Politics XXXVII (The 12th Prime)

[Volourn]

You do realize that the 'Fox pundits' criticize/bash Trump A LOT, right? So much so, he also bashes them. Why so ignorant?

[BruceVC]

9 hours ago, Volourn said:

 

Racism is a white only disease, y'all. :rollseyes:

 

This type of violence is unacceptable and should be condemned 

It doesnt matter what the race is of the victim and of course any human being is capable of any form of bigotry....this is an irrefutable scientific and physiological  fact based on how all our brains work and how we think. This means of course black people can be racist, the question should not be that but rather "  are you personally a racist " ....and if you are you can change your ways and dont be automatically prejudice towards people who have a different skin color 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by BruceVC

[Amentep]

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

This type of violence is unacceptable and should be condemned 

It doesnt matter what the race is of the victim and of course any human being is capable of any form of bigotry....this is an irrefutable scientific and physiological  fact based on how all our brains work and how we think. This means of course black people can be racist, the question should not be that but rather "  are you personally a racist " ....and if you are you can change your ways and dont be automatically prejudice towards people who have a different skin color 

While violence, in general, should be condemned, I'd be wary of buying into the narrative surrounding the presentation of that video.  The only context for the video is provided by the poster, who by their twitter profile has an agenda they are pushing (if it wasn't obvious from their word choice).

[ComradeYellow]

Covid 19, police brutality, mass protests, now China and India and North Korea and South Korea are about to clash.

2020 is the gift that keeps on giving.

I'm rooting for China and North Korea BTW, may be an unorthodox position but India is fascist led and North Korea provides good troll value so meh.

The question is, where is the U.S. gonna ultimately position itself in all this?  Stay tuned for more 2020!

[majestic]

 

4 hours ago, Amentep said:

While violence, in general, should be condemned, I'd be wary of buying into the narrative surrounding the presentation of that video.  The only context for the video is provided by the poster, who by their twitter profile has an agenda they are pushing (if it wasn't obvious from their word choice).

Baron Strucker from Occupied Ireland seems like a legit, unbiased source of news, I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

[Orogun01]

6 hours ago, Amentep said:

While violence, in general, should be condemned, I'd be wary of buying into the narrative surrounding the presentation of that video.  The only context for the video is provided by the poster, who by their twitter profile has an agenda they are pushing (if it wasn't obvious from their word choice).

Not accusing you in particularly of this but I always found it funny how people ask for nuance and context when it comes to evidence that challenge their views. When it supports it there's no need for evidence and nuance would just get in the way of an extreme emotional response.

[ShadySands]

TIL we come in packs. Tonight, I howl at the moon.

But seriously, being black or white or whatever doesn't automatically mean that you are good person... or a bad one. I don't know what the point of posting that was.

[Amentep]

4 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

Not accusing you in particularly of this but I always found it funny how people ask for nuance and context when it comes to evidence that challenge their views. When it supports it there's no need for evidence and nuance would just get in the way of an extreme emotional response.

I find it odd that people don't ask for more evidence or context when presented video footage* - even with things that don't challenge their views.  Hitch**** had a theory regarding images; take a picture of an old man smiling and intercut it with him looking at a cooing baby.  The context is that of a doting grandfather and baby.  Take the same man smiling footage and intercut it with a sexy woman undressing, and the man become a lecher.

In this case, the poster of the video has an obvious agenda, which itself makes the video suspicious.

• The account is starting from the position that 'blacks' are invading and de-white-ifying Europe, and he advocates all Europeans set their location status to "Occupied <nation>" to indicate this
• He refers to a group of people as a "pack" to associated them with violent and animalistic imagery, so he's already appealing to emotion rather than logic and trying to otherfy the group

Since we must assume an agenda based on the evidence, it'd be nice if the details of the video could be verified independently.

Mind you, I think its wise for context in a lot of situations; I've seen enough pictures paraded as "Thing a" when they were really "Thing b" on the internet and in real life to know that you can't trust random people to deal in honesty and truth.  This happened online with the recent riots, where posts were made of fires from a year or more ago claiming they were from those nights (as if the fires and destruction that existed weren't bad enough on their own).

So looking at the footage:

1. The video footage appears old - it is very low res for a modern phone.
2. There's nothing to indicate it is in Australia that we can tell from the low res images, so we can't even begin to verify the narrative we are presented with.
3. We only see part of the video and don't know what happened before or after the film shown.

