Meshugger

Yes, I am sure that you can feel seething hate brewing in this forum. GG must be the lamest hate group ever, not managing chase one single woman from the internet yet No, GG stands for artistic freedom for the creators and the elimination of corrupt journalists that try to control the media. Harlan Ellison says it better than most: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsbiB_4AEqI&feature=youtu.be&t=32

While blacks are definitely over-represented among victims of police shootings, they do not constitute "most" of them. According to mappingpoliceviolence.org: "At least 1149 people were killed by police in 2014. 304 (26%) were black." The percentage of African Americans among the total population nation-wide is, I believe, 14%. That's a clear statistical disparity of course. Also, from various studies and sources like stop-and-frisk statistics, we do know that there is in fact some amount of anti-black racial prejudice among law enforcement agencies, and the FBI even admits it (sort of). However, I'd advise progressives to pause for a moment before interpreting too much into that 26%-vs-14% disparity. Because if you ignore other possible statistical factors and cause-and-affect chains and pretend that 100% of the disparity must be due to clear-cut racism and oppression and "white privilege", how will you deal with the other statistical disparity that emerges from that same data collected by mappingpoliceviolence.org: Namely that of those 1149 people killed by police in 2014, 93% were male - even though only 49% of the national population is male. Is this, applying the same arguments, proof that law enforcement operates under 'female privilege' and is engaging in a targeted 'war on men'? Or is it, maybe a little more complicated - both when it comes to gender, and when it comes to race. Now you're just confusing. Who am i supposed to blame?!!

This guy 'mysteriously' got his spinal column severed at some random point in custody rather than got shot so Wals' gun comment doesn't apply here anyway. I went to Baltimore and it was... interesting. Quite nice down by the waterfront then a couple of blocks away it went full The Wire location shoot (well, Homicide: Life on the Street since it was a fair while ago now) with dilapidated houses, industrial decay and all the rest. Yeah, take a wrong turn and two blocks later you're in bat county. Philadelphia is similar, but not so extreme.

This reminds of the riots in London, Paris and Stockholm. Always started with the Police shooting a kid and they answer by burning down their own neighbourhoods. Of course the kid is always portraid as an angel that suffered from over-violence by the officers. As for Baltimore, it's a shame. The city is quite beautiful in the city center along the Chesapeake bay.

Hopefully something good might come out of this: http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/33ydv2/spjethicsweek_megathread/ Society of Professional Journalism week.

Well to be fair, the only Dutch history that we were taught in scando-land was the colonizations in Asia and that they sold New Amsterdam for almost nothing Come now, come now. We got Surinam for it. It was a steal! I mean, New York on one side, Surinam on the other... Which would you pick? The choice is obvious. Surinam's great potential on production of different spices is still not fully realized! Any day now! (i would've picked it as well if i lived back then ) For some reason, I'm not surprised at all : ] Touché

What great year it has been so far. Right fellas?

Well to be fair, the only Dutch history that we were taught in scando-land was the colonizations in Asia and that they sold New Amsterdam for almost nothing

No really. I am equally flabbergasted that feminism as an idea is taught in history class. The closest thing was a couple of paragraphs of the women's liberations movement in the beginning of the 20th century and some strikes for equal pay in the 60's, but those were intertwined to the general student rebellion at that time.

I am older than you, so it is not an age thing.

Feminism wasn't taught in any history class i've been to. It wasn't specifically that feminism was taught, the women's liberation movement was just covered as one of the many things characterizing hippies, civil rights movements and the 70's in general. (Oh yeah, Donna from That 70's Show also mentioned her pretty often to the point it became annoying). The closest thing was a mention of women getting the right to vote (without any names of the campaigners) and some burning of bras in the 60's and 70's, but that was linked to Trotskyist, Stalinist and other far left movements. Come to think of it, Jane Fonda was mentioned as controversial figure, but that was more for her anti-war protests. Most history was focused on the middle ages, the enlightment, industrial revolution, local history from 1100-1914 and the great wars. Everything after was extra courses for those interested.

Feminism wasn't taught in any history class i've been to and i was an history buff that took extra classes in high school. The last classes of post-WWII history focused on the cold war, korea war, berlin wall, vietnam war and counter culture (hippies!) and the space race. I then continued in the STEM field.

Third here. And i have been in and hanging out for years in academia But anyway, i haven't heard of her at all before.

There's more: http://steamcommunity.com/app/72850/discussions/0/611704730323284103/

Nexus is now evil and should be boycotted: http://steamcommunity.com/app/72850/discussions/0/611704730320208809/ The cancer called shill is spreading.

Since we are in the correct thread now, how do you define the ruling class and what is the correct way for the US voter to create better society?

Stalin feared that the most Which is, of course, entirely relevant and applicable to the discussion. Of course. Authoritarians like anti-GG or Stalin hate idealists that go outside their narrative. Yes. It's much cleverer to craft a phony counter-narrative which is superficially radical but in reality completely non-threatening to the ruling class, and get the naive idealists to adopt that. Libertarianism, for example. Other thread please.

I don't get it. Are Hispanics and Blacks incapable of being conservative? Not incapable, but there has been no visible reason for them to vote conservatively when the GOP are the ones constantly pushing laws into place to protect their congressional seats via white majority. Voter ID laws being the most recent example I can think of. And it doesn't help that the GOP is run by a bunch of guys who held Strom Thurmond up as a paragon of their party... a man who ran for president in '48 on a ticket of "Keep it Segregated". In 2002 the Senate Majority Leader (Trent Lott) declared which is so politically intractable that he ultimately lost his position as Majority Leader because of the outrage in general. To make this more confusing, he ran as a Democrat back then. I will never understand american politics entirely.

Stalin feared that the most Which is, of course, entirely relevant and applicable to the discussion. Of course. Authoritarians like anti-GG or Stalin hate idealists that go outside their narrative.

I am now utterly confused.

Oooh boy, talk about naive idealism Stalin feared that the most

Cute. Well this is pretty much the result you can expect when you define your movement by its opposition towards those horrible not-ingroup people. True, SJWs should stop calling everyone misogynists, racists, terrorists or whatnot when they do not agree with them. Of course, because that's totally the same thing than gamergate turning on its own, which has happened during the production of that ridiculous anti-Sarkeesian "documentary", and now it's happening again. There always infighting when anons get into a heated debate in GG. No doubt about that, it's been that way since the beginning. But as always, the most rational and logical arguments weed out the stupid elements. See any talk about company boycots.

****, that was bad and not acceptable in any way Best wishes though.

Cute. Well this is pretty much the result you can expect when you define your movement by its opposition towards those horrible not-ingroup people. True, SJWs should stop calling everyone misogynists, racists, terrorists or whatnot when they do not agree with them.

Another "Listen & Belive"-story where some of the money ended up to a scam-artist. But atleast ACLU got some money, so in the end it wasn't so bad.