https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ical-movement/
Printable View
The Telegraph lol. But, what does the Daily Mirror say?
Have we switched places? It's usually me going "[media source] lol".
The core message is clear: black people are getting murdered by police at an astonishing rate and in just about every instance it's being covered up, the cops are being protected and nothing comes of it. Not only did the protests not inspire caution, cops ramped it up to 11. Every day people are getting assaulted by cops. Many times completely unprovoked. I can only promote this guy again who collects all the videos of police brutality since the George Floyd murder in a thread and he's almost up to 600:Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/st...79519611146240
When you talk to individuals about solutions you'll get all kinds of opinions. I'm personally convinced that racism is entrenched in capitalism and you won't get rid of it without a political revolution... but that's my opinion.
Ong seems to be of the opinion that anything anyone says who is, or claims to be part of BLM is automatically a spokesperson and anything they say or do can be used to discredit the entire movement. Meanwhile 600 documented instances of police brutality apparently don't paint a clear enough picture of a systemic problem, and apparently black people should be able to just manifest equality if they only wished hard enough.
Citing the Black Panthers as a violent activist group is just failing to look at history. It is failing to look at the origin of that imagery, and who created it and why. Who spread the idea that they were committing acts of violence? What politicians gained from the decapitating of black leadership structures that both lead to the rise of the Black Panthers, then cut them down, too?
When you fail to look into the origin of that imagery, you will fail to realize that it was a fabricated lie to falsely criminalize Black leaders. You will silently just buy into the lies created by politicians to criminalize their political opponents. Lies that have since been confessed to be lies. Plenty is on the record, if you just look for primary sources, instead of 2nd, 3rd, etc. -hand sources that throw out buzz words to incite emotional responses.
You have to dig deeper to find the firsthand sources. It's not quick or easy, but those sources are out there.
I'm sorry, but I'm neck deep in studying the history, causes and effects of the laws that criminalize black leaders, and I know there's no way that I can state all the things that have been done to falsely criminalize blacks, systematically and purposefully by politicians in a 5-minute blurb. I've spent weeks on this, using my bent as a scientist to try to find root causes, and to explore the history that set the stage for today.
Ong, I know you have respect for thinking scientifically, and respect for causes and effects, at least when it comes to physics. Just apply that same level of skepticism and curiosity to race issues.
Did you watch the video I linked? You can skip straight to the confession. I gave you the time stamp. It's one of Nixon's political advisors describing the political motivation for criminalizing marijuana and heroin to suppress Nixon's political opponents, namely the hippies and blacks.
If you want a real look at the history of these laws, who made them, what those people had to say after their careers ended... check out the documentary "13" on Netflix. That's a decent source, and not something that you can digest in less than 15 minutes, so dig in.
If you're not willing to spend even that much time to understand the history, then kindly present your thoughts as uninformed and seeking, and not truthful assertions.
I don't think there's a single person who reads my comments that thinks I'm informed. I don't need to emphasise it. None of us are informed about the majority of our discussions. You're informed when it comes to physics, poop is informed when it comes to statistical analysis or whatever he does, I'm informed when it comes to the long term effects of cannabis, but when it comes to politics we're all uninformed, because we all base our opinions on what we believe to be true, not what we learn as fact.
poop is right to lol the Telegraph, but likewise I'm right to lol the BBC or CNN or whatever MSM source anyone cites. We all have a tendency to grasp on to articles that already meet our opinion. We can all find counter arguments if we dig hard enough. Politics is a shitshow.
I think what I said above will help when I say... physics is not politics. I have the utmost faith in the sincerity of science. I believe what I read, while also applying critical analysis in the sense of knowing that what we know is only our best current understanding. The only science I'm skeptical of is climate, but even then it's not something I shout about because I'm far from convinced.Quote:
Ong, I know you have respect for thinking scientifically, and respect for causes and effects, at least when it comes to physics. Just apply that same level of skepticism and curiosity to race issues.
I have faith in science. I don't have faith in politics. And make no mistake, race is politics.
I'm not saying that I believe black people were not and are not oppressed. My concern is in putting faith in the integrity of political groups. I don't trust BLM, and nor do I trust any political group, which would include Black Panthers. I have no idea if they were violent or not, and nothing I'm going to read will convince me either way, and as such is a waste of my time. It's all very well talking about educating oneself about the history, but what's the point if you don't have faith in it?
As for Nixon, I know he targeted hippies and blacks. He was an asshole.
I mean, this is why politics is so divisive. Nobody is right, there are no "facts" like the speed of light. It's just one person's interpretation of the world. I'm no more or no less an expert than anyone else, no matter how educated you are. Even the lizard people nutjobs might be right, how the fuck would I know?
Politics is not science. It's bullshit. If anyone thinks I'm informed, more fool them.
Politics is BS, exactly. When people admit to writing BS laws to oppress their political opponents, that should trigger outrage, and an immediate call for repeal of those laws, but that's just not what has been happening.
I'm fine with your blind distrust of politicians, but it doesn't mesh with your blind trust of some YouTuber or Twitter feed or whatever.
It's great for you to distrust liar politicians, but not great that you aren't seeking data you can trust.
It's silly to assert there isn't data out there to be trusted, though. We've directed you to said data, linked it right into the discussions.
And no, we're not just picking a random citation which backs what we wanted to hear. We're finding data and historical records to form fact-based opinions and use those sources to back up what we are independently concluding alongside each other.
Much like good science, there is a consistent story unfolding the more we dig into it.
I'm sure I've made this analogy before but what if we both got a group of 100 noobs to play poker. Both groups get the same prep talk, the same starting hand sheet and a friendly slap on the butt, but my group starts off with $200 and your group starts off with $10. This would be representative of the net worth different of white and black families in the US. Which group do you think does better. Would you think it's fair to say that if the $10 group does worse it would have been up to them to do better since it's possible to build a roll from $10?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yes, a lot of black people do great in life. It's possible that individuals succeed. That was never the point and proves nothing. Nobody complained that individuals can't succeed.
