Afraid of getting banned? fite slicer here! Only for EE suitable topics.

[super_slicer]

...like Jim Crow or Blutschutzgesetz ? or - you know - like certain topics on this forum are kind of illegal or there are plans of making them so ?
That's the 'might makes right' right there and doesn't really work. ...Well, it kind of does, but not quite in the sense you've probably meant it.

Nope, the ones that prevent persecution. Though what are you referring to about this forum? What content here is illegal?

Using laws against social changes tends to be the wrong answer, even if it initially seems effective.
Once you declare a group "subhuman" or "a slave race", the social contract around it breaks up.
If you're in position to eradicate it fast enough, it may even benefit you in the short run. But if they're given the Jewish dilemma of either getting shot on the street or peacefully waiting on their ticket to Auschwitz, they could still do quite a bit of damage on their way out.
Though even if you succeed, you risk either morale damage or making your side more rabid.

Won't it be the same if you use them to FORCE social change? The vast majority want nothing to do with this shit, you can see it in entertainment where all the big names who are going 'woke' are literally going broke.

Actually declaring them that should create a new social contract. I mean a servant needs to know what's expected of them after all.

Once you forget that building such is a process that should never end (at least as long as a species remains sapient and capable of free thought) as the goal changes a little with every step you take, you're already a living fossil.

Why would I ever want to stop it from improving? Though I disagree that the goal changes, the goal is unreachable so it doesn't have to change.

As for EE's current Bully-in-Chief, DJ Fraud, the only significant reason to bring him up (wrt. EE's internal politics) is to point out how much he fucked over significant portion of people that elected him. Not that the opposing candidate is any less fraudulent, if for slightly different reasons. The shell game the EE's election process is, rigged so that One Party (a.k.a. The Funding Fathers) always wins, just makes me sad. Especially given the corruptive effect it has on elections in Europe - both directly and indirectly.

No, it was relevant. They were actually making federal employees apologize for their "white privilege" and all that other liberal horseshit. That kind of foothold in a governing body of western civilization is unacceptable and I hope this is a sign of the push-back against it is beginning in earnest.

 

[JustLurksHere]

Won't it be the same if you use them to FORCE social change? The vast majority want nothing to do with this shit

To a point it would be. As I said, balancing such things is hard. To paraphrase a plotline from a certain A.C.Clarke book, space flight isn't a priority, until one day you learn that it should have been. Also, if not for First World War clearing the field, women suffrage movement would have much harder fight ahead of them back then, because "the vast majority wanted nothing to do with that shit". As for some more recent and still ongoing problem, there's the whole set of issues around same-sex marriage. (and that's if you were to ignore certain other problem, that would require us jumping a few tiers of biotechnology to have it solved in a relatively peaceful manner) Nurturing empathy in a group for problems that would never affect it is somewhat hard.

the goal is unreachable so it doesn't have to change

Yet it does. More exactly, our opinion of what exactly is the best solution changes. Retcon is definitely a thing with goals as such if you look at a long enough period (here we're talking about several generations as a single step at minimum).

As for the new topic, if CRT was really implemented the way it was shown in the anecdotes, sure, it was stupid and counterproductive. Shame is a resource you can use a very limited number of times before it expires, afterwards trying to use it tends to have the opposite effect.
Yet, the problem of economical disparity driven by a legacy of racial discrimination is very real.
While some individuals are still able to overcome that almost on their own, the groups as a whole just can't. That's just the way it is with any social group long term discriminated against, regardless of what was the basis of discrimination.

 

[super_slicer]

To a point it would be. As I said, balancing such things is hard. To paraphrase a plotline from a certain A.C.Clarke book, space flight isn't a priority, until one day you learn that it should have been. Also, if not for First World War clearing the field, women suffrage movement would have much harder fight ahead of them back then, because "the vast majority wanted nothing to do with that shit". As for some more recent and still ongoing problem, there's the whole set of issues around same-sex marriage. (and that's if you were to ignore certain other problem, that would require us jumping a few tiers of biotechnology to have it solved in a relatively peaceful manner) Nurturing empathy in a group for problems that would never affect it is somewhat hard.

Suffrage isn't equitable, that movement was about securing rights that had been denied, this is about REMOVING rights.
Have you even seen third-wave feminism though? It's no longer about empowering women but making them eternal victims at the hands of some malevolent system (kinda funny how all these progressive movements follow the same engineering diagram). Oh "the man" won't let me have any power, "the man" keeps my ideas from becoming popular, "the man" values only the work of men. Well, when your ideas are shit, the work you do is inconsequential and you've got neither wealth nor charisma it's certainly a lot easier to blame some fictitious force than taking responsibility for and addressing your shortcomings isn't it? Maybe get an engineering degree instead of gender studies, maybe stop shouting misandrist bullshit, maybe stop being sexist and then you'll find your situation far more agreeable.

Even if they were victims of such a system, it's responsible for all the progress humanity has made. Matriarchal civilizations never even made it past sticks-and-stones levels of technology. So there is no question whether it's more beneficial or not. Now when some little shit claims they want to dismantle the white patriarchy you've gotta wonder if they really want to give all that up are they insane? Or are they just disingenuous?

Yet it does. More exactly, our opinion of what exactly is the best solution changes.

Then the goal doesn't actually change. Though I suppose I should actually state what it is: to make the majority of the people that comprise it as happy as possible.

As for the new topic, if CRT was really implemented the way it was shown in the anecdotes, sure, it was stupid and counterproductive. Shame is a resource you can use a very limited number of times before it expires, afterwards trying to use it tends to have the opposite effect.
Yet, the problem of economical disparity driven by a legacy of racial discrimination is very real.
While some individuals are still able to overcome that almost on their own, the groups as a whole just can't. That's just the way it is with any social group long term discriminated against, regardless of what was the basis of discrimination.

I reject CRT in it's entirety. It is ludicrous as well as racist. Someone's skin color does not decide how successful they will be in western civilization today. With non-white celebrities, politicians, billionaires and even a president, such a claim is clearly without merit.
Granted I think low-income communities should have been managed in a far stricter manner. Allowing gangs to flourish and narcotics to permeate them has created some rather challenging hurdles for anyone to overcome. Our economic system is also broken, wealth currently functions like mass ensuring that it pools rather than a more equal distribution. The free market was certainly a good idea but couldn't account for the future of near-instantaneous information, world-spanning corporations, government policies that actively encourage monopolization and politics becoming a business all but ensuring corruption of the bodies that should be working to limit the abuse of the system. The idiotic belief that there can be exponential growth in the economy also contributes.
People of ALL ethnicities are equally vulnerable because the factors that decide that vulnerability lie apart from skin color.

 

[JustLurksHere]

Have you even seen third-wave feminism though?

Well, before our benevolent tin-pot dictator took over, some of our femi-nazis were almost as bad as their Black Mafia opponents, the catch being that some of the wins earlier waves had were denied here.
Though looking at the following lines of that block, just a thought: do you recall how exactly that line went about how if you fight monsters for too long, you risk becoming one of them ? I think there's a valid argument there, but it's getting drowned by...noise.

Even if they were victims of such a system, it's responsible for all the progress humanity has made.

Indeed, turning Africa into a source of slaves and other resources and turning significant portions of the rest of the world into colonies is one of the foundations of western culture current supremacy. Why would you let former slaves allow to complain about it ?
Also, just like in their studies, what data do you base your claim upon that them being matriarchal societies has played any significant role in their failure instead, for example, living in an area that got hit by a long term drought ?

Someone's skin color does not decide how successful they will be in western civilization today.

If they were starting from roughly equal conditions, it wouldn't, at least if the society they were trying to succeed in wasn't at some level racist.
Yet the catch here is that due to historical conditions their starting conditions are significantly worse.
Are there still individuals that can succeed regardless ? Sure. But if your pool of lottery tickets has effectively less winning tickets then the other group and you're already behind, you'll most likely stay behind as a group, even if some of your members win big.

