Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[TheodoricFriede]

.

The CNN article is 95% oh this is a travesty or woe is the nation, and 5% the autopsy confirming he was on meth and intoxicated...

This helps your case... how exactly?

Also, still has nothing to do with him being black.

Your article saying he didnt resist arrest linked to a study about how meth stays in peoples systems.

[Mobius_118]

And yet the police force in that solidly democratic city did nothing to take him off the streets properly before this. Strange isn't it?

Why would these Democratic strongholds not do the police reform you've been banging on about Mobius? They definitely have the votes to push such a thing through. Most police forces are organized at the local and state level, so surely the Democratic states should have been able to do any kind of reform they wished...

But they haven't. Curious isn't it?

It's curious how you completely ignore how your own people think when it's convenient. How about you learn a thing or two before commenting?

The police union in the MPD has been fucked for years by racist committees and a racist leader. Kroll has a history of being a complete scumbag, but can't be voted out because he stacked the leadership with sycophants.

Kind of a microcosm of the problem we're facing right now.

So, aside from forcing him out via getting young folk involved in the MPD police union or dissolving it for community oversight, we're going to be stuck with shitbags who think, funnily enough, like you. Because I've listened and watched him a few times. You and him share a lot of the same ideas.

[Vol]

This conversation was, if not productive, educational into each others' perspectives. Stop quoting Theo.

[Vol]

It's because this case was an outlier rather than the norm in the sense of cops being prosecuted.
Most times they're given a fine, some desk duty for a while, or suspension.
Ooohhh, no, their money get's stopped a little bit for murder. That is not fair and it is not accountability.
Even if they are brought up on charges the fact that the stereotype is that the judge/whoever is in charge of sentencing them recuses themselves or acquits or whatever the legal term is to avoid holding those cops accountable should speak volumes as to how the issue is actually "handled".

The goal, IMO, would be reform and actually holding bad cops accountable.
That is a start.
The rest are social changes that will take a longer time to change but need to be addressed.
I mean we've seen examples already of during these protests that there is an excessive use of force from the police on peaceful protests, and then balking at riots. It shows they don't want to face angry people and help alleviate their anger but wish to be dominant over the people. I am not even touching the stupidly armed state of the police in the USA (which is really too far in a lot of instances) but there is a case of there being just no care given to their actions.
Hell we've seen them attacking media officials from other nations with absolutely no care or remorse.

It's not a case of they want "no cops". They want good cops. They want a fair society.
And despite what some may think this isn't a "we need more hand-outs" issue. They want the poorest areas to have some attention. They're not asking to all instantly become middle-class, they're asking for a fair shot.
We all know the poorer areas of the nation are predominantly black. We all know the higher crime rates happen in the poorer ares, so more likely to be performed by those who are black. We all know that there is corruption that exists.
The status quo can not continue as it has.


The message isn't "white people bow and take the beatings". The message is "white people, help us have the same feeling of freedom you do. White people, help us not have to tiptoe on eggshells so we don't get arrested for asking a white woman to follow the law. White people help us not get murdered when arrested. White people, help us not be racially profiled for being in the poorer areas."
It's all about how they wish to be treated, and they only want to be treated like us. I don't see anything wrong with that, and I don't think any of us here do, truly.
What we disagree on is the method. And so do the peaceful protesters who are angry at riots and those riots being co-opted by a bunch of white people looking to start a fight.

Also the very suspicious amounts of bricks on random street corners with no construction going on anywhere at all should be a bit of a sign that there are people working behind the scenes who just want a fight to break out.

Right. That is a problem. And given these problems seem to happen in cities, where the politicians are of the same mind, with boundless sympathy, for the people out protesting, you might question why they have not solved this problem. I do not believe it is because city Democrats secretly loathe blacks or love police brutality. It seems more a catch 22 in terms of a practical solution, where the winning play is to do nothing but wear your tears of empathy on your sleeve.

I largely agree with you there. Too prone to violence, too well armed. However the press being attacked is not an issue. Adversity is the only possible way they might find honesty again.