Good article. Some of the conversations I overhear in public make me want to curl up and cry. I'm sure a lot of it comes from posts shared on social media and the fact that most people severely lack critical thinking skills and any knowledge or interest in how to rudimentary fact check something.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Here's Biden's new and improved take on the subject: https://twitter.com/nasescobar316/st...159160321?s=20Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Here's the full facebook video, but I don't have a timestamp. Around 23min. he talks about the crime bill. Watchinging this now, I 100% stand by my prediction that Biden shits the bed and Bernie takes the nomination. Absolutely incomprehensible to me how dems went out of their way to go to the polls to vote for this pile of garbage.
https://www.facebook.com/ABCNewsLive...26595727857604
IDK what those links say, but Biden is just more of the same on this issue. Probably all issues. What a feckless politician.
His comment a little while ago about, "Maybe police should shoot for the leg instead of the body" or whatever perfectly describes what my vote for Biden over Trump would be. I'd rather shoot myself in the leg than the chest.
Furthermore... no one should be shooting anyone in an attempt to maim them. Either they are an active threat to human life and need to be killed immediately as a last resort to protect life... or they shouldn't be shot or killed at all.
I understand if you don't want to engage in social media, but to not accept them as a video platform is weird. You don't need to make an account, you can just click the twitter link and watch the video. I don't understand how that's fundamentally different from YT.
The only reason I use YouTube on FTR outside of entertainment is to find something I can link directly and embed in the post. I'm not finding news on YouTube, as that's got all the same problems as other social media; I'm finding news, then finding a good way to share that news with my friends on FTR.
Nothing on Twitter or Facebook or whatever other social media platforms has any accountability to research, and I'm also not interested in those formats for entertainment. I've clicked on a few of your Twitter links, and then temp allowed them through my script blocker, and I'm not inclined to change my opinion. The clips lack context, lack analysis, lack everything needed to inform. They just feed whatever bias the viewer already had.
***
I never claimed to be not weird.
I choose to not own a cell phone, either.
I'm not a fan of chocolate.
Raw tomatoes are gross.
He could shit the bed, the sofa and the kitchen sink and he'll still get the nomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I suppose 'cause they were afraid Bernie would somehow lose to Trump, and after the election happens they don't care if they have a senile geezer in charge, as long as they win.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Also, Bernie is a COMMUNIST, what with all his fancy sociliazed health care and free college ideas.
They're not afraid Bernie will lose to Trump, they're afraid he'll win. It's like Labour and Corbyn, only in USA. Good chance Bernie isn't one of "them".
I don't see how any of that applies to a clip from a Biden rally. It's just Biden rambling incoherently for 30 min. The clip I posted is him saying relating to the crime bill 'doing crack isn't the same thing as people doing cocaine in a nice neighborhood like this' as he is surrounded by white people. It's not viral, there's no reason to believe it's manipulated, there's no commentary. It's completely along the lines of what he always says about the crime bill, which is that it was great and still is great.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Most of the videos in the police brutality thread I keep promoting are there because they show up on social media first. Usually a day or two later a news outlet will report on the incident, which is then added and linked to the thread. When investigations are opened, there will be links posted to the thread.
Twitter is simply the most useful aggregator for news as it's going on.
IRL, I started off in the $10 group, and failed to build a roll. I don't blame the system for that, my failures in life are mine. I could've done better in life if I applied myself. That is true of nearly everyone in the western world who doesn't "succeed" in life.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Here in the UK, a lot of our doctors are Indian or Pakistani. Some of these were lucky and born into rich Indian families, others were born to parents who devoted their lives to their kids' education in the hope they would succeed.
It's kind of natural that black people will be overrepresented in your $10 poker group. White families are, on average more financially established, black people tend to be second or third generation immigrants or whatever, they do not have the benefit of century-long established family links to their area. This makes a difference. Is it fair? No, but life isn't fair, it can never be fair to everyone. I got dealt a shit hand, but hey I'm in the UK, it could've been worse. There's worse places to be than USA, like most of the fucking world. Even for a black person in a system that is rigged, USA is better than China, India, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Nigeria... that's over half the world's population right there. At least men can be gay in USA. At least you can marry who you want. At least you get welfare. At least you don't live in a slum.
For the majority of people in our countries, regardless of skin colour, if you apply yourself you will succeed in life. And if you don't, it's still better than being in a Brazilian slum or a war torn shithole.
Ok, got it.
Suggestion: We just simply take away 80% of the net worth of all caucasians and just transfer it to ethnic minorities. By your logic I don't see how you could possibly have a problem with that. Then caucasians just need to apply themselves more, which should be easy.
As long as outliers exist and other people have it worse, anything can be justified, right?
No, I'm sorry but I'm not in favour of wealth redistribution on racial grounds. It doesn't strike me as an ethical system. If that's what you really expect to happen, then all you're doing is saying "the system is racist against blacks, let's make it racist against whites instead". I don't see how that's a solution.
Ong, I get that you come from a poor background, and that so do many black people. I get that you don't blame the system for your role in your personal history from that poverty to your current circumstances.
It's just not the same for black people in the US. I can't speak to the UK, but if you were an American:
The difference would be that your parents never had to sit you down and explain to you that because of the color of your skin, you'd have to work twice as hard to get the same reward for your efforts.
The difference would be that if you apply for a bank loan, a rental, a job, etc. the color of your skin wouldn't work against you.
The difference would be that you probably had access to a better public school with better funding and better teachers.
The difference would be that when you get pulled over by police, you don't have to always wonder if this is where you die.
