooled. Of course I'm outraged. Not just at the killing of a black guy, also the tear gas in the face of women, and the bullets at journalists. I'm just a lot more cynical about what's actually going on. And I'm also outraged by looters, those who beat up people for their political views, those who are actively trying to manipulate others into emotional reactions like defying curfews and attacking police.
There's so much shit going on in the world it's impossible to not be outraged about something. A constant state of outrage isn't a healthy way to live.This is why I try to emotionally detach myself from world events, and is why it's not immediately obvious to you that I'm outraged about certain things. I'm actively trying to temper my outrage.
In the interests of random...
When the sun goes supernova, from Earth it will be a billion times brighter than a hydrogen bomb going off in front of your face.
Ong, your thoughts on black people in America are difficult to read.
You seem to think the state of black communities in America today is something they have chosen, or that somehow the poverty of black communities is self-inflicted. Or that we can look at the communities of today with complete ignorance to the past that got us here.
That ignores the history that has lead us to the situations we see all over the US.
Black people seem* poor, sure... but there has been widespread, systematic racism in past decades in many subtle ways. We're only a few years past the big reveal that banks were systematically denying loans to poor black communities, while not doing the same for poor white communities. White people have had access to bank loans, mortgages, and small business loans that have been systematically denied to black people on the basis of their addresses.
This is a subtle way to be racist without invoking race, as those black communities are the result of the past decades' racial segregation policies. It's only been a few decades since society pushed black people into the poorest communities, denied them access to good schools in those neighborhoods, denied them access to borrow money to invest in their communities, and under polices those communities so that crime / gangs hold more sway than is allowed in poor white communities.
You ask if poor white people are hanging out in gangs with guns and robbing places.
The answer is YES.
That is totally a thing. The difference is policing those white communities to enforce law, and prosecute those people.
*The systematic difference in access to bank loans means that white people get to live in nice houses, and drive nice cars, which they do not own. The banks own those nice things. Whereas black communities do not have access to those loans so they do not have those nice things, but they own everything they have.
This inequality is under-appreciated. It leads to statements like what you've said, things to the effect that black people are systematically poor. Who's more poor? The communities that own everything they have, or the communities that don't own the most defining optical measures of wealth which they have (houses and cars)?
There is so much more to say on this, but I don't want to wall of text you, here.
When a star goes supernova, it emits more power than the entire rest of the galaxy.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The Earth will have been swallowed by its Red Giant phase long before the Sun goes supernova.
As the Sun's core collapses, the heat and pressure produced by the more energetic fusion processes will push the outer layers of the star bigger and bigger, eventually the Red Giant's exterior will be larger than the current orbit of the Earth.
The Earth will have migrated further from the sun by then, but still, the added solar emissions will eventually cause orbital drag, and the Earth will be slowed, and will fall into the outer layers of the sun. This is a runaway process that will eventually have the Earth merge with the Sun's core.
This will happen before the supernova.
Supernova rather than white dwarf?
White dwarf is a stellar remnant, what is left of the star after the supernova.
Let's look at this from an individual pov, instead of community. An individual is responsible for his own conduct. Being poor is not a legal defence for criminal behaviour. Neither is being black.Quote:
You seem to think the state of black communities in America today is something they have chosen, or that somehow the poverty of black communities is self-inflicted. Or that we can look at the communities of today with complete ignorance to the past that got us here.
Poverty is not self inflicted, it's not a choice. Criminal behvaiour is a choice. Those who make that choice are accountable for their own actions.
This only reinforces my view that what we're seeing is orchestrated. I'm assuming this predates Trump, which takes us into the presidency of others. How can Obama be held in such high regard when he is part of presumably a long line of presidents that oversees such policies? That not one president, including a black man, has put an end to this is hugely telling about how the world really works.Quote:
We're only a few years past the big reveal that banks were systematically denying loans to poor black communities, while not doing the same for poor white communities.
Clearly whites are involved in violent crime, because white people are, by volume, the race that police kill the most in USA. Of course, per capita it's a different story. My assumption is that there is a similar per capita tendency for black people to become criminals. Naturally that's related to poverty, but we come back to my first point... poverty is not a choice, but criminal behaviour is.Quote:
You ask if poor white people are hanging out in gangs with guns and robbing places.
The answer is YES.
Ok, so the street policing can be down to the increased chance of black communities fostering criminal behaviour, and the increased tensions between the police and black people. However, if there's a difference between the average sentence for a black man and a white man for a comparable crime and assuming comparable criminal history, then that is evidence of systematic racism within the law. That would be the fault of successive governments, all of whom have done nothing to stop systematic racism, and some of whom even have the nerve to accuse their political opponents of racism. This is further evidence that the entire system is rotten.Quote:
That is totally a thing. The difference is policing those white communities to enforce law, and prosecute those people.