Our economic system is also broken...The free market was certainly a good idea...government policies that actively encourage monopolization

...here, we disagree strongly.
The system still works just as designed, it simply turns cannibalistic due to lack of easily acquirable external resources. There's a certain lack of large swathes of land that are resource rich and protected only by primitive enough indigenous population. Wars nowadays might still be profitable for military-industrial complex, but for the countries as a whole - less so.

Free market stopped working at about the time when people working in a plant stopped being able to use putting its owner on the gallows as the final bargaining tool.
If there's no actual accountability, it will turn cancerous. Pretty much the same thing as with representative democracy.

Governmental policies have little to do with it. Drive towards monopoly is a natural part of the system. More players there are, less stable the system is and undermining other players is a part of the game. What's more, the system promotes sociopathy - empathy towards other players means less profit. Government policies might mitigate this, but only to a degree and if it's willing to act in that direction (quite often donations ensure the opposite and the closer you're to winning the more you can donate). Eventually it falls to the individuals in charge and that's a quite mixed bag, though one weighted towards short-term winners.

Granted I think low-income communities should have been managed in a far stricter manner. Allowing gangs to flourish and narcotics to permeate them has created some rather challenging hurdles for anyone to overcome.

Fighting the symptoms without addressing the causes rarely leads to a lasting solution (unless you're into genocide and are thorough). Especially if the methods used tend to feed the causes. Not saying that the symptoms should be ignored, but...again, this game is complicated and there is no easy long-term way to win and you probably want the game stay viable for the future players.

 

[Ninja_Named_Bob]

I'm not sure what sides you're actually arguing for there, but I will point out that a centrist is considered an extremist by the extremists. After all, the center is an extreme to people who consider their brand of extremism to be normal
And that's pretty much what happened in society. All the centrists are told they're impossible extremists now because they're still holding their centrist views, so you will never get a centrist in charge- They either get the support of one of the extremes or they don't have the votes

I'm just adding my voice to the fray, if we're gonna be real. I'm not really arguing from a position because all positions suck at this point. You have right-leaning views but disagree with some of their moral amoral policies, you're a traitor. You prefer more progressive policies but not going full "everyone who disagrees is evil", you're a nazi. If you try to sit right in the middle of it all, you're indecisive and intolerable.

Having to kowtow to one side or the other for the sake of coming off as "agreeable" to one or both side is ridiculous. Funnily enough, had an experience of a friend taking one side recently between myself and an ex-friend. I was invited to hang out with our mtg playgroup recently (after a month of not seeing them) and then had the invitation rescinded when the ex-friend expressed an inability to enjoy himself with me there. Like, I kept away from the group and this guy for a month to let tensions cool and even attempted to reconcile, only to be stiffed on all fronts. I didn't even mind that my stuff got hocked, so long as things could go back to somewhat normal.

I mention it because, over a year ago I was right-leaner while my ex-friend and playgroup were more center-left/left-leaning. I came more center and have sat there ever since, which means my perspective on social interactions is pretty centrist, as well. For lefties, I've noticed everyone has to be happy or they'll ostracize you, even if the reasonable response is more to leave you alone or to tolerate. For a group of people who preach pro-tolerance, they're the most intolerant. At least right-wingers are willing to admit they have their apprehensions about things, for the most part. That doesn't make them better, but at least you know where they stand.

Leftists kowtow and ostracize, and then demand you apologize and tolerate their shit, as my ex-playgroup had done to me. People talk about how BLM and Antifa are being villainized by the right, but even the centrist can see they're the kind of people I'm talking about. They want their way and anyone who disagrees with their shitty behavior is an unforgivable piece of shit, and how dare that person have a completely sensible perspective on something. It's almost like being a mature, rational adult is some kind of problematic disorder that isn't welcome in this immature, insane society.

 

[super_slicer]

Indeed, turning Africa into a source of slaves and other resources and turning significant portions of the rest of the world into colonies is one of the foundations of western culture current supremacy. Why would you let former slaves allow to complain about it ?
Also, just like in their studies, what data do you base your claim upon that them being matriarchal societies has played any significant role in their failure instead, for example, living in an area that got hit by a long term drought ?

Actually Africans were primarily responsible for turning their continent into a source of slaves. Sure other civilizations contributed the demand for it, but do you really think a bunch of pasty white guys in heavy cotton clothes were stalking through unknown jungles capturing natives to sell to their buddies back home after beaching the ship? Sounds like a stretch to me.

Also don't be mistaken, the last former American slave died 49 years ago

You must be registered to see the links

and with him the right of anyone to seek compensation for that enslavement, they can complain about it all they want but nobody alive today should feel one ounce of guilt or compulsion for reparation. We are not responsible for our ancestor's actions in any way shape or form.

I don't have to, that's the beauty of it. The reason is irrelevant, they all failed.

If they were starting from roughly equal conditions, it wouldn't, at least if the society they were trying to succeed in wasn't at some level racist.
Yet the catch here is that due to historical conditions their starting conditions are significantly worse.
Are there still individuals that can succeed regardless ? Sure. But if your pool of lottery tickets has effectively less winning tickets then the other group and you're already behind, you'll most likely stay behind as a group, even if some of your members win big.

Here's the rub with that argument: it's not just non-whites that start outside of equal conditions. I'm white, where's my ivy-league scholarship and millionaire inheritance? It cannot be "white" privilege unless everyone of that skin color benefits from it.
Better yet most immigrants start from even worse positions as they have to do a boatload of work just to attain citizenship, some of them even have advanced degrees that aren't recognized after their emigration.

...here, we disagree strongly.
The system still works just as designed, it simply turns cannibalistic due to lack of easily acquirable external resources. There's a certain lack of large swathes of land that are resource rich and protected only by primitive enough indigenous population. Wars nowadays might still be profitable for military-industrial complex, but for the countries as a whole - less so.

Free market stopped working at about the time when people working in a plant stopped being able to use putting its owner on the gallows as the final bargaining tool.
If there's no actual accountability, it will turn cancerous. Pretty much the same thing as with representative democracy.

Aren't these contradictory statements? or are you saying the economic system we use isn't the free market?

Governmental policies have little to do with it. Drive towards monopoly is a natural part of the system. More players there are, less stable the system is and undermining other players is a part of the game. What's more, the system promotes sociopathy - empathy towards other players means less profit. Government policies might mitigate this, but only to a degree and if it's willing to act in that direction (quite often donations ensure the opposite and the closer you're to winning the more you can donate). Eventually it falls to the individuals in charge and that's a quite mixed bag, though one weighted towards short-term winners.

While it may be a natural tendency, it's one that needs to be prevented. Monopoly of this scale prevents competition and creates stagnation, both anathema to the original concept of the free market. Why create a better product when you can either buy any competitors out or charge so little they go out of business (because you've got way more money than them and can take the hit to profits for as long as it takes since you're just a subsidiary of a conglomerate)? So the market needs to not only be free of government regulation but of any body with the financial resources to "buy" their competitive edge over innovation and quality.

It also puts as much money into the pockets of as few individuals as possible, fuck that.

Fighting the symptoms without addressing the causes rarely leads to a lasting solution (unless you're into genocide and are thorough). Especially if the methods used tend to feed the causes. Not saying that the symptoms should be ignored, but...again, this game is complicated and there is no easy long-term way to win and you probably want the game stay viable for the future players.

Is it genocide if you kill all the junkies and gang members? I was suggesting a total police state in those areas though. Allowing criminals to have more power over these areas than law enforcement is unacceptable. I agree that a more even distribution of wealth is necessary but at this point addressing that is no longer enough, the culture that popularizes gang membership, illegal activities, and demonizes law enforcement as well as those that co-operate with them which has infected those areas needs to be purged as well. If we just pump money into those communities now all it will do is make the gangs stronger.

 

[JustLurksHere]

Aren't these contradictory statements? or are you saying the economic system we use isn't the free market?

I'm saying free market is a concept without any real grounding in reality. Something vaguely resembling it might exist on a microscale, but it doesn't scale up.
Once sufficient separation between owner and consequences is achieved and enough money gathered, you can lawyer away nearly anything.