The difference would be you could - if you wanted - go for a jog without being nervous that a passing car wont pull in front of you and assholes jump out and perhaps kill you because of your skin color.
Yes, poverty affects white people, too. Yes, a lot of white people don't feel like they've received any privilege, or at least would sure as hell like to cash in on that privilege any moment now.
The thing is that what white people take for granted as "normal" is by and large only normal for whites.
That's the privilege.
I know you don't think any of that should be a privilege, but should just be normal, but the simple fact is that it's not normal, and only a privileged group get the luxury of even thinking it's normal.
No, in my case I have to work twice as hard because I don't have a stable family life. I had to figure this out myself because my foster parents didn't tell me. And by the time I figured it out, I didn't really care.Quote:
The difference would be that your parents never had to sit you down and explain to you that because of the color of your skin, you'd have to work twice as hard to get the same reward for your efforts.
No, my employment status works against me instead.Quote:
The difference would be that if you apply for a bank loan, a rental, a job, etc. the color of your skin wouldn't work against you.
I went to the same school as Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis and even a German. Funnily enough it was the German who got bullied for being German, the Asians didn't have problems. And it was a dreadful school, once rated as the fourth worst performing in the country. Fun fact - I was voted their worst ever pupil after I left. There's a claim to fame. The fourth worst student in the country!Quote:
The difference would be that you probably had access to a better public school with better funding and better teachers.
Can I ask a question? When was the last time a non-criminal unarmed black man got shot in USA, despite complying with police? Because all the ones I read about, they are criminals. I'm not saying that in Floyd's case it justifies the actions of the cop because it obviously doesn't, but I don't have to worry about the police killing me, not just because they're not armed here, but also because I'm not a criminal. If I were, I'd have to worry about the police. And if I were the kind of criminal who had a gun, then I'd have to worry about getting shot. My skin colour isn't going to save me if I'm robbing post offices.Quote:
The difference would be that when you get pulled over by police, you don't have to always wonder if this is where you die.
That's because I live in the countryside and not the dangerous parts of Birmingham, London, Nottingham, Manchester, Bradford, Leicester, Bristol... I could keep listing cities in the UK where there are parts where it isn't safe for white people to go for a jog.Quote:
The difference would be you could - if you wanted - go for a jog without being nervous that a passing car wont pull in front of you and assholes jump out and perhaps kill you because of your skin color.
Rights are not privileges. We've got to stop with this mentality. When you talk about "privilege" it reads as though I should be grateful to have basic human rights. I shouldn't, and I'm not. I'm not grateful as a baby when my mother feeds me. It's a fucking demand, it's her duty. Being breastfed isn't a privilege. And neither is white skin.Quote:
That's the privilege.
The luxury group is wealthy people. Their normal is worlds apart from mine.Quote:
I know you don't think any of that should be a privilege, but should just be normal, but the simple fact is that it's not normal, and only a privileged group get the luxury of even thinking it's normal.
I know USA is different to the UK, but USA is an armed country. So of course the social dynamics are different, especially when it comes to crime.
The decision to be a criminal is the individual's.
I have obstacles, and it's because I come from a poor broken family. When I was 15, I was probably in the top 1% of kids likely to end up in prison. I'm lucky I mixed with stoner skateboarders at college instead of dickhead druggies. I have made some poor decisions in my life, but some have been excellent. I chose my friends well.
I know racism exists. But much of the problem is cultural, and it's all too easy to blame racism while ignoring culture. That's a mistake.
Ong. What you keep denying is that poor black people also have to go through all of that you've personally gone through.
Plus, also, in addition to that, they have to go through all the things I've mentioned.
It's not an either/or. It's a both/and.
I am a big fan of questions, bro.Quote:
Can I ask a question? When was the last time a non-criminal unarmed black man got shot in USA, despite complying with police?
IDK. I think the question is disingenuous, here's why.
Everything is a crime in the US. When I walk across the street and there's no posted crosswalk, I'm breaking the law.
Driving 5 mph above the posted speed limit is the norm. Everyone's a criminal.
The US incarcerates more of its citizens than any other country for which we have data (NK, e.g., doesn't release data).
We're so over-criminalized in every respect that literally everyone's a criminal. It's a matter of who's getting arrested for their crimes, and how the police and greater media portray those crimes.
I'm a criminal. I've been arrested twice. Once for driving with expired license plates, and once for possession of marijuana.
Neither of those times did it even cross my mind that my skin color may affect how I'm treated by the police.
THAT should be the norm. It shouldn't be a privilege, it should be the norm.
Your words to the effect that it's NOT a privilege are just missing the reality on the ground. I 100% agree with you that it should not be a privilege, but the reality is that it is. It absolutely should not be. But it is. That's what needs to be addressed, and corrected.
***
Can I ask you a question?
Does every crime deserve a death sentence? No judge, no trial, no jury, just death on the spot?
Are you actually saying that this is your vision of justice?
Did you know that the statistics show that the least gun-carrying race in the US is black people?Quote:
I were the kind of criminal who had a gun, then I'd have to worry about getting shot. My skin colour isn't going to save me if I'm robbing post offices.
I.e. the odds of a black person carrying a gun are lower than the odds of any other race carrying a gun?
Disingenuous means insincere or willfully ignorant, I assure you it's not.Quote:
IDK. I think the question is disingenuous, here's why.
When I use the word "criminal" I definitely do not think of jaywalkers. I mean it's a ridiculous law, do the cops even take it seriously? Has anyone been shot for jaywalking? Jailed?Quote:
Everything is a crime in the US. When I walk across the street and there's no posted crosswalk, I'm breaking the law.