Everyone wants a fair society. Everyone wants peace and comfort and belonging. That's what humans have been trying to achieve since the dawn of civilization. But for some reason, we never seem to get it. As if imperfect men create imperfect society, and then imperfect people try to correct it, imperfectly. America has given so much to black people, so much tolerance, money, services, and it's not enough. It never can be, in doing all that, we destroyed their family units, in bringing them here we destroyed their links to their cultures, and what's left is what we see. Some people get out, in entertainment and sports, some get into business, some succeed their own ways, but so many do not. There is no way to fix that through uplifting with government, no more than we could fix any natural system with acts of state. Color-blindness and many, many years of progress, generational progress, would have fixed it. But now that is racism too, so all this raging and sympathizing is theatre that reinforces the status quo.

See, that's a racial imposition. No white person has any obligation whatsoever to do anything for black people. It is not moral to demand it, nor immoral to refuse it. White women do not have to act relaxed around black men. White men do not have to shut up and listen when black women are speaking. They are not our superiors and we are not theirs. We cannot be "all the same" if there are special rules and customs depending on which phenotype you represent, regardless of the social/legal situation. Color blindness was the path, the only path, so that our son's son's son's son's son might not know any of this. Instead, we have bizarre mass ritual humiliation sessions from white people in public, we have blacks destroying their neighborhoods while their governments cluck their tongues like parents watching a tantrum, and we regress more.

[Mobius_118]

Stop quoting Theo.

He needs to stop being a dumbfuck.

"He wAs oN DrUgS!"

The police allow mass shooters to live. Black man with a bad check gets murdered. But according to dumbfuck and numbnuts, it's not about race.

[Sinekein]

Your article saying he didnt resist arrest linked to a study about how meth stays in peoples systems.

This is the article I meant

Quote: "At no point in the video does Floyd appear to struggle against the officers."

It seems to show he was drunk, but I would really like to know about white people getting brutalized by the police in the US because they're non-violent, unarmed drunks. The closest think I got is this, where a weapon was involved - which does not make it any less horrific, but it was a case of "drunk with a weapon".

Also, An interesting list of the number of people killed by the police in each country, proving once again that the U.S.A. truly is greater than all other Western countries with 30 killings per 10 million people, which is roughly similar to Mexico ironically enough.

[TheodoricFriede]

Quote: "At no point in the video does Floyd appear to struggle against the officers."

It seems to show he was drunk, but I would really like to know about white people getting brutalized by the police in the US because they're non-violent, unarmed drunks. The closest think I got is this, where a weapon was involved - which does not make it any less horrific, but it was a case of "drunk with a weapon".

Also, An interesting list of the number of people killed by the police in each country, proving once again that the U.S.A. truly is greater than all other Western countries with 30 killings per 10 million people, which is roughly similar to Mexico ironically enough.

I will wait till I see further evidence before I am willing to believe he was not, in fact, resisting. CNN saying "I didnt see it!" doesn't mean a whole lot when they also apparently dont see the riots and looting going on.

Furthermore, have you ever considered that the reason you couldn't find anything on white people is that white people suffering police abuse dont get news reports? Because no one cares if a 'person in power' gets abused?

And yes Sinekein. Make no mistake. For all our faults, the US is the greatest of all western countries. Especially considering our competition.

[Mobius_118]

Relay this, Sine

Theo gets to watch someone die pleading for his life with zero evidence of resisting, but plenty of blatant police brutality.

George Floyd is just one case of police brutality. This happens all over the country.

[Sinekein]

And yes Sinekein. Make no mistake. For all our faults, the US is the greatest of all western countries. Especially considering our competition.

Eeeh, no. I'm not even trying to preach for my own country here. No matter which way you look at it, if there is such a thing as a "greatest western country", it's somewhere up north, probably in Finland or Iceland.

If you go by Human Development Index, then the United States are 15th, behind 12 different Western Countries - Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Germany, Australia, Iceland, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Canada and New Zealand. If you adjust for inequalities, then the U.S. go down to 28th.

If you go by World Happiness Index, the US are 19th, behind 16 Western Countries (plus Israel and Costa Rica).

If you go by Wealth per adult, the U.S. are 22nd, behind 16 Western Countries.

If you try to look at Human Poverty, then the U.S. ended up 17th out of 19 high HDI countries ranked - only Ireland and Italy were behind. If you have a look at the percentage of people living in poverty, then the only countries behind the U.S. are Spain, Portugal and Italy.

And when 30 countries were ranked for Social progress, the U.S. ended up in 26th position, between Estonia and Singapore.

