A Political Thread

[GarethGriffiths]

'No, your use of #BothSides and your defence or racist fuckwits is what is excusing minority hatred'

I think you meant 'of' instead of 'or' there.

I've also said that all racism is wrong and have not defended any racist 'f-wit'. I abhor all forms of intolerance, and that means all forms.

Example:

Should an Atheist bully or offend a Christian about his/her faith, that is wrong and I would call the Atheist out.
Should a Christian bully or offend an Atheist about his/her belief that there is no God/creator, that is wrong and I would call the Christian out.

It is completely immaterial and irrelevant what number of people are anti-white/anti-black, which appears to be your straw-man argument. What I am trying to say, and will say regardless of whether or not you approve of it, is that all forms of hatred are wrong and if we are to have a hate-free world we cannot make excuses and we have to say that all hate is equally wrong. I am not at all interested in numbers, I am only interested in eradicating a wrong.

By your reckoning, it doesn't matter if a few far-right or far-left parties get elected in a General Election - the ratio says 97:3 we don't think that way and surely the parasite could never take over the host even if a small number of people whom think outside the accepted norm are elected in?

I do not believe in excuses or treating any group as 'special needs' or 'special dispensation' - I believe in being constant with calling out all types of hatred, and it's done me more right than wrong throughout my life. Even my black and gay mates agree.

 

[ncurd]

You are failing miserably on the argument.

By conflating the problem of minor racism you are equalling it to major systematic and institutional racism of a country.

You won't any argument from any liberal that racism in any forn is bad. Just most have the sense to solve the huge problems before dealing with the minor ones.

By making minor issues an equal to large ones like you are doing here you are creating mountains of molehill whilst deflecting fro real mountains.

Why does black lives matter exist because of instuational racism means that a black man will likely be more likely killed by a white policeman than a whilst commting the same offence when the opposite race is applied when the races are reversed.

Why does all lives matter exist? Because people won't face up to systemic issues to do with race in their country and create a very basic argument that ignore intituipnal racism as thing.

This is exactly what you are doing here and is frankly stupid.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Hopefully some good news coming out of SA, with the beginning of the end of the Zuma era.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-wins-election-as-anc-president-idUSKBN1EC05I

Surely, it has to be better than the ANC electing Zumas ex-wife and likely continuing the same patronage network (once that sort of thing happens or constitutional rules on term limits are broken a state usually goes down the toilet).

Ramaphosa going from a union leader to "one of the richest" men in SA does set off little alarm bells in my head that he may not entirely be squeaky clean. But I'll confess to knowing zero about him.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

You are failing miserably on the argument.

By conflating the problem of minor racism you are equalling it to major systematic and institutional racism of a country.

You won't any argument from any liberal that racism in any forn is bad. Just most have the sense to solve the huge problems before dealing with the minor ones.

By making minor issues an equal to large ones like you are doing here you are creating mountains of molehill whilst deflecting fro real mountains.

Why does black lives matter exist because of instuational racism means that a black man will likely be more likely killed by a white policeman than a whilst commting the same offence when the opposite race is applied when the races are reversed.

Why does all lives matter exist? Because people won't face up to systemic issues to do with race in their country and create a very basic argument that ignore intituipnal racism as thing.

This is exactly what you are doing here and is frankly stupid.

Actually, a black person in the USA is more likely to be killed by a fellow black person than by a white person.

With regards to the law, even Channel 4 admit that the so called 'mass discrimination' against black people is a falsehood: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

BLM are interesting as they are a political charity who have been around for a few years - yet I notice how slow they are at disclosing just where their funding is spent (or indeed who funds them). That is a topic for another day though.

How is that 'solving the huge problems' going? Last time I checked, we still have racism and even today one council in the news was labelled as 'institutionally racist'. Not at all good, maybe another way of tackling the problem is needed? Perhaps instead of crying and virtue-signalling, let's do something to bring all communities together - how about workshops to help give black and ethnic minority people the chance to start up their own businesses? Let's create more people like Jay Blades who have worked with and mentored young black and ethnic minority people in Wolverhampton. Give these people a chance and let them be in charge of their fate and destiny. A self-sufficient and self-proud person does not commit trouble. Let's also give them a proper education (not least sex education, taking into account the high number of absentee black fathers in both the UK and USA) and equip them properly for the world and what about lessons in finance and budgeting in schools? When a community is strong, it unites and relies less on the outside influence (or indeed interference) of others.

Sometimes I wonder whether we actually want to solve racism as a society - there always seems to be more than one spanner in the work, but often it doesn't come from the people we are wishing to help, as we are sticking to the same old mantra when it comes to the acceptable ways in which we deal with racism according to mainly white people/think tanks. Ask yourself have you ever asked a black person if 'the current way' of dealing with racism is effective? After all, we are working for their benefit so I think that it is only fair that they lead the discussion (by the way, can I ask what race you are, Ncurd?) What if they want all the mountains removed and flattened to molehills? You know, creating a totally non-racist and non-biased society? What could be so scary about black people, white people and asian people all getting along?