Did you get convicted by a court? Or did you get cautioned, or whatever the USA equivalent is? Because a slap on the wrists doesn't make you a criminal. A conviction makes you a criminal. Or maybe making a living through illicit activity and never getting caught, I'm happy that person is still a criminal. But getting caught with weed doesn't make you a criminal, not unless you faced a court. Is it legal in your state yet?Quote:
I'm a criminal. I've been arrested twice. Once for driving with expired license plates, and once for possession of marijuana.
Of course not, but I do think cops should be armed in a nation where the people are armed, and I do think cops should be able to use minimal force to neutralise a threat. Minimal might mean lethal force if the threat is strong enough. Obviously what happened to Floyd is not minimal force, there is no reason that guy should be dead. But he still chose a life of a criminal. He didn't jaywalk into it.Quote:
Does every crime deserve a death sentence? No judge, no trial, no jury, just death on the spot?
This is interesting but doesn't come close to telling the full story. What about in Chicago? Or whichever location we're talking about where a black guy gets shot? I don't know how much that figure is skewed by rednecks and their shotguns, a different demographic to homies with pistols.Quote:
Did you know that the statistics show that the least gun-carrying race in the US is black people?
I.e. the odds of a black person carrying a gun are lower than the odds of any other race carrying a gun?
Here's another question, and I'd kinda like you to be honest.
Who do you think is more likely to use their gun to kill someone? A white person? Or a black person?
I don't know the answer to that, and maybe this is just falling victim to propaganda, but I'd bet the black person is.
It's hard to not consider your continued assertions that there is no difference in society between being a white person or a black person is anything but willful ignorance. In fact, I find it more and more difficult to think so, the more hours I spend studying the history of racism and the stories of black lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't see you seeking knowledge. I see you seeking nonsense and tangents to slink away from a harsh reality that people are screaming about all over the world. I see you avoiding seeking of data, denying that there is data, and attempting to contradict data with emotional appeals.
I believe you mean to seek a truth underlying all the BS, but I don't see much evidence to support that belief.
Yes, I've been given a ticket for jaywalking, and had to pay the fine. I was "rounding the corner" as I walked across at a crosswalk at 5:00 AM in Seattle on my way to work at a coffee shop. Did I get arrested? No, but it was within the officer's job description to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Have people been shot or jailed for jaywalking? Jailed, certainly. Shot, probably.
Treyvon Martin was shot for wearing a hoodie, or at least... that was stated as a contributing factor to shoot.
I did have to go to court for the possession of marijuana charge, yes. Obv. I hired a lawyer, and that lawyer got me a slap on the wrist, but if I couldn't have afforded a lawyer, I'm certain that I'd have had a much steeper penalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
A whole lot of people are in American prisons for possession of marijuana, ong.
You're twisting the word criminal. If that's what you mean, then we need a different word that means what police and news agencies mean when they say "a criminal was shot" because simply resisting arrest makes you a criminal in the eyes of the police and the news.
I can't even understand this jump to defending the use of force against non-violent people.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What are you even defending, here?
How is passing a counterfeit bill any more violent than jaywalking?
What was the threat that needed neutralizing?
and let's not get all focused on George Floyd as though it's one case that is not representative of a national crisis in police use of force and lack of accountability to the people they're sworn to "serve and protect." Criminals are citizens who the police are sworn to serve and protect, too. They don't get to decide that some citizens deserve their service and protection, but not others. That's absolute BS. Criminals are citizens, too.
Non-violent people should have 100% certainty that the police can't arbitrarily choose to be afraid of them and kill them.
Just looking for more excuses to justify this notion that black people are criminals, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Answer your own questions with data. It's clear that me providing you with data is falling on deaf ears (blind eyes?)
What I believe is that black people, communities, and leaders have been falsely criminalize by intentionally racist laws that target black communities and leaders. I believe that news agencies for decades have pressed a false narrative by selectively showing images of black people as violent while not showing white people as violent. I believe that police are enforcing those scandalous laws with discrimination. I believe police officers are too quick to claim they're afraid of black people and using that as an excuse to kill them.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Why do you think that? What is the evidence that motivates your assumption that black people are more criminal than white people? What is the origin, and who perpetuated that message? What was their bias? Can they be trusted?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
***
Educate yourself, ong. Of course, you shouldn't listen to me or my opinions to form your world view on this. You also shouldn't use Twitter, FB, and whatever other echo chambers and bastions of insular thinking, either.
Click the links we've posted that show data collected on this subject, and argue from a position of knowledge.
Find your own data and post that and we can discuss it.
Sorry I kind of had to take a couple of days away from politics.
I mean we're going round in circles. You tell me to read the data. I already said I don't trust the data. But you're right to point out I can't really trust anything, including what I read that helps form my opinions.
I believe blacks are more likely to use a gun because they are, on average, poorer, and thus more likely to turn to crime, especially if they live in an area already rife with crime. The reasons I think blacks are more likely to use a gun are cultural, not racial. It's not that I think black people are, on average, more dangerous, it's that I think poor people are, on average, more dangerous.
I don't need to find data. It's a waste of time. We both surely agree black people are poorer. Do you think crime and poverty are related? It's a logical conclusion to draw, without it being racist.
And if we can agree that black people are more likely to use a gun, then can we understand the increased sense of caution a white cop might have when entering the hood to deal with an incident?
We do agree on one thing. It's the system that is to blame. The system is what's racist. It intentionally keeps black people poor. But it has been for a very long time, through Rep and Dem administrations. Even a black president couldn't fix the system. Any concessions given by the state will be superficial, we both know it. True change is tearing the system down, but to do that black and white people need to be united, because if they're not, then what replaces the fallen system is a lot worse than what we had.
White guilt is not the way to bring about unity.
If you want to step away from this conversation, then I wont push it on you.
However, you said you wanted to step away, then delivered a number of arguments which are a continuation of this discussion. You can't have it both ways. If you don't want to discuss, then don't discuss. If you discuss, then you choose to.