None of this changes the fact that an individual is accountable for his own behaviour. And if a community is more likely than another to foster criminals, then the good forces among that community need to recognise that it's not just the system that needs looking at.
It's kinda nice to know that long after I die, the subatomic particles that formed the atoms of my body will be consumed by the sun. That's assuming I haven't fucked off in a spaceship, anyway. That's a non-zero possibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Leaving Earth isn't enough for that, ong. You'd need to leave the solar system.
The odds of interstellar travel happening in our lifetimes is 0. Given that it's about impossible to prove a 0.
I mean, there is no known or theoretical plan to get humans on a mission to another star, nor any practical known technology to do so.
I could get abducted by aliens and taken out of the solar system.
https://i.imgur.com/HmhY320.png
related to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFeewU0HhNE
As much as I dislike cops, I have always resisted the ACAB label because I found it reductionist and ridiculous... but they prove me wrong every single day.
"If we can't even knock out an old man who's peacefully protesting, then this isn't the job we signed up for!"
Fuck them, I hope all cops like them quit too.
Meanwhile, Capt. Retard is at it again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcZa-WTf2Ks
Yeah, it's a great day that unemployment went down 1%. I bet George Floyd would surely be thinking it's a great day if he wasn't dead.
Really? I thought a white dwarf and a planetary nebula is what's left from a red giant such as how the sun will end up. I thought supernova is the core collapse stuff that leaves behind a neutron star or a black hole.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Well, apparently I was wrong on this. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Good catch. :)
I was sure that it required a core collapse event, and that the pressure of the infalling stellar mass compressed the core to the electron degeneracy pressure, forming a white dwarf. The rebounding of that infalling mass is the supernova.
But wikipedia disagrees, saying the requisite pressure can be achieved for a star above 0.8 solar masses, so the sun (being 1 solar mass) will be able to form a white dwarf stellar remnant without a supernova.
No one is saying that arsonists, looters, and people assaulting police officers by throwing rocks at them are not criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No one is saying those people are not responsible for their actions, or that they shouldn't be prosecuted for their crimes.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't see how you're connecting those dots.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't hear anyone saying Trump is responsible for any of the racial injustice. I don't know why you keep asserting this is the case.
What stories are you seeing that show protestors blaming Trump for the history of racial inequality?
Just because you mentioned Obama:
Obama was candid in his opinion that being the first black president meant he had to walk a thin line on racial issues. He did not want to be see as "the" black president, but as "a" black president.
I'm not defending Obama's civil rights record, and no one else here is doing so. I can't answer your questions on this, because I'm not seeing the stories you are that are praising Obama as some paragon of civil rights.
IMO, this isn't a problem that 1 president can address. It isn't a problem that can progress when its origin is political. It needed to start from the bottom up, like it currently is, and like the civil rights movement 70 years ago did.
Obviously I agree with your core sentiment that criminal behavior is a personal choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I can only again cite that ignoring the history of why black communities are poor, why their schools are shit, why they can't get access to bank loans - ignoring the history leaves you with a dearth of knowledge that is worth protesting against, IMO.
Saying something is wrong without educating yourself as to how it got that way isn't mature behavior, to me.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I only again cite, that under-policing black neighborhoods cedes control to the criminal elements in those communities.
When the police haven't stepped into black communities and police black gangs as vigorously as they step into white communities to police white gangs, then what?
Then the criminal element holds more sway than the police, and crime rates increase.
What we've seen is police addressing that tangential increase in crime, and not going after the gangs and their leaders that create an environment of criminality and violence.
Gangs frequently support themselves financially by dealing drugs - poisoning the minds and bodies of their own communities. Police go after the bottom-end drug dealers without addressing the gangs that are supplying those drugs to the ones that push it on the streets.
The lack of policing in black communities is a social-political move to further vilify black people as criminals, while actively engaging in behavior that foments such behaviors.
Do you see that there is a systemic cause to the crime, now? That under-policing causes more crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Do you see that by systematic under-policing of black communities, the criminal elements bloom?
Cool, happy to be correct for once :)
update: https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1269...316442625?s=20Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
- What looks like at least 50 officers standing in front of a courthouse applaud and cheer for the two cops who shoved and almost killed a 75 year old man being released after getting charged with felony assault.
This is honestly just a complete mindfuck.
I forget you're not on Twitter.Quote:
I don't hear anyone saying Trump is responsible for any of the racial injustice. I don't know why you keep asserting this is the case.