Actually Africans were primarily responsible for turning their continent into a source of slaves. Sure other civilizations contributed the demand for it,

Hate speech (def.): "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation"
While I disagree with overly broad penalization of it, the correlation between sufficient quantities of it and actual violence is not in doubt.
The above isn't quite the same thing, but there are certain disturbing similarities.

It cannot be "white" privilege unless everyone of that skin color benefits from it.

Sorry, that's bullshit. "White privilege" is again a statistical argument, even if many fail to frame it as such.

Also don't be mistaken, the last former American slave died 49 years ago

You must be registered to see the links

and with him the right of anyone to seek compensation for that enslavement

Hmm, interesting. IIRC not that long ago one of your Congress bills had an interesting line about "heirless property"...Even if that was just about "reporting" how the other countries decide the issue, I'm getting the extortionist Special 301 feeling from it.

So the market needs to not only be free of government regulation but of any body with the financial resources to "buy" their competitive edge over innovation and quality.

The little problem with that it's nearly impossible to distinguish a genuine market success from a manufactured one, at least when successful party has good enough lawyers/accountants.

I was suggesting a total police state in those areas though....demonizes law enforcement...

On both of those points: Stanford Prison Experiment.
For the first part, pretty much applied directly. People subjected to such treatment will be even less inclined to integrate with the rest of society.
For the second, as far as I understand the current situation in the EE, your law enforcement is prone to receiving the same treatment low ranked Black Mafia members have been (and in some European countries still do) when committing certain type of activity - get at most a slap on the wrist and be sent to a different post, while their higher-ups (often with local authorities) ensure the case gets buried. Your term is (IIRC) "qualified immunity".

From the outside it seems that in your civil courts plaintiff tends to win (even if just via a settlement) even if their case is meritless, unless the defender significantly outweighs them in money and/or public support (in the later case because case becomes political)...though that might be caused by the most outrageous cases getting most coverage. It also seems that to make a career in your police unions, you need to support any and all such "bad apples" unconditionally. Sure, police work is dangerous (given the number of guns on the streets due to one of most outstanding zombies of your internal politics - Second Amendment), so mistakes happen, but writing them blank checks is just corrupting.

 

[Ninja_Named_Bob]

Actually Africans were primarily responsible for turning their continent into a source of slaves. Sure other civilizations contributed the demand for it, but do you really think a bunch of pasty white guys in heavy cotton clothes were stalking through unknown jungles capturing natives to sell to their buddies back home after beaching the ship? Sounds like a stretch to me.

If we're gonna get big on semantics about the North Atlantic Slave Trade, much of Europe and the Middle East were already deeply invested in slavery prior to white men wandering through Africa. Heck, black people more/less existed in Europe in specific areas. The Moors were a real thing.

Also don't be mistaken, the last former American slave died 49 years ago

You must be registered to see the links

and with him the right of anyone to seek compensation for that enslavement, they can complain about it all they want but nobody alive today should feel one ounce of guilt or compulsion for reparation. We are not responsible for our ancestor's actions in any way shape or form.

Again, semantics. Nobody today is as responsible for their ancestor's actions as the people who claim to have ancestors who were slaves have any right to whine about the treatment of slaves back then. It's a matter of genuine dignity and integrity. I think acknowledging the history and working everyday to be better is the optimal strategy. In the US (and to a lesser extent, Canada), we've all fallen short of that. The issue is that groups like Antifa and BLM only exacerbate these issues and provide bad faith actors an outlet to do the kind of shit they'd normally need to be a bit more clever about.

Here's the rub with that argument: it's not just non-whites that start outside of equal conditions. I'm white, where's my ivy-league scholarship and millionaire inheritance? It cannot be "white" privilege unless everyone of that skin color benefits from it.
Better yet most immigrants start from even worse positions as they have to do a boatload of work just to attain citizenship, some of them even have advanced degrees that aren't recognized after their emigration.

I run into this argument with my roommate from time to time and, while I personally don't experience the supposed benefits of my "white privilege", a common misconception is that it wholly applies to material benefits. It also applies to social stigma and racial discrimination, both of which there is a surplus of in today's society. Unfortunately, much of that stigma and discrimination has more/less shifted from "because they're x..." to "they're acting like x..." and therein the confusion lies. If you're looting and rioting and then saying it's because black people are treated unfairly in the US, I'm gonna side with the message, but not the means. In California, the strategy was let them burn out. The democrats and their supporters don't quite get that a group who feels validated by your inaction isn't going to suddenly give up because you're not doing anything. It's that image of the dog in the burning house and pretending everything is fine. You either ignore your own demise, or admit things are burning and respond accordingly.

On the other hand, when the response from the opposition is to assault and/or van the protesters, it should be expected that they will eventually respond to perceived oppression with violence. In every historical instance where the highest authority tried to oppress a people physically, violent retaliation has been the reaction.

Is it genocide if you kill all the junkies and gang members? I was suggesting a total police state in those areas though. Allowing criminals to have more power over these areas than law enforcement is unacceptable. I agree that a more even distribution of wealth is necessary but at this point addressing that is no longer enough, the culture that popularizes gang membership, illegal activities, and demonizes law enforcement as well as those that co-operate with them which has infected those areas needs to be purged as well. If we just pump money into those communities now all it will do is make the gangs stronger.

It will make the gangs stronger and only encourage exploitation. The problem has less to do with money and more to encouraging stronger familial bonds and improving the education services in those areas. Our generation grew up with both parents working (for most of us, last I checked) and few emotional/social supports for the more stigmatized sections of the population. Autism, bipolar, etc never had as many supports as they do now, and it's still insufficient due to lack of quality control. Being someone who went through social services from his 16th to 24th birthday, I can testify that quality control is incredibly lacking. It may have improved a bit in recent years, but the system is still fundamentally fucked.

It gets worse when the same shitheads trying to tell you that your abusive father is a fine guy are also the ones prescribing your meds. Unfortunately, the problem isn't a lack of staff or available supports, but that nobody ever asked the question "is a surplus bad if we don't bother to make sure the people in these positions are actually capable of going beyond the scope of their own education?" I've had a social worker laugh off my concern that a potential roommate might be a drug dealer because "he's in school." Like, are you fucking stupid? Do you not know how drugs are generally circulated on the playground?

The social supports system and mental health systems in North America need a serious overhaul before we start talking about lifting people out of poverty and exploitation, or re-distributing the wealth. Throwing money at an issue or giving the bare minimum effort to help others only encourages people to take advantage of the system for short-term benefit rather than long-term self-improvement.

 

[super_slicer]

Sorry, that's bullshit. "White privilege" is again a statistical argument, even if many fail to frame it as such.

Nah, that's the way words work. Just call it what it is instead of trying to play the race card; rich privilege, as you allude to later it doesn't matter what color your skin is as long as you've got loads of cash and a fancy lawyer there's a separate set of laws for you.

Hmm, interesting. IIRC not that long ago one of your Congress bills had an interesting line about "heirless property"...Even if that was just about "reporting" how the other countries decide the issue, I'm getting the extortionist Special 301 feeling from it.

And? I'm already taking the hard-line that western civilization's progress is worth any offense or detriment it may have caused. Because I like running water, electricity, automobiles and medical treatment based on science all of which I highly doubt would be found in those places western civilization has touched had it never done so; tangible things with measurable benefits. Did you think I'd change my mind based on the group of people? Seems to me like you just want to hold people accountable for actions they had no part in.

The little problem with that it's nearly impossible to distinguish a genuine market success from a manufactured one, at least when successful party has good enough lawyers/accountants.

Just limit the amount of resources they've available so you don't need to distinguish it. Outlaw big business altogether, or maybe remove tax caps and institute an increasing tax scale that prohibits growth to a level at which one can manufacture successes and cover the falsehood up.

On both of those points: Stanford Prison Experiment.

For the first part, pretty much applied directly. People subjected to such treatment will be even less inclined to integrate with the rest of society.