It's worth pointing out that your luxury of turning away from these issues is a white privilege.
It's worth pointing out that you're right that white people shouldn't feel personal responsibility for the history, and that white guilt is just another part of the problem.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbpR-dXU...jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbqInHIU...g&name=900x900
article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...est-gun-mayor/
I predict these two will have a pretty exciting next couple of weeks.
Oh and the president retweeted and praised a video of one of his supporters pumping fists and shouting "white power"
I thought it was a little too on the nose.
Looks like Karen got married.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
WH is saying he 'probably didn't watch it' before re-tweeting. So yeah, it's all good.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
... to another Karen. It's amazing that we didn't have a word for one kind of person until recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Here's an interesting take on the explosion of Karen cops making false accusations against food workers:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/cops-k...g-black-people
I'm sure it's an innocent mistake that will only happen a couple more times before November.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
White privilege is white guilt. If you realised this, maybe you'd understand why some people, not necessarily racist, take issue with the phrase.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
Black people can step away from these issues too. Many do.
That Daily Beast article reads like it was written by a high school student. Do you actually consider that a "source"?
ugh... T_D wasn't under control of Trumpists for months. They cracked down on actual hate subs about a year ago. This is a PR move. They try to keep advertisers, but they also banned harmless subs. T_D was harmless and had basically no traffic for months now. /r/conservative is still up which is miles worse than T_D ever was.
They also banned chapotraphouse which got qarantained a while ago for brigading animal subs like /r/dogswithjobs...
You're telling me this dog doen't have a job?
https://www.middleeasteye.net/sites/...?itok=iCxVXXDn
ridiculous!
I consider this opinion piece a source for the authors opinion, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If that's the case I really don't understand your opposition to wholesale wealth redistribution. How about we take everything you got, take away everything you receive, give it to a minority, and then you can "step away" from that issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You just put on your best stepping shoes and you steppedy step yourself away. Sounds good to me!
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this "wealth distribution" thing. It's also quite laughable saying that to me, I have fuck all money and the only assets I have are records.
Do you actually think we should literally redistribute wealth on racial grounds? Or is this hyperbole to try and somehow make a point? Because if so, it's going over my head.
It's based on your dumbass assertion that institutionalized injustice should be tolerated because individuals can do well. To me that means you are ok with institutionalized injustice, so you should be the recipient of it. Those who would rather no longer be on the receiving end should then be made the benefactors of this transaction. You don't seem to mind it, they do. Easy game.
Oh I see, you think pointing out that people have a choice in their life decisions amounts to "tolerance" of systematic racism.
Your brain works in very strange ways.
I don't tolerate racism any more than I tolerate the persecution of Hindus in Pakistan, or domestic violence, or the shooting of elephants for sport. We all "tolerate" lots of terrible things, because it's completely out of our control. Institutional racism is out of my control. All I can do is not be racist, and not vote for political parties I think are racist. Now, in trying not to be racist, people like you think I'm racist because I come across as dismissive of racism when I'm actually dismissive of the current strategy to fight it; and all the political parties are, in my opinion, racist, because they promote identity politics, which is by its very nature racist.
What can either of us do to change the system?
I mean, we both know the system is racist, yet the system is supporting BLM. Doesn't that strike you as strange?
Could you define what you mean by "the system"?
It's capitalism, democracy, law, media, education, the things that underpin our society. It's the people who control these things.
Sounds a bit like George Soros, Clintons, The Man, Illuminati, Rothschilds, feminists, Bilderbergs etc?
Feminists? Where does that come from?
I can see you just want to reduce the "system" to conspiracy nonsense, using crackpot buzzwords like "Illuminati". I get it, you don't like to acknowledge democracy is a sham. It's a big deal.
I have no idea who the system is in terms of names. Soros, Clinton, Rothschild, these would be reasonable guesses but nothing more. At the very least these people are corrupt, but maybe that's all they are, maybe they just play the game well.
One thing I do not believe is that the general public have the democratic power to enforce change. On the rare occasion it looks like change might happen, bad things happen. See JFK. The powers that be, whatever you want to call them, will not tolerate any threats to their existence.
So when I see BLM getting widespread state support, and by that I mean football players taking the knee en masse, large capitalist companies funding them, and celebrities endorsing them, I see a system that supports BLM. If the system supports BLM, then BLM doesn't threaten the existence of the system.
"The System" does sound like conspiracy nonsense, yes. That implies there's some invisible power structure scheming behind the scenes for world domination.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Of course people in power will want to stick to their power, especially if they're career politicians. That's not just power hungry greed, that's their profession and livelihood.
Of course people who are well off will try to maintain the status quo. Even many people who are not will fight against any change, because they perceive it as a threat.
The democratic power to change is very real, and there's numerous examples of it working. Do you have any non-conspiracy examples of it not working?
There's a lot to unpack here. So athletes, private businesses and celebrities are also "system"? Do you mean that "the system" is everyone except private citizens whose names aren't widely known? How on earth would BLM threaten the existence of athletes and celebrities, unless they happen to be racist? What would perhaps be more telling, is that how many governments and police departments have endorsed BLM, but even that doesn't say anything. Neither governments, police departments, businesses nor athletes are hive-minds or centrally controlled homogenous masses, they consist of individuals with different opinions and morals. Some may support BLM while other may not. But I can guarantee you not one of them spend time worrying about the existence of "the system".Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If there's no system, there's no systematic racism.Quote:
"The System" does sound like conspiracy nonsense, yes. That implies there's some invisible power structure scheming behind the scenes for world domination.
But yes, you're right. In the context I use the word, I do believe there's an "invisible power structure". They're not scheming for world domination, they are maintaining it. Nothing changes when different ideologies win power, so why would you believe power has actually changed hands? Why didn't Obama fix these racist laws? Either because he didn't want to, or he couldn't.