The U.S. isn't exactly at the top of numeric availability either - ending up in 16th position

The two things for which you can call the U.S. "greatest" are global GDP - because if you look at GDP per capita then Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Ireland rank higher - and Disposable household income - but if you start factoring in benefits from healthcare and education, Switzerland and Norway (as usual) end up above the U.S. Another metric the U.S. tops among the West is the share of income of the top 1%, with 20%, which is more than 6 points higher than Canada.

Okay, there also are a number of medical rankings which the U.S. tops in the Western World. That is, Body Mass Index (1 point above the next Western country, New Zealand), or Obesity rate (6% above, again, New Zealand). But the ones that you'd actually like to top, like Infant mortality rate or Maternal Mortality Rate, well - the U.S. ranks 44th and 56th in the world, once again behind a vast majority of Western countries. As for life expectancy, the U.S. are 28th, between Cuba and Lebanon.

Finally, you can look at freedom, but once again - the U.S. is not exactly top of the Western world, ending up 23rd despite the top 10 being almost entirely Western. And not to sound like a broken record, but press freedom is yet another ranking the U.S. do not top, ending up 45th. And at 1st, you have Norway.

So...well, I guess the U.S. is arguably the greatest at creating money - although Switzerland or Norway are roughly equal - and kind of bad at everything else if you compare it to the Western world. So if there was an actual greatest Western country as you emphasized it, then it would not be the US. The nice thing though is that you have a wealth of choices if you want to pick a better Western country, because a number of them almost always rank higher than the U.S. - Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, take your pick.

Unless "for all our faults" is actually the way you are ranking countries? In which case, yes, I agree, the U.S. tops the fault list quite handily compared to most of its Western brethren.

[Mobius_118]

The only thing we're #1 for is military spending, and it isn't for the lower enlisted.

[Mazder]

I always come back to The Newsroom on this one;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIpKfw17-yY

This was back in 2012 and TBH I don't think things have improved for the good ol' USA.
If anything the sentiment is more relevant than ever.

And if you get butthurt by people shitting on America then TBH maybe you should try improving it. People are only telling the truth.

[Mazder]

This conversation was, if not productive, educational into each others' perspectives. Stop quoting Theo.

I am still putting it out here publicly that nobody is doing anything against the rules by quoting him.
If he dislikes it there are functions to remove the problem built into the site. Those should be tried before telling people what they can and can't do.

Right. That is a problem. And given these problems seem to happen in cities, where the politicians are of the same mind, with boundless sympathy, for the people out protesting, you might question why they have not solved this problem. I do not believe it is because city Democrats secretly loathe blacks or love police brutality. It seems more a catch 22 in terms of a practical solution, where the winning play is to do nothing but wear your tears of empathy on your sleeve.

I largely agree with you there. Too prone to violence, too well armed. However the press being attacked is not an issue. Adversity is the only possible way they might find honesty again.

Everyone wants a fair society. Everyone wants peace and comfort and belonging. That's what humans have been trying to achieve since the dawn of civilization. But for some reason, we never seem to get it. As if imperfect men create imperfect society, and then imperfect people try to correct it, imperfectly. America has given so much to black people, so much tolerance, money, services, and it's not enough. It never can be, in doing all that, we destroyed their family units, in bringing them here we destroyed their links to their cultures, and what's left is what we see. Some people get out, in entertainment and sports, some get into business, some succeed their own ways, but so many do not. There is no way to fix that through uplifting with government, no more than we could fix any natural system with acts of state. Color-blindness and many, many years of progress, generational progress, would have fixed it. But now that is racism too, so all this raging and sympathizing is theatre that reinforces the status quo.

See, that's a racial imposition. No white person has any obligation whatsoever to do anything for black people. It is not moral to demand it, nor immoral to refuse it. White women do not have to act relaxed around black men. White men do not have to shut up and listen when black women are speaking. They are not our superiors and we are not theirs. We cannot be "all the same" if there are special rules and customs depending on which phenotype you represent, regardless of the social/legal situation. Color blindness was the path, the only path, so that our son's son's son's son's son might not know any of this. Instead, we have bizarre mass ritual humiliation sessions from white people in public, we have blacks destroying their neighborhoods while their governments cluck their tongues like parents watching a tantrum, and we regress more.