For the second, as far as I understand the current situation in the EE, your law enforcement is prone to receiving the same treatment low ranked Black Mafia members have been (and in some European countries still do) when committing certain type of activity - get at most a slap on the wrist and be sent to a different post, while their higher-ups (often with local authorities) ensure the case gets buried. Your term is (IIRC) "qualified immunity".


From the outside it seems that in your civil courts plaintiff tends to win (even if just via a settlement) even if their case is meritless, unless the defender significantly outweighs them in money and/or public support (in the later case because case becomes political)...though that might be caused by the most outrageous cases getting most coverage. It also seems that to make a career in your police unions, you need to support any and all such "bad apples" unconditionally. Sure, police work is dangerous (given the number of guns on the streets due to one of most outstanding zombies of your internal politics - Second Amendment), so mistakes happen, but writing them blank checks is just corrupting.

I guess we're left with your option then. The problem must not be ignored and cannot be rewarded. Sure we could handicap the gangs financially by legalizaing then regulating the sale of certain substances and services but I doubt that's a game of chicken you're going to get many politicians to play and it still won't eradicate the culture.

Don't believe BLM or antifa's lies, they are terrorist organizations destroying private property, looting, harassing law-abiding citizens and even murdering them. Their martyrs? Violent criminals that resisted arrest. The primary one of this wave died by his own hand even, from a drug overdose. Are there bad cops and bad shootings? Yes but until we can read minds and equip LEO with gear that not only completely protects them from any danger but also allows them to instantaenously pacify offenders nonlethally we're not going to be able to really do much about that. Moreover to quote a research paper commissined on this topic "The results indicate that neither the racial composition of neighborhoods nor their level of economic disadvantage directly increase the frequency of police shootings, whereas levels of violent crime do—but only to a point."

The media for the most part has a vested interest in making our LEOs look like villians. They are not trained to shoot black people, they don't just barge into homes without cause, they- you know what I'm not going to go down this list. Large scale reform took place in police departments nationwide due to the abuse of authority that was seen in the 80's yet many are acting like it's still the goddamned 80's and it's absurd.

As for your second amendment jab, well it's starting to seem like you've got a hard on for making innocent people pay for the crimes of others. The largest portion of people with guns the police come into contact with are not legal owners, because most of us know not to be dumbasses when we're armed and why bother legally obtaining a firearm if you're going to use it to commit a crime? But hey, why take that into consideration? Just hold all the responsible citizens accountable for criminal's actions. You know, I heard people could STRAGNLE one another, better get to work removing people's arms!

If we're gonna get big on semantics about the North Atlantic Slave Trade, much of Europe and the Middle East were already deeply invested in slavery prior to white men wandering through Africa. Heck, black people more/less existed in Europe in specific areas. The Moors were a real thing.


Again, semantics. Nobody today is as responsible for their ancestor's actions as the people who claim to have ancestors who were slaves have any right to whine about the treatment of slaves back then. It's a matter of genuine dignity and integrity. I think acknowledging the history and working everyday to be better is the optimal strategy. In the US (and to a lesser extent, Canada), we've all fallen short of that. The issue is that groups like Antifa and BLM only exacerbate these issues and provide bad faith actors an outlet to do the kind of shit they'd normally need to be a bit more clever about.

Fair enough, I'm not arguing against improvements across the board but when I'm told X ethnic group needs special treatment by the government all I hear is racism. Then I'm told "it's because slavery" when there are people of all ethnic groups in that same situation and I hear an attempt to shame.

I run into this argument with my roommate from time to time and, while I personally don't experience the supposed benefits of my "white privilege", a common misconception is that it wholly applies to material benefits. It also applies to social stigma and racial discrimination, both of which there is a surplus of in today's society.

I need some examples here, because this is too vague for me to comment on.

Unfortunately, much of that stigma and discrimination has more/less shifted from "because they're x..." to "they're acting like x..." and therein the confusion lies.

How else are we to judge people if not on their actions? It is just and correct after all. In fact we should start legally judging the rich, influential and famous based upon them far more strictly.

If you're looting and rioting and then saying it's because black people are treated unfairly in the US, I'm gonna side with the message, but not the means. In California, the strategy was let them burn out. The democrats and their supporters don't quite get that a group who feels validated by your inaction isn't going to suddenly give up because you're not doing anything. It's that image of the dog in the burning house and pretending everything is fine. You either ignore your own demise, or admit things are burning and respond accordingly.


On the other hand, when the response from the opposition is to assault and/or van the protesters, it should be expected that they will eventually respond to perceived oppression with violence. In every historical instance where the highest authority tried to oppress a people physically, violent retaliation has been the reaction.

Honestly it's been a stroke of good luck that they've not moved into certain areas with the violence, because it'll turn into a bloodbath real quick. Though they'd certainly deserve it, that's just going to make things worse.

 

[Ninja_Named_Bob]

Fair enough, I'm not arguing against improvements across the board but when I'm told X ethnic group needs special treatment by the government all I hear is racism. Then I'm told "it's because slavery" when there are people of all ethnic groups in that same situation and I hear an attempt to shame.

Someone might accuse you of whataboutism, and wouldn't be wrong. I think the main issue that you touch upon, though, is that making "reparations" for a generation so far removed from their predecessors doesn't make sense. If your intent is to "Make amends" to a community, actually distribute some of that money and opportunity evenly. Don't just favor one race over the other because "muh slavery" or some similar shit.

I need some examples here, because this is too vague for me to comment on.

Stuff about social stigma, mostly. Being black and passing white people on the street? Hit and miss. Sometimes, they'll cross at a light. Other times, they'll pass because they either don't know how your race has the generalization of being "incredibly violent" towards ol' whitey, even though the context of that generalization is more rooted in historical events rather than "current day" politics. There's also the tendency for American cops to preferentially target blacks and other minorities, the most relevant part of that being the inclusion of "other minorities." There is also the argument to be made about universities favouring blacks for education opportunities and "diversity hires" meant for a company to win brownie points with the general population, but is slowly being pointed out as simply a hollow effort at guarding themselves against accusations of racism and only coming off as more racist.

You must be registered to see the links

Reality is, despite the fact that we're all heading towards a "progressive future", society itself still benefits off the basis of "white privilege." White people generally face less discrimination and harmful generalizations, and fewer hurdles in being recognized as "more than their community" from society than their darker counterparts. I'm not apt to agree with buzzword progressives or favour one side or the other in matters of racial issues, but there is an overwhelming presence of "white privilege" that can't be hand-waved away as "well, yeah, it was like that before, but look at how much racism is directed at us, and how kept out of the secret clubs we are now!" That doesn't mean the secret clubs aren't themselves problematic or that our privilege isn't still an exclusionary force for the people who would rather be on equal footing with us rather than given those secret clubs just to measure up for our favour.

How else are we to judge people if not on their actions? It is just and correct after all. In fact we should start legally judging the rich, influential and famous based upon them far more strictly.

I don't disagree with you on that. Unfortunately, there are still people in society who are failing in that department. People like

You must be registered to see the links

will say some really shitty things about how to handle "other races" while take a knee, and believe wholeheartedly that the knee they are taking is another step towards their true intent. People like that don't care about the message or intent of people, just the skin color. You also have

You must be registered to see the links

who will spout shit about how "all dem dirty blacks" will drop your property values if they move into your neighbourhood.

Honestly it's been a stroke of good luck that they've not moved into certain areas with the violence, because it'll turn into a bloodbath real quick. Though they'd certainly deserve it, that's just going to make things worse.

It's already at the point where, come November, there is no doubt going to be an outbreak of violence that leads to full-blown civil war. Donald Trump wasn't the one who sparked this shit. He simply tossed more gasoline onto the embers and has been stoking the fires since. Whether intentional (lol) or not, he's been pushing events towards the inevitable conflict on the horizon. Anyone who has any self-deception that it isn't going to happen very soon is lying to themselves, or is too stupid to bother protecting once this bitch gets underway.