Elite athletes that have huge social influence and are used as pawns, yes. Major corporations, yes. Megacelebs who appear to lack any actual talent, yes. I mean, some people and businesses think BLM is a force for good. Others think it's good for business to be on their side. But BLM has large scale "system" support, that is obvious. So my point remains... if the system tolerates and even supports their existence, then they are not a threat to the system.Quote:
There's a lot to unpack here. So athletes, private businesses and celebrities are also "system"?
What do you think BLM are fighting against? Where is this racism if the "system" doesn't exist?
There's a difference between politicians popping in with their own agendas on their own accord and mass, widespread protests forcing politicians to notice and take action or risk their careers.
The corporations hopping on board are almost certainly just offering lip-service as a form of self-advertising virtue-signalling.
Individual athletes choosing to support human rights and express their beliefs is a bit in-between those 2, IMO. Some are probably actually personally fired up and invested in the protest movement, while others are just doing it to save face or try to push their personal brand to be in line with popular opinion.
Stuff like NASCAR banning the confederate flag from their races is fine and all, but it's not addressing the root causes of anything. It's just telling their fans that they need to keep their bottom-feeder level racism in private.
Those individuals and organizations you label as "the system" which are supporting BLM are not actually supporting the movement, by and large. They're not trying to do anything to affect change in the system, they're just saying a bunch of hollow crap and donating money to look good while not enacting any change.
Politicians all over the US are passing laws to outlaw police using choke holds. That's not addressing the problem, that's trying to pretend like they're taking action while not addressing the root causes of anything. That's not supporting the civil rights movement, that's paying lip-service in a manner that they hope they can point back to and lie that they've done something.
None of what you call "support" is doing so in a manner that will affect actual change. Taking down statues is fine and all, but it does nothing to repeal the laws that oppress minority groups. Banning choke holds is fine and all, but it doesn't address the real problem that police are not facing legal consequences for their illegal behaviors.
So I don't see much actual systemic support of BLM that you seem to see. I see a bunch of people finding the least they can do to virtue signal that they're doing something while not actually doing anything.
Exactly. Nothing actually changes. The "support" is superficial, but it's still support, as it influences the general public. And the reason it won't create any meaningful change is because BLM are part of the system, and not fighting it. If they threatened meaningful change, they would not be getting the support they get. It's worth noting that political statements are banned in football matches here in the UK, the England team recently got fined for wearing poppies, a symbol of remembrance for the war dead. Players can be fined for publicly supporting the "wrong" kind of politics. That players are allowed to do this without consequence is a statement in itself that the system supports their actions.Quote:
That's not addressing the problem, that's trying to pretend like they're taking action while not addressing the root causes of anything.
Most people who "support" BLM are either politically manipulated, or motivated by money.
3m Hong Kong citizens given a route to the UK. Twitter in meltdown as the anti-British folk out there try to spin it into something terrible, like we created this "mess" (as though democracy and economic prosperity is a mess), comments like "but zomg Windrush", and incorrectly predicting that Brexiteers will be unhappy about it, even though this is exactly the kind of immigration we want, as opposed oppressive religious types.
I think this might have fucked up China's chances of gaining access to our 5G networks, anyway. We should probably stop using nuclear power stations that they helped build, too.
What kind is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If you look at our labour markets, we're short on tradesmen and seasonal manual labour (e.g.., fruit pickers). So unless you think HK is awash with plumbers and strawberry pickers, I'm not sure what kind of immigration you think is going to benefit us from there.
I'm not saying we shouldn't allow them, I'm sayiing we have a strange set of priorities regarding who we allow to immigrate here if we use the sins of our fathers as a criteria (and incidentally that same logic would suggest we should allow much of Asia and Africa to immigrate here as well).
We're allowing Hong Kong citizens born before 1997 because we have a legal obligation to. Boris isn't being kind here. It's not about the "sins of our fathers", it's about a contract we signed with China in 1997, which is binding until 2047.
Hong Kong folk will come here and find work. I expect it will be a challenge at first, they might have to take fruit picker jobs, and I reckon they will rather than absord welfare, but even if they do need support, in 5 or 10 years, when they have settled and the economy has recovered from covid, I expect the majority to be high achievers. It's in their DNA.
Correction - we signed the contract in 1985, but it became effective in 1997.
So why is this interesting then? Because some uninformed people on twitter are outraged? What else is new?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I would be surprised if a single one came here to pick fruit for two months a year or whatever it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Obvious troll is obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's interesting to me because the plonkers on Twitter (and presumably on other platforms) can't wrap their heads around the fact that Brexiteer-type Brits are more welcoming to the idea than expected (and probably hoped).
It obviously won't be their ambition, but those that arrive during the summer will have that option, and some will take it.Quote:
I would be surprised if a single one came here to pick fruit for two months a year or whatever it is.
Surely you've heard that phrase before? I'm not trying to be funny with that, it just means it's part of their culture.Quote:
Obvious troll is obvious.
I think it pretty explicitly means that it's nature, not nurture.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's just a phrase, nobody means it literally when they say it. It's not meant to be analysed in the context of nature/nurture.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Orwell called this "newspeak"...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eb74mBPU...jpg&name=largeQuote:
Originally Posted by TwitterEngineering (blue tick)
https://twitter.com/TwitterEng/statu...33305190342656
This is pointless virtue signalling so they can continue to selectively apply their TOS. Twitch did it right. When Trump's twitch channel rebroadcast the "they're sending rapists, they're sending murderers" speech, twitch temp banned his channel as they would with every other channel. When Trump tweets out targeted harassment and death threats, they look the other way.