It's an issue that no president has even tried to address. How difficult is it to pass legislation? How difficult is it for a president to speak out publicly about certain racist policies, like bank loans?Quote:
IMO, this isn't a problem that 1 president can address. It isn't a problem that can progress when its origin is political. It needed to start from the bottom up, like it currently is, and like the civil rights movement 70 years ago did.
I guess I'm trying to make the point that Trump is no worse, nor any better, than Obama, and all those before. They're all playing the same game, they all answer to the same people, those commonly referred to as "they" or "them" because nobody actually knows who these people are, other than to punt at rich cunts like Soros and the Rotschilds etc.
idk what the solution is, but what we're seeing isn't it. We're just playing their game.
I didn't know about the bank loans, we don't have systematic racism in this country like this. We definitely have problems, we are far from perfect both legally and socially, but we're making progress.Quote:
I can only again cite that ignoring the history of why black communities are poor, why their schools are shit, why they can't get access to bank loans - ignoring the history leaves you with a dearth of knowledge that is worth protesting against, IMO.
We're all oppressed by the system, we're all slaves to money, we're all controlled by the system one way or another. There's no escape. This should be the 99% vs the 1%, which the 1% would not like at all, but they have expertly turned it into a 49.5% vs 49.5% while they sit and watch. They do they by keeping black people in poverty, which in turn causes them to be more likely to commit crimes, which makes them more likely to be shot by cops, especially since the cops' racist views are reinforced by the above-average criminal behaviour of black communities. Meanwhile, white people who live in the white communities are shielded from this racial inequality, distracted with iphones and identity politics, too "privileged" to grasp the gravity of the situation.
This is one big game and we're losing, we being the 99%.
I think we disagree how we got here. This isn't white people oppressing black people. This is a very small minority oppressing the vast majority, and using race to keep us divided.Quote:
Saying something is wrong without educating yourself as to how it got that way isn't mature behavior, to me.
I agree, and this only supports my ideas.Quote:
The lack of policing in black communities is a social-political move to further vilify black people as criminals, while actively engaging in behavior that foments such behaviors.
This still doesn't mean the individual is not accountable. And I think we agree. But this conversation began with me suggesting black communities also need a period of self reflecting. If these people who turn to crime refused to play the game, and just got on with their lives without selling drugs, without robbing stores, without gang violence, those in power wouldn't be able to use race to divide the people.Quote:
Do you see that there is a systemic cause to the crime, now? That under-policing causes more crime?
Do you see that by systematic under-policing of black communities, the criminal elements bloom?
The only way to win their game is to not play.
Ong presidents don't make laws, governments do. In the case of US, the congress sponsors a bill, which needs a simple majority to pass. It then goes to senate and if they agree to it the president can still veto it. If he doesn't he signs it into law. The president can sign executive orders, which the next president can change at will.
The point being, modern democracies have many checks and balances to limit the powers of presidents, instead the real power is supposed to be on the people, in the form of representatives.
Best graffiti ever...
https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net...af&oe=5EFFC471
Ok, but in the context of the discussion, we're talking about policies that disclude black people from loans. I can't imagine too many people knew about this policy, and no politician can publicly back it when it does become known. So if any president, especially a black one, brings it to public attention, that is all it would take to force change.Quote:
Ong presidents don't make laws, governments do.
https://twitter.com/darrengrimes_/st...30545974132736
I mean this is just nuts. How can these people think they have any moral high ground?
Cliffs - police horse is charging out of control, runs under a traffic light at full speed, cop hits the lights, taking him off the horse and presumably knocking him clean out. "Protesters" whoop and cheer, some people throw things at him. Other footage shows a fucking bicycle being thrown at a police horse.
We need a good cull. I hope the next pandemic is a plague. Don't even care if I get it. My only hope really is this isn't the only life I get and I'll have another one in the future in a world that isn't as messed up.
^ I should add the tweet says the protesters knocked the policeman off the horse. That isn't true, the traffic lights took him off the horse. Why the horse bolted is open to debate.
It's like "Good job knocking out that old man!" Wtf.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
The same horse went on the trample a pedestrian in its panic.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I wouldn't cheer for the cop getting knocked off, except that was one hell of a tackle by the sign.
Any reason the cops need to be on horseback? There's another video of them charging the crowd like the fucking Light Brigade.
Turns out the "policeman" is a she.
A Guardian journalist has tweeted this...