 

[JustLurksHere]

What you addressed as my second amendment jab, was indeed a jab, just not one in the direction you thought it was going.
Second Amendment died the day tanks and airplanes entered the battlefield. Those and higher yield explosives produce to much damage to be left out of control, but that and difficulty in producing them leaves 2nd A. hollow.
The thing people like NRA are protecting now (those that aren't just gunrunners' stooges) is little more than a variant of Viagra.
Well, that and there's the fact that you've pumped your streets so full of guns, that's it's expected of any serious criminal to be in possession of one.

to quote a research paper commissined on this topic

Is that paper available for public view ?

You know, I heard people could STRAGNLE one another, better get to work removing people's arms!

We're talking about power multipliers here and a loaded gun is quite significant one. Also, the only purpose of a gun is to kill whatever is on the receiving end - living after being shot has more to do with luck of not getting hit in anything vital and/or receiving medical attention promptly.

Their martyrs? Violent criminals that resisted arrest.

"Shot while attempting to flee"....Why am I getting Berlin Wall vibes from that ?
Not discussing martyr quality (as that's another matter), but them being shot on arrest neither proves nor disproves anything about the side they were supporting - except that LEOs are trained to shoot first when they perceive themselves to be in danger.

And? I'm already taking the hard-line that western civilization's progress is worth any offense or detriment it may have caused.

For them/us ? yeah, sure...those used as stepping stones would likely disagree, though.
The progress made by western civilization had nothing to do with it being in any way superior, just that because it kept winning, getting more resources, turning them into surplus goods used then to feed that progress. As noted a few posts back, this model is at the end of its validity - there's very little untapped resources left.

 

[super_slicer]

Stuff about social stigma, mostly. Being black and passing white people on the street? Hit and miss. Sometimes, they'll cross at a light. Other times, they'll pass because they either don't know how your race has the generalization of being "incredibly violent" towards ol' whitey, even though the context of that generalization is more rooted in historical events rather than "current day" politics.

Are you talking about women alone where there are few other people around? If so I can't say that I blame them or that it should stop, the world is not a safe place and erring on the side of caution isn't something I can admonish. Women in that situation should do exactly that with any strange man.

There's also the tendency for American cops to preferentially target blacks and other minorities, the most relevant part of that being the inclusion of "other minorities."

There's no arguing that in this country there are certain sub-cultures which venerate and engage in criminal activity and are most often found active in low-income and minority communities. Should cops not go where the crime is? Should they ignore that most gangs limit their members to persons of similar ethnicity? Do they need some kind of white quota?

I just don't see cops wasting their time harassing people because of skin color anymore. What I do see an overwhelming amount of is a person crying racial profiling at the police when stopped to try to cover some illegal activity or slip out of a traffic violation.

There is also the argument to be made about universities favouring blacks for education opportunities and "diversity hires" meant for a company to win brownie points with the general population, but is slowly being pointed out as simply a hollow effort at guarding themselves against accusations of racism and only coming off as more racist.

Affirmative action and diversity quotas are indeed quite racist, though I don't know why you're using it in an argument for the existence of white privilege as it really doesn't benefit anybody. Certainly not the person who's more qualified yet passed over for a position because they're white and the diversity quota hasn't been met.

I don't disagree with you on that. Unfortunately, there are still people in society who are failing in that department. People like this asshole will say some really shitty things about how to handle "other races" while take a knee, and believe wholeheartedly that the knee they are taking is another step towards their true intent. People like that don't care about the message or intent of people, just the skin color. You also have these cunts who will spout shit about how "all dem dirty blacks" will drop your property values if they move into your neighbourhood.

You must be registered to see the links

. He's targeting the same group of people I did and proposing the same solution. Just instead of putting the people into jails I'm bringing the jails to the people, oh and I guess that I didn't explicitly state they'd never be let out. As for why he still has his job, sheriff is a publicly elected position.

I do hear the disgust but not targeted at black people. Poor people maybe and criminals definitely, I can certainly understand why they'd not want apartment complexes in the suburbs, they're goddamned eyesores and would indeed drop the property values. There's a reason people choose to live outside of the heart of the hive after all. Besides, that couple has every right to be outraged, a mob invaded a residential area, damaged property, trespassed, harassed and threatened them but the homeowners are the ones charged? Come the fuck on. Now if we're eating the rich I'm all for it, but we aren't going to do it in the names of BLM or antifa and we're not going to beat around the bush or torture them.

What you addressed as my second amendment jab, was indeed a jab, just not one in the direction you thought it was going.

Second Amendment died the day tanks and airplanes entered the battlefield. Those and higher yield explosives produce to much damage to be left out of control, but that and difficulty in producing them leaves 2nd A. hollow.

The thing people like NRA are protecting now (those that aren't just gunrunners' stooges) is little more than a variant of Viagra.

Well, that and there's the fact that you've pumped your streets so full of guns, that's it's expected of any serious criminal to be in possession of one.

I don't quite disagree, sure would be nice to have my own AH-64 Apache after all... But at the same time I live in an area where the average emergency response time is about an hour so there's definitely a good reason to be armed.

Again with the holding uninvolved people accountable for criminal's actions? Just stop. Nobody's buying that criminals aren't responsible for their own behavior.

Is that paper available for public view ?

You must be registered to see the links

should be it

We're talking about power multipliers here and a loaded gun is quite significant one. Also, the only purpose of a gun is to kill whatever is on the receiving end - living after being shot has more to do with luck of not getting hit in anything vital and/or receiving medical attention promptly.

Incorrect, while some may use a gun to kill many use it as a deterrent or only to injure. For instance, I can shoot your knees out at a hundred yards and you'll live through it. Some never even fire it at a living thing in fact, yet it's presence provides piece of mind. Many collectors don't even fire their rare and precious finds at all.

"Shot while attempting to flee"....Why am I getting Berlin Wall vibes from that ?

Because you have a problem with false equivalency and are simping for criminals pretty hard. Criminals guilty of violent and destructive crimes are not starving people attempting to escape communist rule.

Not discussing martyr quality (as that's another matter), but them being shot on arrest neither proves nor disproves anything about the side they were supporting - except that LEOs are trained to shoot first when they perceive themselves to be in danger.

I'm not sure if they did support BLM. That's entirely removed from the point. They're being held up as victims of abuse of authority, which they are not. The one that was shot was attempting to harm LEOs. What should have been done differently? Do the officers not respond to calls from people in danger? Do they lay down their weapons, get on their knees and beg that the knife-wielding maniac doesn't get his stabby-stab on?

For them/us ? yeah, sure...those used as stepping stones would likely disagree, though.

Sure about that? How do you know they didn't go "unga bunga tiki tiki wuhulu" upon seeing our magnificent ships and glorious explorers ( loosely translates to: I want me some of that! ).

Seriously though, don't you think people are happy not having to outrun tigers, hunt down their next meal with a spear or worry about their house blowing over in the next moderate storm? I'm sure the majority of them are!

The progress made by western civilization had nothing to do with it being in any way superior, just that because it kept winning, getting more resources, turning them into surplus goods used then to feed that progress. As noted a few posts back, this model is at the end of its validity - there's very little untapped resources left.

The victory itself is evidence of superiority.

You're absolutely right about that being untenable at the moment though. At least until we've worked out an efficient way to make it into orbit ( preferrably without the use of high-thrust fuels as they are an expendable commodity ), once we're out in the solar system there's loads of untapped resources just waiting for the picking.

 

[JustLurksHere]

Again with the holding uninvolved people accountable for criminal's actions?

An honest question: where exactly am I doing that ?

Incorrect, while some may use a gun to kill many use it as a deterrent or only to injure. For instance, I can shoot your knees out at a hundred yards and you'll live through it.

On a gun range - sure, that's possible. In the heat of the moment...let's be serious here.
In urban conditions, there's rarely more than 10 yards between the shooter and its target, usually less and that limits time for anything fancy like aiming more than in the general direction significantly. You'd pretty much need superhuman reflexes and Gamer's Mind to make your scenario viable.
Btw. isn't the above the standard blue defense ?

Because you have a problem with false equivalency and are simping for criminals pretty hard.