These are important because the claim is that this happened and nothing was done about it - but this can't be independently verified by details about where the original source is (assuming even that nothing was done about it).

Perhaps the group was bad people, perhaps there was an incident prior to this we don't see, perhaps all of them are drunk or mentally ill - the point is we don't know the context, but the poster of the video is trying to create a narrative that fits their agenda.  Unless you want to accept that agenda - and any agenda presented to you by anyone who presents information to you - some critical thinking skills should be exercised, in my opinion.  

*I actually include news media on this as well as often times "The News" is synonymous with "What We Have Footage Of", and even that can be selectively edited.

[Gromnir]

11 hours ago, BruceVC said:

This type of violence is unacceptable and should be condemned 

It doesnt matter what the race is of the victim and of course any human being is capable of any form of bigotry....this is an irrefutable scientific and physiological  fact based on how all our brains work and how we think. This means of course black people can be racist, the question should not be that but rather "  are you personally a racist " ....and if you are you can change your ways and dont be automatically prejudice towards people who have a different skin color 

 

 

y'know, our personal experience suggests trying to educate individual racists into having some kinda epiphany is offering an extreme low rate o' success. in fact, in rl, we never accuse a person o' being a racist if our intent is to have a constructive dialogue. self-aware racists who is knowing they is racist and believe they is justified in their racism will surprising often be offended when you suggest they is racist. who knew? those persons who behave racist but just don't realize their actions is bigoted, will near certain react poorly to an accusation o' racism. "react poorly" is an understatement. in the US, racism is inexorably linked to iconography o' nazis and kkk, so when you suggest a person is racist, the christian woman who insists she can't be racist 'cause she once dated an italian man who, during the summer, got skin as dark as Gromnir, is gonna be mortified by suggestion she is a racist.

there is the possibility for salvation. maybe mom and dad are the kinda everyday racists who think most minority problems would go away if "those people" were more diligent and worked a bit harder, but if their daughter, little cindy-lou who, goes to school and realizes the minority kids is not so different, then next generation has a shot at real change. 

rare does Gromnir suggest trying to fix a problem by addressing effects, but racism is kinda such an issue, though am not saying we only address effects. today we may address the effects o' racism by reducing income disparity and health care gaps 'tween white and minority populations, but am thinking we tend to go 'bout it the wrong way. eighteen year-old white kid from backwater arkansas has never gotten a break... evar. his parents were poor. his grandparents were poor. as far as he knows, his family going back to adam and eve were poor. tell some o' these kids how they is privileged and they get angry. now go ahead and suggest racism and privilege is mundane and matter o' fact  for all white folks whether they realize or not and see how poor white kid reacts. explain to the kid who can't get a decent job, but is killing himself working crap jobs such that college feels like a pipe dream... and everybody keeps telling him college is needed. tell the white and underprivileged they need wait for help 'cause we need first fix generations o' white privilege. is not winning strategies.

long term and real solutions come from cultural changes which start with kids. gotta take a +15-year approach which  is unsatisfying for those suffering today and for political types who need show immediate results to get elected next year or a few years from today. 

short-term we are able to address income disparity and health care issues and many other problems, but we gotta be savvy enough to frame the debate so as to not further polarize an already horribly divided nation. 

we give gd a hard time 'bout the confederacy. as we have noted, more than once, we believe the confederacy deserves to be given a nice and final immolation, but we always stress need for education. the ordinary southerner who venerates the confederate battle flag do not see themselves as racist. sure, there is more than a few who fully acknowledge and embrace their bigotry, but is not most. the ordinary white southerner who loves what the confederate flag represents *groan* were taught in school how the civil war were not fought 'cause o' slavery. schools taught these confederate loving folks that slavery were bad and it were a terrible thing, but that most slave owners treated their slaves like family members, or perhaps beloved house pets, and that even so, the real fight were 'bout liberty and self determination. you got generations o' southerners who, right or wrong, honest believe the narrative they were taught in schools, and is much easier to embrace such a narrative when the alternative is that you has believed and perpetuated a lie and an injustice for near all your life. point at confederate flag and says anybody who venerates is a racist forces all those southerners (and a few northerners) to make a hard choice which is punishing in its polarization:

either gotta admit that all those people shouting at you that you are an ignorant racist is correct

or

side with an increasingly vilified defense o' the confederate battle flag, which is often perpetuated most aggressive by modern day kkk and nazis.

we push folks to embrace an extreme and then act surprised when those people become extreme. 

oh, and human is animals. when an animal is afraid or hungry or angry, it often runs away, but humans is pack animals, so if we are in groups and we is hungry and afraid and angry, we lash out at the weak, particular those weak not part o' our group. such behaviour is an ugly reality and is all twisted up with racism and stupidity and fear and base animal instinct which regardless o' fact we may split atom and travel to the moon, will always be a factor in our interactions with other humans... human animals.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 16, 2020 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

Pft, Amentep being so prejudiced and assuming this guy has an agenda.