This is very similar to the street naming and statue removing nonsense. It avoids the actual issue... but it's not orwellian. It's one companies naming policy. How does this affect you?
So it's not just that the police are enforcing racist laws, now.
It's that the modern day police grew out of a history of slave catchers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Rm3tuMFTI
Then a bunch of laws written to oppress voters and black communities were passed.
Then those police were militarized.
How does it affect me? It's social engineering, or at least an attempt at it. Of course, that's why it seem Orwellian to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Oh shit, wuf's gonna go balistic.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/enter...rnd/index.html
I'm gonna start to regret all those jokes I made about this.
I'd be surprised if he breaks 1%.
If he doesn't drop out the second the first polls come in, I think he's more likely to syphon votes from Trump than Biden. I wouldn't be too worried.
If there ever was a time for a 3rd party to break 5% it would be now, but Kanye is not the guy.
Lol Kanye.
Then again I also said lol Trump.
So he'll probably win.
Not really MAGA news, but close enough.
https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/sta...33376397008896
There've been at least three major Trump scandals in the last little while that should disqualify him from office: Commuting the sentence of Roger Stone, doing nothing about Putin's bounty on US soldiers, and not speaking to Fauci since early June.
And I'm probably forgetting a few in there somewhere.
And yet, nothing from Oskar about any of them.
I think this is empirical proof that we have all become desensitized.
I shouldn't laugh, but this is the juiciest irony I've seen in days.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...19-coronavirus
Yup. I read the other day that his aides ordered big trucks to the White House lawn to cheer him up, and I just thought: of course that's true! I'm not even going to fact check that. That is so stupid, it has to be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm not too invested in Trumps trajectory right now because at this point a Biden victory seems unavoidable. I am surprised how much Biden leads. Maybe the "Biden is the most electable"-people saw something I didn't. Apparently when americans say: we want healthcare, affordable housing and a planet that's not on fire, and Biden's like: "no", they're like: "Fuck my shit up, daddy!"
I don't get it, but I don't have to. I'm not one to kink shame.
Build that wall! Build that wall!Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I think this is going to be another 2016 'lesser of two evils' election. Only this time, no-one can pretend that Trump will change (except maybe to become even worse) if he's elected. So, the only voters left are the MAGA-tards and racists for whom facts don't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I can't believe I haven't seen a single reporter ask Trump questions in the way he answers them to expose his stupidity. Like "Do you think you'll do good in regards to trade? Maybe very good in the next very short time?" Or "China has done very badly, do you think they'll have to do better? Maybe much better even?"
I always find the reporters who ask the POTUS questions strangely deferential. It's not just that they rarely ask him a hard question, it's that whenever they do and he invariably answers with some word salad bullshit, they don't press him but just move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I mean, if it were a UK leader acting like him, an interviewer would be like "C'mon mate, wtf are you on about?" pretty much every time.
Or, they could just have him stand up in the House and answer questions like they do here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEr8W6r5XE8
The Fauch isn't taking any shit from the WH.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...campaign=share
It's nearly impossible to read criticism of Trump without it being massively biased. It's very clear that article is written by someone who opposes Trump. Journalism is dead.
If you're Fauci and the WH is pissing on your reputation, do you talk to a sympathetic media outlet like the Atlantic, or to Fox News who will just spin your defense against you?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I agree all media is biased. Still seems possible to just look at the article and pick out what Fauci says and ignore the spin if you want.
"All media is biased".
Indeed, which is why journalism is dead. A talented journalist is capable of finding non-biased language to report on an event. Maybe 20 years ago, such journalists worked for leading agencies. Now, talented journalists are pushed to the "fringe" and have to publish their own blogs.
What are some biased news articles from AP or Reuters?
...because if you have talent you therefore are unbiased.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Face it, everyone is biased. It's unavoidable.
Also I think Coco makes a good point that AP and Reuters are pretty neutral. There's bias and then there's BIAS.
Reuters is flagging up as "least biased" according to mediabiasfactcheck.com, while AP gets good reviews too. With that said, I just checked out the Reuters home page and the leading story is "Russia trying to steal COVID-19 vaccine data, say UK, U.S. and Canada", and goes on to publish British propaganda like the following quote... “While others pursue their selfish interests with reckless behaviour, the UK and its allies are getting on with the hard work of finding a vaccine and protecting global health”.
There is no balance here, there's no suggestion that the UK, USA and Canada are trying to keep their research from nations like Russia in order to protect profit from such vaccines. The fact Russia are claimed to be trying to "steal" such information shows we're not working with them on a vaccine. This is contrary to earlier statements from the UK which imply the world should work together to defeat covid19.
It's garbage propaganda. However, they are noteworthy because they are very careful with their language, their bias is much more subtle.
Of course everyone has bias. The point about "talented journalists" is that such journalists can put aside their natural bias and report on the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Reuters is probably the least biased agency out there, yet they are still biased in the editing, if not the journalist's language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't see a problem with this reporting as you describe it. The critical thinker sees this as "Russia trying to steal data, say x, y, z." Then they quote what you describe as propaganda from the UK gov't, which may or may not be propaganda. It's not their job to identify propaganda, it's their job to report what people say. And unless they have evidence that what they say is demonstrably untrue, they're doing their job in reporting it.
Quick Q: Do they also describe Russia's denial of the allegations? And if so, why do you assume it's a biased report?
Edit: Yeah, there you go.So, their story is basically 'these countries accused another country of X, and the accused country denied it.' That's about as objective a reporting of facts as you can get.Quote:
Russian news agency RIA cited spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying the Kremlin rejected London’s allegations, which he said were not backed by proper evidence.
Now compare that to the DM, Fox, or MSNBC.