I'm actually going in a completely different direction: you seem to be taking "a few bad apples" police defense at face value, yet unwilling to consider that despite sometime poor choice of 'martyrs', the problem might be real.
Note as many people/organisations in power, police too is more than willing and able to put their spin on any case they're involved in.
What's more, it's also in position of engineering a situation to look like any abuse committed was a rational thing to do. Pretty much like show trials, just a step earlier.
(wasn't interested much in the antifa shooter arrest, but from what I recall, he was interviewed by a reporter after the fact, so it would seem a peaceful arrest was an option)

Seriously though, don't you think people are happy not having to outrun tigers, hunt down their next meal with a spear or worry about their house blowing over in the next moderate storm? I'm sure the majority of them are!

Unfortunately, I need once again go Godwin here.
Some notable advances have been made by Germans during Second World War in medical sciences due to abundance of 'voluntold' test subjects.
We as civilization benefited from it, those test subjects - not so much.

The victory itself is evidence of superiority.

...this is just rephrasing of "might makes right".
The way I see this part of your argument is basically: "as long as I hold a gun against your head, I'm entitled to all the money I can get from you".
Which is kind of right, but not necessarily the way you've meant it to be.

once we're out in the solar system there's loads of untapped resources just waiting for the picking

...and I thought I was the sci-fi geek here.
The little problem with that once you're off the planet, distances tend to get large, which adds significant time and energy cost penalties.
Perhaps we as humanity get around that, but it's a gamble with long odds.

 

[Ninja_Named_Bob]

Are you talking about women alone where there are few other people around? If so I can't say that I blame them or that it should stop, the world is not a safe place and erring on the side of caution isn't something I can admonish. Women in that situation should do exactly that with any strange man.

I didn't specify any specific group, so no, not solely "women alone where there are few other people around." I'm talking in general, and prior to current events.

There's no arguing that in this country there are certain sub-cultures which venerate and engage in criminal activity and are most often found active in low-income and minority communities. Should cops not go where the crime is? Should they ignore that most gangs limit their members to persons of similar ethnicity? Do they need some kind of white quota?

I'm more on the side of providing functional support via funding and trained persons to go in and help fix those neighbourhoods. Better teachers with better supplies at better schools, and in-community support workers with the tools and resources to help inner-city youth find a way out besides through a rap career or in a coffin. Sending more police in to de-escalate a situation where they're probably just adding fuel to the fire is antithetical to both improving things and their actual purpose. You don't send a cop to make your taco at taco bell in the same way you wouldn't send some minimum wage work-horse into gang territory armed with nothing but their debit machine.

I just don't see cops wasting their time harassing people because of skin color anymore. What I do see an overwhelming amount of is a person crying racial profiling at the police when stopped to try to cover some illegal activity or slip out of a traffic violation.

"I don't see it" is the bare minimum requirement of willing ignorance. "I don't see it, so it must not exist." You can't see Pluto from where you're standing, but I'm pretty fucking sure it exists. I also hate making non sequitur arguments, so fuck you.

Affirmative action and diversity quotas are indeed quite racist, though I don't know why you're using it in an argument for the existence of white privilege as it really doesn't benefit anybody. Certainly not the person who's more qualified yet passed over for a position because they're white and the diversity quota hasn't been met.

It's more about the fact that affirmative action implies blacks in general need a "leg up" to stand on equal footings to whites. It's the most privileged role we could take, to feel like such a superior race that our benevolent charity is necessary for another race to come close to standing as our equal. Y'know, rather than it being the result of "feel good" privileged whites demonstrating that if you pretend to not be racist, you come off as more racist.

You must be registered to see the links

. He's targeting the same group of people I did and proposing the same solution. Just instead of putting the people into jails I'm bringing the jails to the people, oh and I guess that I didn't explicitly state they'd never be let out. As for why he still has his job, sheriff is a publicly elected position.

John Oliver did a really good story on sheriffs.

You must be registered to see the links

While it is an elected position, they're also in a position where they can/will drum up false charges for their opposition, or bullying someone out of running by force of arms. It's not incredulous to presume that these people are willing to do anything to hold onto their power.

It doesn't take a genius to see that that guy has a bend towards a specific race and only mentioned "people of this criminal class" to save face. Also, what he's suggesting is barely acceptable, even in terms of basic Human decency. Prisons are supposed to be a reform system, to give those who had a bad break and made a few mistakes a chance to do better. What it has become is a punishment for everyone, regardless of severity or situation, to make it so that joining a gang and becoming a repeat offender is more an inevitability than a series of bad personal choices.

I do hear the disgust but not targeted at black people. Poor people maybe and criminals definitely, I can certainly understand why they'd not want apartment complexes in the suburbs, they're goddamned eyesores and would indeed drop the property values. There's a reason people choose to live outside of the heart of the hive after all. Besides, that couple has every right to be outraged, a mob invaded a residential area, damaged property, trespassed, harassed and threatened them but the homeowners are the ones charged? Come the fuck on. Now if we're eating the rich I'm all for it, but we aren't going to do it in the names of BLM or antifa and we're not going to beat around the bush or torture them.

It depends on the type of apartment complex. A low-income complex, sure, slapping it into a gated community where everyone's mailbox is solid gold and they only have bay windows, sure, your property values will probably dip. At the same time, they weren't talking about apartment complexes. They were saying "these people." You know who else said "these/those people?" Racists from the 1970's who pushed back against allowing blacks into white communities because it would "lower the property values." You can't defend that shit seriously.

My understanding is that that "mob" had stopped at their property line and those two had pulled out enough firepower to erase a few mobs, themselves, and then started shouting expletives at said mob. Yeah, I don't feel any pity for people who actively go looking for a fight with people who are at the end of their rope, and then somehow believe they were in the right for picking said fight. I'll grant them that they have a right to defend their property and it's fine. Pointing a gun at an angry group of people who feel beaten down and desperate, and yelling expletives at them is just unnecessary sabre-rattling.

I don't quite disagree, sure would be nice to have my own AH-64 Apache after all... But at the same time I live in an area where the average emergency response time is about an hour so there's definitely a good reason to be armed.

Yeah, no, what he's talking about with guns being available wholesale on the streets?

You must be registered to see the links

It's not inconceivable elsewhere. Also, buying a gun and carrying it across state lines is not difficult, or rare. Shit happens on a near-weekly basis. The lack of adequate enforcement and gun laws that prevent that kind of shit is incredibly terrifying. The only saving grace is that it's usually kept to the inner-city, though that's basically like saying the ocean isn't scary because you're not forced to go into it.

 

[super_slicer]

An honest question: where exactly am I doing that ?

Well, that and there's the fact that you've pumped your streets so full of guns, that's it's expected of any serious criminal to be in possession of one.

It is a criminal's choice to arm themselves. That decision is on them alone. It is also their choice to commit violent and destructive crimes.

On a gun range - sure, that's possible. In the heat of the moment...let's be serious here.
In urban conditions, there's rarely more than 10 yards between the shooter and its target, usually less and that limits time for anything fancy like aiming more than in the general direction significantly. You'd pretty much need superhuman reflexes and Gamer's Mind to make your scenario viable.
Btw. isn't the above the standard blue defense ?

There was a young patriot in kenosha that recently managed to shoot a gun wielding criminal in the bicep at less than that distance. No clue what you mean by blue defense.

I'm actually going in a completely different direction: you seem to be taking "a few bad apples" police defense at face value, yet unwilling to consider that despite sometime poor choice of 'martyrs', the problem might be real.
Note as many people/organisations in power, police too is more than willing and able to put their spin on any case they're involved in.
What's more, it's also in position of engineering a situation to look like any abuse committed was a rational thing to do. Pretty much like show trials, just a step earlier.
(wasn't interested much in the antifa shooter arrest, but from what I recall, he was interviewed by a reporter after the fact, so it would seem a peaceful arrest was an option)

In order for me to consider the possibility of the alleged problem being real I'd need to see some concrete evidence from an unimpeachable source. The overwhelming majority of persons shot by cops are involved in criminal activity and/or fail to follow lawful orders. Decisions have consequences.