I accept that there is racism and issues in society, but the more we split hairs over which way to treat it the more we do nothing about it. Now, you are quite welcome to continue thinking and acting how you wish - nobody can or will stop you - I will continue to call out anti-Black, anti-White and anti-Asian hatred. You may think me stupid, you might react with anger, but strangely enough no black or ethnic minority person has been angered by my doing so. A few have even said that you cannot be for protecting one community when you are willfully blind and ignorant to the abuse suffered by another.

I hope to work towards a world where racism and homophobia is eliminated and neither are profitable.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Actually, a black person in the USA is more likely to be killed by a fellow black person than by a white person.

You do realize that if you think about that statistic for more than five seconds it actually supports the idea that america is a racist hell-hole.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

You do realize that if you think about that statistic for more than five seconds it actually supports the idea that america is a racist hell-hole.

Yes, and also a lot more needs doing in order to alleviate the USA of the issue of black on black crime.

Education is key.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

black on black crime really is just crime.

our communities are so segregated that any crime you commit that has a victim has an overwhelming probability of being of the same race as yours.

throw in the fact that police are much more likely to pursue cases in which the victim is white makes the expected benefit of committing a crime higher when the victim is black than when the victim is white

you sound like the one who needs education

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Actually, a black person in the USA is more likely to be killed by a fellow black person than by a white person.

Way to completely skirt his quote and answer with something irrelevant. He didn't say that the biggest killer of Black people was the police.
Young black men are 9 times more likely to be killed by the police than any other race
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/08/the-counted-police-killings-2016-young-black-men

 

[GarethGriffiths]

black on black crime really is just crime.

our communities are so segregated that any crime you commit that has a victim has an overwhelming probability of being of the same race as yours.

throw in the fact that police are much more likely to pursue cases in which the victim is white makes the expected benefit of committing a crime higher when the victim is black than when the victim is white

you sound like the one who needs education

Well aren't you just a charmer?

Perhaps you need education - https://www.theroot.com/why-we-never-talk-about-black-on-black-crime-an-answer-1819092337

Also, I happen to be half caste, so do have some experience of these issues.

Whilst the black and ethnic minority % of population is obviously significantly less than the white population (duh!) over half of the crimes reported are by black perpetrators. But that's just racism? Not at all:

Take Ferguson - if we say that roughly 67% of Ferguson is black or minority ethnic, and that 85% of these people were stopped for traffic violations, then there is a 18% point of discrepancy.

However, why it is not racist is because if we then say 25% of New York City is black or minority ethnic but 55% of these people were stopped for traffic violations - that then becomes a 30% point of discrepancy!

The NYPD is run by a majority of black and minority ethnic officials, but is not deemed anywhere near as racist despite the larger figure for discrepancy. Being institutionally racist against their own people? You're having a laugh!

If you want a honest discussion about police conduct, you also need to have a honest discussion about black and minority ethnic crime and the reasons why some of them turn to crime. Tackle the root causes and then you might get somewhere.

Edit: Regarding work, well it looks as if Affirmative Action (a policy designed by those in power in the USA, the vast majority of whom are white) has made it much more risky to hire a black or minority ethnic person unless they are absolutely spotless, with an experienced work history. Thomas Sowell explains this stuff really well.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

Way to completely skirt his quote and answer with something irrelevant. He didn't say that the biggest killer of Black people was the police.
Young black men are 9 times more likely to be killed by the police than any other race
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/08/the-counted-police-killings-2016-young-black-men

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...t-black-men-rare-heres-what-data-actually-say begs to disagree.

 

[Gavin]

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...t-black-men-rare-heres-what-data-actually-say begs to disagree.

Have you read anything else by the author? Check out his personal page and you can tell it is biased towards one group.

Also when I saw him write the following about funding which is trying to stop climate change I laughed "If we're serious about cost-benefit analysis, we have a duty to discount the interests of future generations"

 

[GarethGriffiths]

Will have a look at it some other time, off to work now.

The thing with the quote you mentioned is that if you look at it purely from an economic, rather than moralistic, point of view it makes some sense;

If we keep adding to the world, in terms of numbers of people, whilst continuing to deplete resources then we are going to have climate change issues regardless of the best efforts of people today.

Also, if Yellowstone or a similar volcano blows up within the next 50 years - or God forbid numb-nuts in North Korea presses that red button, the Paris agreement on climate change is going to be for nothing anyway.

Besides, almost every article online has some kind of bias - liberal, socialist, conservative, alt-right or even alt-left. There's very few truly independent articles out there.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I'm sure not many are interested in Argentine politics but what happened yesterday was, even by our standards, unbelievable.
Watch this video for 2 minutes (36:44 till 38:44)



This (people throwing stones at police personnel) lasted for over an hour. I kid you not. A couple of female officers had to be relieved from their positions because they became exhausted of having to hold their position while receiving hundreds to stones thrown at them (just at them, total was easily in the tens of thousands stones/rocks). besides the stones they had house-made molotov bombs and mortars.