Presumably this policewoman is in hospital right now. These kind of people think they have moral superiority. This really is a fucked up world. I think I'd rather be fucked over by people who at least know they're cunts.Quote:
can someone out there please edit down to just the guy hitting the traffic light over and over again to the opening bar of gwen stefani’s hollaback girl
At this point you should kinda notice yourself that you're being hyper sensitive when it comes to men in nice boots, but when a black guy gets murdered you're like: let's wait until all the evidence is in!
You can't blame anyone for laughing at this unless you want to ban laughter itself. This hits all the checkmarks of physical comedy:
* England
* Man loses battle against inanimate object
* Horse
I hope he's ok, but what the fuck is he doing on a horse?
Yeah I just saw a clip of that. Didn't hear any cheering for that one. Did hear concern.Quote:
The same horse went on the trample a pedestrian in its panic.
Have you ever been to a football game? This is how they deal with hooligans. Whether it's appropriate for a protest is another matter, but it's not much of a surprise for me to see mounted police. Horse are intimidating, they are effective at controlling some types of unruly mobs. Not sure about this.Quote:
Any reason the cops need to be on horseback? There's another video of them charging the crowd like the fukcing Light Brigade.
It's pretty perverted to get off on someone getting seriously injured for sure.
If it was one of the cops who've been video'd being cunts to peaceful protesters I might feel differently, but as far as anyone knows, she could be the world's nicest cop.
I haven't said this. I said justice should be allowed to run its course. Which incidentally is happening.Quote:
but when a black guy gets murdered you're like: let's wait until all the evidence is in!
I'm not blaming people for laughing at it. I'm blaming people for being hypocrites. The people laughing at this are people who think they have moral high ground. Why else are they protesting? They oppose racism, right? They're virture signalling their moral superiority over racists, right?Quote:
You can't blame anyone for laughing at this unless you want to ban laughter itself. This hits all the checkmarks of physical comedy:
When I laugh at jokes about dead babies, there's at least a corner of my brain trying to feel shameful about it. I don't pretend to be morally superior to others. I can be an asshole, I've done shitty things in my life, I'm far from perfect. If you find this funny, good for you. Just don't pretend you're not a cunt.
So much for social distancing.
The problem with horses is they like to panic.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Get some dogs if you want to scare people, not a fucking animal you can't control.
I don't think it's funny, I just don't see the outrage. Nobody's being a hypocrite. Black people aren't strangling themselves. This is self inflicted. That is someone who didn't need to be on a horse falling from a horse. Happens all the time. I fell off plenty of horses plenty of times. Both figuratively and literally.
Surprisingly, you're largely wrong here. Horses are resilient as fuck when it comes to these matters, that's why they've been used in battlefields for as long as they've been domesticated. But I don't care how resilient you are, if you're a horse and a bottle hits that massive dick of yours, you're gonna bolt. Occasionally it happens, but for the most part they are very well trained. Even then, injuries are usually more serious if you fall off a horse, rather than get trampled by one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I didn't say they panic all day every day. But the one who took its rider into a sign was clearly in a panic. Their flighty animals - no matter how well trained they are, when the switch goes off, there's no reining them in.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I wonder why cops gave up on dogs and stuck with horses myself. You don't have to let the dog even bite anyone, just them showing teeth and barking is pretty scary. I'd certainly gtfo out of the way if that was coming towards me.
I wasn't directing that at your specifically, rather the protesters who were laughing.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
The hypocrisy is taking such a strong moral stance on a matter you feel the need to publicly protest, and then showing yourself to lack any sense of common morality by laughing as a mounted officer is dismounted by a traffic light. I appreciate why someone might laugh, I do have a sick sense of humour, but even my first thought was "holy shit". Falling off a horse is bad enough, at full speed with an impact from a solid object that doesn't move, it's getting close to car crash territory that is.
I couldn't tell you specifically what advantage horses have over dogs, but when it comes to controlling football hooligans, horses are effective. The problem with dogs I guess is that if you let them off the lead, they could cause too much harm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
My point is that horses bolting during crowd trouble is surprisingly rare, and even rarer does it result in serious injury for a civilian. The cop is at greater risk from a horse bolting.
If I were a cop I'd rather they gave me a dog than put me on a horse. The dog's not going to take me anywhere I don't want to go, like face first into a sign.
(And lol at letting it off the lead)
There might even be an element of training going on. I mean, these horses won't have had any human contact for some time, due to the fact there has been no football, or any other large public events where they are deployed. The police may have decided it was a good opportunity to get them up to speed, perhaps underestimating the motives of the crowd.
idk what happened, it probably isn't a good idea to have horses out there, but I can perhaps see why the cops didn't think we'd protest to the point of lobbing things at horses. The risk of a horse bolting is obviously higher when people throw things at them. Generally football hooligans don't do that. Draw your own conclusions from that.