It's not that I implicitly trust LEO's, it's that those accusing them of abuse of authority have little to no credibility and cannot support the accusation with evidence. Given that some 80+% of polled black Americans want the same level or MORE police as reported by a recent gallup poll, and that around 75% reported rarely to never experiencing discrimination when surveyed

You must be registered to see the links

, I think it's pretty fair to require those things.

Unfortunately, I need once again go Godwin here.
Some notable advances have been made by Germans during Second World War in medical sciences due to abundance of 'voluntold' test subjects.
We as civilization benefited from it, those test subjects - not so much.

Unethical experiments have been a staple of medical science since long before the Nazis came into being. Most of our medical knowledge finds it's base in some doctor watching someone suffer and die. The value of that knowledge far outweighs the cost. The lives saved by that knowledge outnumber the lives that were taken/lost/experienced suffering to obtain it giving us a clear and positive benefit to cost ratio. Besides if your kid has cancer and a cure comes out you're using it, you don't give a shit if to discover it some whackjob killed 100,000 or more people.

...this is just rephrasing of "might makes right".
The way I see this part of your argument is basically: "as long as I hold a gun against your head, I'm entitled to all the money I can get from you".
Which is kind of right, but not necessarily the way you've meant it to be.

No, I definitely mean might makes right. After all, the conqueror imposes their laws and at least some of their culture upon the defeated, thus shaping their morality.
The resources gained by that conquering allow them to fuel their progress further, ensuring their civilization's survival making it the correct of the two civilizations.
Having more advanced technology means that civilization can better utilize the resources invariably leading to continued advancement. Victory for our SPECIES requires, at the very least, the ability to travel to and colonize other star systems meaning that technological progress is THE metric that weighs the heaviest when deciding the success of a civilization.
You see we can't apply the same morality to a civilization that we would to an individual. Moreover a civilization, much like a nation, is ( or has been for the greatest part of recorded history ) only beholden to those which comprise it.

...and I thought I was the sci-fi geek here.
The little problem with that once you're off the planet, distances tend to get large, which adds significant time and energy cost penalties.
Perhaps we as humanity get around that, but it's a gamble with long odds.

Haha, just set up rail-guns across the system to transport materials from local harvest sites to processing and then to production. Once you're outside of the gravity well it's pretty easy to get enough energy for the necessary thrust with solar panels. Of course if we managed to develop a decent ion engine ( or something similar ) that'd also help.

I didn't specify any specific group, so no, not solely "women alone where there are few other people around." I'm talking in general, and prior to current events.

This I gotta see, it sounds absolutely ridiculous.

I'm more on the side of providing functional support via funding and trained persons to go in and help fix those neighbourhoods. Better teachers with better supplies at better schools, and in-community support workers with the tools and resources to help inner-city youth find a way out besides through a rap career or in a coffin. Sending more police in to de-escalate a situation where they're probably just adding fuel to the fire is antithetical to both improving things and their actual purpose. You don't send a cop to make your taco at taco bell in the same way you wouldn't send some minimum wage work-horse into gang territory armed with nothing but their debit machine.

I can certainly favor your solution on humanitarian grounds, unfortunately I think it will run into a few problems. First is staffing, who would be willing to enter such a dangerous environment when given the choice not to? The gangs are definitely going to push back, making it even worse. Second is that there's no real guarantee it will work, and you've gotta sell this solution to the taxpayers. Third is it would take generations before we'd even see the results.

"I don't see it" is the bare minimum requirement of willing ignorance. "I don't see it, so it must not exist." You can't see Pluto from where you're standing, but I'm pretty fucking sure it exists. I also hate making non sequitur arguments, so fuck you.

No, the bare minimum requirement for willful ignorance is to see the wrongdoing and ignore it. Not seeing it even though it's going on is simply ignorance. Though, I assure you I am diligently investigating these alleged abuses of authority and racist behavior. Turns out, it's pretty uncommon.

Also, your analogy doesn't work as no events have occurred that would change the situation of the bodies in the solar system since Pluto last had credible evidence of it's existence produced.

John Oliver did a really good story on sheriffs. Definitely worth the watch. While it is an elected position, they're also in a position where they can/will drum up false charges for their opposition, or bullying someone out of running by force of arms. It's not incredulous to presume that these people are willing to do anything to hold onto their power.

Not untrue, but in this specific circumstance an election was held and he did win. After that press release was made.

It doesn't take a genius to see that that guy has a bend towards a specific race and only mentioned "people of this criminal class" to save face. Also, what he's suggesting is barely acceptable, even in terms of basic Human decency. Prisons are supposed to be a reform system, to give those who had a bad break and made a few mistakes a chance to do better. What it has become is a punishment for everyone, regardless of severity or situation, to make it so that joining a gang and becoming a repeat offender is more an inevitability than a series of bad personal choices.

He's targeting a culture, had it been a bunch of wiggers in that car he'd be giving the exact same statement. Believe it or not the overwhelming majority of racists are really honest, they'll openly proclaim that they hate X ethnicity even! Granted I don't think you're wrong to be suspicious, but I don't believe you can accuse him with the case presented. You find a racist policy he's created, or find him marching with the Klan then I'll buy it.

No, prisons are a place to confine destructive elements to allow law abiding citizens to live their lives free of being victimized. They're also places of penitence (the reason penitentiary is synonymous), punishment by an impartial party is a must to prevent retribution by victims. Should reform be a part of the process? When possible sure. But it can't be the main goal until we can ensure it's effectiveness, which means mind control and that's where I draw the line. At that point it's tantamount to execution so just fry them.

It depends on the type of apartment complex. A low-income complex, sure, slapping it into a gated community where everyone's mailbox is solid gold and they only have bay windows, sure, your property values will probably dip. At the same time, they weren't talking about apartment complexes. They were saying "these people." You know who else said "these/those people?" Racists from the 1970's who pushed back against allowing blacks into white communities because it would "lower the property values." You can't defend that shit seriously.

They were, single-family home zoning is what makes the suburbs the suburbs. It doesn't allow for apartment complexes in specific residential areas, mainly the ones where people purchase property so they're not next to apartments.

Yes and, anyone that doesn't want to describe a group every time they have to refer to said group. I spent quite a bit of time checking on google and couldn't find a single result telling me that "these people" actually means "fuckin niggers".

My understanding is that that "mob" had stopped at their property line and those two had pulled out enough firepower to erase a few mobs, themselves, and then started shouting expletives at said mob. Yeah, I don't feel any pity for people who actively go looking for a fight with people who are at the end of their rope, and then somehow believe they were in the right for picking said fight. I'll grant them that they have a right to defend their property and it's fine. Pointing a gun at an angry group of people who feel beaten down and desperate, and yelling expletives at them is just unnecessary sabre-rattling.

Being that it is a gated community, the entire thing is private property, including the gate that was destroyed to gain entry. The people looking for a fight? That's the mob. Better yet, these are not impoverished people at the end of their rope, they're political activists attempting to impose their self-serving ideology. The fact that the couple stood their ground and made it apparent they were willing to use lethal force is probably the reason that the mob didn't cross onto their property, cause damage, and assault or possibly kill them. Guns as a deterrent. With some foul language mixed in for good measure.

Yeah, no, what he's talking about with guns being available wholesale on the streets? This is an actual thing in Chicago. It's not inconceivable elsewhere. Also, buying a gun and carrying it across state lines is not difficult, or rare. Shit happens on a near-weekly basis. The lack of adequate enforcement and gun laws that prevent that kind of shit is incredibly terrifying. The only saving grace is that it's usually kept to the inner-city, though that's basically like saying the ocean isn't scary because you're not forced to go into it.

Still the fault of criminals, not law abiding citizens. But the two sides of the debate continuing their game of chicken with policies in the extremes does create situations like this instead of averaging out, you'll get one state where it's next to impossible for a responsible person to legally acquire a firearm and in the next they'll be selling them like candy at the checkout. It's legal to transport your firearm across state lines as long as the state you're traveling into accepts the license issued by your state.