[Volourn]

"While violence, in general, should be condemned, I'd be wary of buying into the narrative surrounding the presentation of that video.  The only context for the video is provided by the poster, who by their twitter profile has an agenda they are pushing (if it wasn't obvious from their word choice). "

 

Yeha, the guy has an agenda (and he sounds like a piece of trash) but, pray tell, what do you think would justify a bunch of people beating the crap out of someone literally sitting down. her saying mean things (even though it doesn't like she is saying anything)? Are you implying she might have said the n word and therefore their violent reaction is acceptable behavior when someone says something mean to you?

By that logic, George Floyd got what he deserved because he literally stuck a gun into a pregnant woman's stomach and beat her with said gun. But, like I said before, it doesn't matter what George Floyd did or what kind of person he is, what the cop did was completely utterly unacceptable. There is no excuse for it just like there is no excuse for the behavior in the video.

[Malcador]

52 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

TIL we come in packs. Tonight, I howl at the moon.

At long last the world knows the truth about you Marines.

[Amentep]

23 minutes ago, Volourn said:

"While violence, in general, should be condemned, I'd be wary of buying into the narrative surrounding the presentation of that video.  The only context for the video is provided by the poster, who by their twitter profile has an agenda they are pushing (if it wasn't obvious from their word choice). "

 

Yeha, the guy has an agenda (and he sounds like a piece of trash) but, pray tell, what do you think would justify a bunch of people beating the crap out of someone literally sitting down. her saying mean things (even though it doesn't like she is saying anything)? Are you implying she might have said the n word and therefore their violent reaction is acceptable behavior when someone says something mean to you?

By that logic, George Floyd got what he deserved because he literally stuck a gun into a pregnant woman's stomach and beat her with said gun. But, like I said before, it doesn't matter what George Floyd did or what kind of person he is, what the cop did was completely utterly unacceptable. There is no excuse for it just like there is no excuse for the behavior in the video.

What exactly did I write that made you think that I was suggesting the violence seen in the video was justified?  Was it the part where I said violence should, in general, be condemned?  Was it the part that I said to be wary of people pushing agendas?  Or the part asking for the context that would at least let us understand why there was violence?

 

 

[HoonDing]

49 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Pft, Amentep being so prejudiced and assuming this guy has an agenda.

That's George Orwell in the lower right

[Gromnir]

17 minutes ago, Malcador said:

At long last the world knows the truth about you Marines.

am knowing is a movie and not reals, but isn't the point o' marine training to put just a smidge o' col kurtz into young men who would otherwise never even contemplate pointing a weapon at another human being much less killing 'em?

gotta hand it to the corps as is amazing just how successful such training is.

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

White racism:

 

[Gromnir]

10 minutes ago, Volourn said:

White racism:

 

image

is so not table 14

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf

table 14 is on page 13.

numbers does make white offender and hispanic victims and black offender and asian victim numbers looks curious enough to need further explanation.

HA! Good Fun!

[Orogun01]

2 hours ago, Amentep said:

I find it odd that people don't ask for more evidence or context when presented video footage* - even with things that don't challenge their views.  Hitch**** had a theory regarding images; take a picture of an old man smiling and intercut it with him looking at a cooing baby.  The context is that of a doting grandfather and baby.  Take the same man smiling footage and intercut it with a sexy woman undressing, and the man become a lecher.

In this case, the poster of the video has an obvious agenda, which itself makes the video suspicious.

• The account is starting from the position that 'blacks' are invading and de-white-ifying Europe, and he advocates all Europeans set their location status to "Occupied <nation>" to indicate this
• He refers to a group of people as a "pack" to associated them with violent and animalistic imagery, so he's already appealing to emotion rather than logic and trying to otherfy the group

Since we must assume an agenda based on the evidence, it'd be nice if the details of the video could be verified independently.