I certainly agree Reuters is significantly less biased than Fox or CNN, and have already said I believe they're likely the least biased agency out there. But you know what I think when I see "omg Russia" in the media. They're the bogey man that the UK govt always refer to when they need a distraction. There are no MSM agencies based in the UK or USA that apply critical thinking when it comes to Russia, and when a supposed unbiased agency prints this stuff, it gives it more credit than when the Daily Mail do so. So yes, I do believe it is their job to identify propaganda, at least if they wish to remain unbiased.
And yes, they print Russia's denial, with a quick one liner at the end.
Ong you seem to be thinking any news media accusing Russia of anything is biased. Do you personally know many Russians or have you ever been there? Do you know how they see themselves and the rest of the world, what Russian media is like and how things operate there? Do you know Putin's history? Do you know who/what APT29 is, who finances them and what they have been caught doing in the past?
While I'm sure some accusations against Russia in the media are false or exaggerated, I don't think you're fully aware of what's going on there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr31WOapGc0
MSM is massively understating how problematic this is. You cannot let this happen. These are private security forces with no oversight, whose authority is being respected. This cannot be tolerated. If you live in the US and you like having human rights you should be out on the street until this is fixed.
Right now they are testing the waters with catch and release, but you don't want these guys on the ground in November when the only one they're accountable to is Donald Trump.
I think all geopolitical news is biased, not just when it comes to Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
This is all kind of irrelevant. I'm not pretending Russia are good guys. I just see through the bullshit. Russia is the go-to bogey man when the UK govt want to drum up jingoistic support. And it suits Russia just fine, because it helps them to drum up jingoistic support too. In turn, this means public support for foreign policy and military strategy & budgets. If the UK didn't have such a powerful "enemy", we wouldn't need to spend trillions on nuclear weapons. It's all business to the military industry.
Of course I'm not fully aware of what's going on there, and I'm the first to admit I might be wrong. I'm just highly skeptical when I read geopolitical propaganda.
Private? I heard "federal troops".Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Don't get me wrong, anonymous troops on the street is definitely not something we should be cheerleading, but from what I can gather from that report, they are employed by the government, which makes them the opposite of "private security forces".
I guess you mean "Trump's private security" rather than "private sector security".
When I read "Private security" I think of companies like G4S, private companies operating for profit. We definitely do not want to see these guys on the streets, dealing with civil unrest, because they have a vested interest in disorder continuing. But we also don't want to see troops on the street that only answer to the President, especially badgeless. Any security actively employed by the government or anyone else for that matter need to be indentifiable and subject to law.
It is being reported that they are federal officers but handling protests should not be in federal jurisdiction. They are not identifying themselves, aren't wearing any labels and drive in unmarked civilian SUV's. They are arresting people without a statement, and driving them away in rental vans. What they are doing could be done by just about anyone who owns a weapon and camouflage pants.
At the very least tolerating this sets the precedent that:
Anyone can be arrested for any reason.
The command of anyone dressed up like military has to be followed.
I think most people will agree that this is problematic. I think it's a lot more than that. This is the time you should start to panic if you live in the US. I think it's something that needs to be fought back immediately. You cannot allow fellow citizens to be arrested by unidentifiable and therefore unaccountable forces.
I pretty much agree with you. It's very much problematic. But is anarchy any better than fascism? Are you ready for anarchy? I sure as hell am not.
Here's the thing. He's not even subtle. Anonymous troops on the street is so blatantly against the very principles of our democratic freedoms that you can't call it anything other than fascist. If he actually gets voted in, in a fair election, this year, USA are basically voting for fascism and we have to respect that. I guess if that happens the USA have decided it was a choice between right wing fascists, or left wing neofascists. Overt vs covert.
The problem is, protest doesn't make a blind bit of difference, and civil war is either defeat or anarchy. Those are the two options when we talk about "fighting back". I wish I could say anarchy is a better choice than fascism, but I don't have enough faith in humans. If the system collapses, we enter an era of lawlessness, a world that will be orders of magnitude more racist than this world. I think when it comes to the collapse of the system, you have to be careful what you wish for.
Fascism has been with us for decades. They're just getting less subtle about it. They've conditioned us to accept it, and they've done that by keeping us divided and making sure we're cunts to each other. They ensured anarchy is a terrible alternative to their breed of fascism.
https://twitter.com/andreinawie/stat...18869902413824
This is London, last night, because some criminal got killed by a cop a couple of months ago in USA. This is the consequences of identity politics.
Do you think black people might have a gripe with how the police operate here as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No, couldn't be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkwY4c2AE
Of course, the problem is racism, not that there are black drug dealers from out of town, which incidentally is a problem in my town too. County lines, they call it, when city dealers come to rural towns to sell drugs. They don't tend to be white guys, and they don't tend to be reggae loving Rastas selling weed. They're gnarly bastards selling coke, crack and smack.
This copper is a nob, but he hasn't shown he's racist here. He's shown that he was assigned at that time to look for country lines dealers, and so it stands to reason he's going to pull over a car he's not seen before driven by a black driver. He was so afraid of being accused of racism that he did a fucking great job of looking like a racist twat. But the person he pulled over is going to vaguely match the description of suspects he's assigned to be on the lookout for. Racial profiling is inevitable. The colour of someone's skin forms an important part of that person's description.
Here's a fun exercise... find a case of a Chinese person being racially profiled by the police in the UK. Not so easy to find examples. Then ask why that might be, and consider if the system is racist, or if the problem is cultural.
Nobody's growing coca leaves in your climate, so ldo they come from out of town. Why is that a problem now?
I still remember when you defended exactly this when ICE did it to immigrants.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
There are much better indicators for crime than race. Poverty for one thing. If it's good to profile and harass blacks, then wouldn't it be better to profile and harass people based on income? The police could very easily get that data and they could be at your door by monday. Would that be acceptable?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You are after all a real criminal who does bad scary crime like drugs, aren't you?