 

[JustLurksHere]

It is a criminal's choice to arm themselves. That decision is on them alone. It is also their choice to commit violent and destructive crimes.

Right now it's pretty much a chicken-egg problem.
It's a reasonable choice to come with a gun to a gun fight. If the other side expects you to have one and will react as if you did, you'd put yourself at disadvantage if you didn't have one. And depending on the case/person, the so-called 'life of crime' might actually be the only available choice.

Also, in the context of riots, the above matters not a bit, as there it's all about herd mentality, reason has little to do there.

There was a young patriot in kenosha....

I hope you do realize that when you use word 'patriot' in context of domestic dispute, you're actually advocating for civil war, and not that silly variant EE had in its past, but something closer to Bosnian War (perhaps even 1994 Rwanda).

'Blue defense' - the standard line of defense offered by American cops whenever they kill someone who wasn't resisting arrest all that much and sometimes wasn't even armed.

...are involved in criminal activity and/or fail to follow lawful orders

...and obviously this is a sufficient reason to kill them, regardless of the crime in question...
Proportional punishment at its best.

You must be registered to see the links

Something stinks about that study. For one, while on casual look I can't find the part that explains what are column and what row percentages mean (perhaps I'm simply unfamiliar with this form of presentation), what's explicitly written there is that the sample was (in their own perception at least) predominately white. Then there's that murky 'other' category, that suggest to me the survey questions were not well thought out, not if about two thirds of those that declare themselves white pick it.

...a long bit about winning and superiority/morality...

Morality defined that way is substance free - it's just means "I won, therefore I was in the right" then.
Not that I care much about morality, but I hate the hypocrisy of claiming to have moral high ground, while having none.

Having more advanced technology means that civilization can better utilize the resources

...not necessarily so. Also, there's the matter of unbalanced growth - might be more advanced in some categories, less in the others.
Throughout history, there were several examples of fallen empires that were subjugated by its more culturally primitive neighbors.



Anyway, in my opinion the society is - in a way - a multifront prisoner dilemma: long term, best results are when all the sides hold back, but if one of the sides stops, it seems to be winning more for awhile, till everyone else stops too - then you're just left with the pieces.

 

[Zepheral]

This thread needs more salt.

Also people, stop asking for links. You AINT GETTING NONE!!!

 

[super_slicer]

Right now it's pretty much a chicken-egg problem.

It's a reasonable choice to come with a gun to a gun fight. If the other side expects you to have one and will react as if you did, you'd put yourself at disadvantage if you didn't have one. And depending on the case/person, the so-called 'life of crime' might actually be the only available choice.

Not if you aren't licensed to own a firearm it isn't, also don't go to gunfights. And no, there's always a choice; when you choose to assault, rape, murder, rob or threaten public safety then you've got to pay the price. The "poor criminals don't have a choice" argument is invalid because there's no such thing as limited determinism, either nobody has free will or we all do, thus by that logic nobody is responsible for their actions and we cannot hold anyone personally accountable ( LEOs neither ). If we codify this into law then all that will be left is a few psychos humping mutilated corpses.

In any situation you have a choice and are responsible for your actions, society must operate under that premise if it is to continue.

Also, in the context of riots, the above matters not a bit, as there it's all about herd mentality, reason has little to do there.

This is just blatantly wrong. Even if I were to accept that upon entry to a group the individual loses their will ( garbage logic there, as it allows someone to get a few friends together and blame any crimes committed on that instead of taking responsibility ), that person has still knowingly made the choice to enter the group and must be held responsible for actions commited while under it's influence.

I hope you do realize that when you use word 'patriot' in context of domestic dispute, you're actually advocating for civil war, and not that silly variant EE had in its past, but something closer to Bosnian War (perhaps even 1994 Rwanda).

I just used that word because I knew it'd bother somebody. Don't think it would qualify as a civil war as there's a difference in the scale of public support between rebels and terrorists.

'Blue defense' - the standard line of defense offered by American cops whenever they kill someone who wasn't resisting arrest all that much and sometimes wasn't even armed.

Ah, criminal simping.

...and obviously this is a sufficient reason to kill them, regardless of the crime in question...

Proportional punishment at its best.

Those two things, resisting arrest and failing to follow a lawful order ARE crimes. When you commit them you put LEO's and the public's lives in danger and thus sacrifice any reasonable expectation to a guarantee of safety during interactions with them, furthermore you relinquish your right to life. And that certainly is proportional, this idea that a criminal isn't personally responsible for the threat or harm that they cause yet an LEO is just doesn't make any sense.

Go ahead though, fetch me the video of the guy getting shot for stealing a pack of gum.

Something stinks about that study. For one, while on casual look I can't find the part that explains what are column and what row percentages mean (perhaps I'm simply unfamiliar with this form of presentation), what's explicitly written there is that the sample was (in their own perception at least) predominately white. Then there's that murky 'other' category, that suggest to me the survey questions were not well thought out, not if about two thirds of those that declare themselves white pick it.

Yes, white people were also part of the study as the question which asked for self-reporting of receiving racism was only one part of it.

Morality defined that way is substance free - it's just means "I won, therefore I was in the right" then.

Not that I care much about morality, but I hate the hypocrisy of claiming to have moral high ground, while having none.

We're in agreement then, an argument against western civilization based in morality is inconsequential. So we've decided western civilization is the best.

...not necessarily so. Also, there's the matter of unbalanced growth - might be more advanced in some categories, less in the others.

An industrial society can certainly utilize resources far better than a bunch of savages digging around in the mud with sticks. Sure, give me an example to go off of, what civilization had less advanced technology that was applicable to military efforts than the technology not applicable?

Throughout history, there were several examples of fallen empires that were subjugated by its more culturally primitive neighbors.

Yeah, but IIRC they didn't actually kill the empire, they just picked at it's carcass the same way that any scavenger feeds off of a dead predator, you can't say the scavenger is directly responsible for the predator's death, so that's neither here nor there.

 

[johntrine]

fight you?
fine!
i think you and rest of the mods have been doing a bang up job and it's been great since now when i look up a game, it is more convenient to know more about the game from it's ulmf thread than its dlsite page! so i think the new thread format is pretty cool (though the fact that there are less new thread being made and a few games that i wanted to discuss about like orika have their thread locked) but over all i think all you mods are been doing a cool job!
yeah! i said it! there! what are you gonna do! cry!
XD

 

[JustLurksHere]

Not if you aren't licensed to own a firearm it isn't, also don't go to gunfights.

...just like your patriot didn't.
...actually, he didn't, he started one.

The "poor criminals don't have a choice" argument is invalid because there's no such thing as limited determinism

First of all, not criminals, but people. What I've meant was that often the organized crime is the only viable way out of such neighborhoods.
Sure, some make it through the second lottery and get out despite the odds, but the way the system is set up, it's nothing more than a lottery.

...as there's a difference in the scale of public support between rebels and terrorists.

And that's why some suffragettes that lost hope for wining peacefully and resorted to direct methods were labeled as their time variant of the second.
Also, that movement eventually won in major part due to the slaughter of First World War.

you relinquish your right to life. And that certainly is proportional

So, if that happened to a hypothetical person you care about (that is, if such exists), you'd be fine with it ?
Or is that yet another case of "it can't happen to me, so I'm fine with it" ?

an argument against western civilization based in morality is inconsequential (A). So we've decided western civilization is the best (B).

B in no way follows from A.

you can't say the scavenger is directly responsible for the predator's death

No, but I consider Smith's model of human species as currently (and in foreseeable future) valid (though I consider cancer as better fitting than virus) and journey towards Slaanesh inevitable for any empire. That is to say almost any empire that didn't end early due to plague/climate change or another human independent factor, killed itself via internal decay. Not so much moral, as simply those in power deciding that as they write the laws, they're also above them.

Anyway, the major problem with "might makes right" is that once it enters the cannibalistic phase, you just can't go without that mind control (or at least slave implants) for your slave caste. Otherwise you'll get slave rebellions.