Mind you, I think its wise for context in a lot of situations; I've seen enough pictures paraded as "Thing a" when they were really "Thing b" on the internet and in real life to know that you can't trust random people to deal in honesty and truth.  This happened online with the recent riots, where posts were made of fires from a year or more ago claiming they were from those nights (as if the fires and destruction that existed weren't bad enough on their own).

So looking at the footage:

1. The video footage appears old - it is very low res for a modern phone.
2. There's nothing to indicate it is in Australia that we can tell from the low res images, so we can't even begin to verify the narrative we are presented with.
3. We only see part of the video and don't know what happened before or after the film shown.

These are important because the claim is that this happened and nothing was done about it - but this can't be independently verified by details about where the original source is (assuming even that nothing was done about it).

Perhaps the group was bad people, perhaps there was an incident prior to this we don't see, perhaps all of them are drunk or mentally ill - the point is we don't know the context, but the poster of the video is trying to create a narrative that fits their agenda.  Unless you want to accept that agenda - and any agenda presented to you by anyone who presents information to you - some critical thinking skills should be exercised, in my opinion.  

*I actually include news media on this as well as often times "The News" is synonymous with "What We Have Footage Of", and even that can be selectively edited.

The Kuleshov effect AKA "why women think Ryan Gosling is deep"

To add to your point, they also selectively show one case and then quote statistics to associate all cases with the former one. Both sides are very guilty of this and it just creates the illusion of scale, when in a per capita analysis it is a very small group of incidents.

[Zoraptor]

32 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

is so not table 14

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf

 

The bar graph shown is not facsimile table 14, certainly. But, crucially, table 14 is the source of their stats; and the stats used in that graph are completely accurately (albeit potentially misleadingly) taken from there.

To be specific about what they've done, intra-ethnic (as opposed to inter-ethnic) violence incidents listed in table 14 are not included in the graph. So of 3.5m white victims of violence 62.1% (about 2.3m) involved other whites as the perpetrator and those aren't shown in the graph. The 15.3% of violence against whites perpetrated by blacks however is accurately represented as the ~547k cases shown in the bar graph. I think we can allow an error of .08 of a person from rounding.

(There are of course potential problems with drawing a conclusion from the stats shown in the bar graph, or indeed from the raw data in the report beyond most white and black perpetration of violence having the same skin colour as their victims)

[Gorth]

3 hours ago, Gromnir said:

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf

Looks like the US had a "good streak" from 2005 to around 2015 with the comparatively low percentages in violence.

[Volourn]

Evil white racists strike again!

P.S.  This can be a brutal video to watch so don't click: (no close up and no blood shown though but still brutal  white racists since we all know only whites are racists):

 

I'll stop now but can we now stop with the nonsensical 'only whites can be racist' or that somehow 'amerika has systematic racism against blacks' bull? Racism is a disease shared by everyone.

[Volourn]

Also, I don't do this often nor should I need to but shout out to Obsidian. Anywhere else I'd likely would have been flat out banned for posting anti BLM/Antifa stuff no matter the context. Kudos to them.

[Bartimaeus]

10 minutes ago, Volourn said:

Also, I don't do this often nor should I need to but shout out to Obsidian. Anywhere else I'd likely would have been flat out banned for posting anti BLM/Antifa stuff no matter the context. Kudos to them.

It'd probably be a little more noteworthy if Obsidian, uh, was actually managing these forums, . Give thanks to the moderation team, not MIA Obsidian (who might very well not feel so kindly if they actually noticed...).

Edited June 17, 2020 by Bartimaeus

[Gromnir]

41 minutes ago, Volourn said:

 

I'll stop now but can we now stop with the nonsensical 'only whites can be racist' or that somehow 'amerika has systematic racism against blacks' bull? Racism is a disease shared by everyone.

is good to know you are here to defend against an argument nobody has made on these boards, least not that we may recall.

3 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

The bar graph shown is not facsimile table 14, certainly. But, crucially, table 14 is the source of their stats; and the stats used in that graph are completely accurately (albeit potentially misleadingly) taken from there.

am thinking "potential misleading " is a bit o' an understatement, but regardless, folks now have the actual table and data from which to be drawing their conclusions.

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorth]

54 minutes ago, Volourn said:

Also, I don't do this often nor should I need to but shout out to Obsidian. Anywhere else I'd likely would have been flat out banned for posting anti BLM/Antifa stuff no matter the context. Kudos to them.

We don't hate you just because you're Kanadian