Which kinda begs an interesting question: where on earth did they get so many ammunition to throw? Well, i kid you not, they basically to the square (front of congress) with the bombs, mortars and hammers. They destroyed pretty much everything, broke it down into debris and used it as ammunition.

here is another video




The other obvious question is, why on earth didn't the police retaliate?
This has two parts.
1) Because a judge had basically tied their hands a day before. The police literally stood there for two hours as sitting ducks. It was painful to watch. These guys/gals get paid ****, they put their lives on gods hands every time they leave home and they are social pariahs. If you can think of a more ungrateful job, please do tell because i can't think of one.
2) Another police force (Federal) arrived and they did retaliate. Tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, etc.

At point 2) is where the story will depend on who's telling it. Some people will tell you they overreacted, others will tell you they reacted too late.

The numbers keep getting updated but the last i checked there were approximately 150 injured people, +80 of which were police personnel.

I'm biased so i'm just trying to tell you the facts (with a bit of colouring here and there, noted).

I've seen riots/etc a million times live, but this one (i saw this one on tv) was a different animal.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I'm sure not many are interested in Argentine politics but what happened yesterday was, even by our standards, unbelievable.
Watch this video for 2 minutes (36:44 till 38:44)



This (people throwing stones at police personnel) lasted for over an hour. I kid you not. A couple of female officers had to be relieved from their positions because they became exhausted of having to hold their position while receiving hundreds to stones thrown at them (just at them, total was easily in the tens of thousands stones/rocks). besides the stones they had house-made molotov bombs and mortars.

Which kinda begs an interesting question: where on earth did they get so many ammunition to throw? Well, i kid you not, they basically to the square (front of congress) with the bombs, mortars and hammers. They destroyed pretty much everything, broke it down into debris and used it as ammunition.

here is another video




The other obvious question is, why on earth didn't the police retaliate?
This has two parts.
1) Because a judge had basically tied their hands a day before. The police literally stood there for two hours as sitting ducks. It was painful to watch. These guys/gals get paid ****, they put their lives on gods hands every time they leave home and they are social pariahs. If you can think of a more ungrateful job, please do tell because i can't think of one.
2) Another police force (Federal) arrived and they did retaliate. Tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, etc.

At point 2) is where the story will depend on who's telling it. Some people will tell you they overreacted, others will tell you they reacted too late.

The numbers keep getting updated but the last i checked there were approximately 150 injured people, +80 of which were police personnel.

I'm biased so i'm just trying to tell you the facts (with a bit of colouring here and there, noted).

I've seen riots/etc a million times live, but this one (i saw this one on tv) was a different animal.

Pretty ugly stuff - I'd seen no mention of that anywhere. Pensions do seem to be about the most emotive topic (see also Greece). No excuse for taking that out on the police, particularly if the governing party had recently increased their share of the vote (which gives a political mandate).

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Was surprised about that too. I checked a few newspapers to see what the rest of the world was saying about it and i found very little. Not that the rest of the world is much concerned about us, but considering how spectacular the images are i found it strange.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

Very sorry to hear about this, Cruz. Hope you stay safe!

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Thanks, appreciated. I was quite far from that place.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Apologies for bringing up this topic again, I do so mainly to defend my character as it is an emotive topic. Politicians and a prosecutor state that there are "systemic failings" in UK rape investigations following recent trial collapses based on blunders by the Met police. Well worth a read for anyone with unshakeable faith in the justice system.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42417553

To repeat myself I think the justice system in the UK is very reliable, but they lost the plot on sex crimes due to political pressure to always take the complainer's word as gospel rather than reach an informed conclusion based on all the evidence (or lack thereof).

 

[ncurd]

These cases are pretty terrible because they the evidence does exist and police (and from what I was hearing stem from one police officer) have deliberately withheld information.

The complainer's word should be treated as gospel but you still have to go where the facts lead you even if does lead to no conviction. This is about pressure to get convictions not pressure to treat a complainant as truthful.

But these cases help no one people will use them as a reason to ignore harassment and abuse and treat complainants as liars. It also doesn't help with true convictions as people will use the excuse "the police didn't look at all the evidence". Its pretty much a body blow to having a helpful conversation about the subject at Met should hang their heads in shame.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

The complainer's word should be treated as gospel

That makes no sense whatsoever. It violates the universal principle of equality under the law.

This is about pressure to get convictions not pressure to treat a complainant as truthful.

This makes even less sense as, in order to get a conviction you'd need to take the complaint as truthful.


From a political point of view, i can understand why it happens. From a judicial point of view, they are pretending to solve a problem by creating another one.