It is still a problem IMO because even Democrats are greedy and corrupt individuals, or have the capacity to be.

And you seriously don't find it kinda crap that the Police of your nation physically attacks the media of other nations?
We're not talking about CNN, MSNBC, Fox and local news, but international news reporters from allied nations. That's not right. Your cops should not be beating down the press from allied nations if they wish to come across as those in the right. And even then you're claiming the media of other nations outright dishonest because they're attacked by your cops? How does that even correlate?
Hell, arresting a news team just on the colour of most of their skin is downright disgusting in it's own right.

You say you've given so much to black people but that's been for, what, 60 years? Since the civil rights movement. That's when the true equality attempts started. Ans even then it's taken a good chunk of that time for those attempts to be made and you're still not all the way there.
Everything is a cascading effect and it all usually comes down to one thing only. There has not been enough care given. You expect a people group to go from marginalized and literally oppressed to exactly equal in 60 years? Whilst also never really changing the system as a whole, minor tweaks here and there but never actually addressing the system in place.
The USA claims to be the land of opportunity, yet only gives the opportunity to those it deems worthy.

Less black people in college because they're from poorer areas? Make changes to the tuition funding system. USA won't do that because the rich don't want to pay more taxes because they should have the freedom to hoard ridiculous amounts of money, because greed.
More black people unable to get medical help. Change the medical system. Oh, no, wait. America is scared of a Universal Healthcare system because they don't want to pay more Taxes and it's Socialist/Communist.
Those are just 2 examples that are surface level but affect those on the bottom far worse than those on the top.

Or how about we do both?
How about we be relaxed AND listen?
The main point is there are rules that everyone agrees to already that are being ignored. Having the same conventions won't matter if some are literally just ignoring them and imposing their own. And even then those rules and conventions are easily able to be changed to be worse.
Colour blindness isn't the path. Ignoring there is an issue is not the way we go about this. There is an issue that needs to be discussed and resolved.
Self flagellation on behalf of all white people doesn't sole the situation as much as moving past it does.

[Sinekein]

Right. That is a problem. And given these problems seem to happen in cities, where the politicians are of the same mind, with boundless sympathy, for the people out protesting, you might question why they have not solved this problem. I do not believe it is because city Democrats secretly loathe blacks or love police brutality. It seems more a catch 22 in terms of a practical solution, where the winning play is to do nothing but wear your tears of empathy on your sleeve.

I largely agree with you there. Too prone to violence, too well armed. However the press being attacked is not an issue. Adversity is the only possible way they might find honesty again.

This particular, physical attack on the press is mostly inconsequential. Not that it is not important, but those guys are just among the many who got hit by overzealous law enforcement - they just happened to have a camera. There have been cases of recorded police brutality in the past where the first reflex of the men in blue is to try and shut cameras down: I assume it's a natural defense mechanism when you know you have done something wrong, and in many cases, the issue is not with "the press" but with "filming me doing something wrong" (in many cases the images came from random bystanders, not pro journalists).

However, the discourse of world leaders openly criticizing the free press of democratic countries is something new and can have dangerous consequences. Trump is the most visible example, but he is far from alone in that regard (even Macron who is rather moderate in comparison attacked the press which revealed that his bodyguard was a violent crook).

And it's really atrocious to see media criticism become so common, because all leaders are faillible and will do good and bad things during their tenures - if they make "criticizing the bad" synonymous with "lying", then it means that media sources only have two choices : become sycophantic yes-men that agree on everything, or being publicly branded by a figure of authority as unreliable, even though being reliable is supposed to be their point. It also purposefully blurs the line between what is "news" and what is "comment".

Everyone wants a fair society. Everyone wants peace and comfort and belonging. That's what humans have been trying to achieve since the dawn of civilization. But for some reason, we never seem to get it. As if imperfect men create imperfect society, and then imperfect people try to correct it, imperfectly. America has given so much to black people, so much tolerance, money, services, and it's not enough. It never can be, in doing all that, we destroyed their family units, in bringing them here we destroyed their links to their cultures, and what's left is what we see. Some people get out, in entertainment and sports, some get into business, some succeed their own ways, but so many do not. There is no way to fix that through uplifting with government, no more than we could fix any natural system with acts of state. Color-blindness and many, many years of progress, generational progress, would have fixed it. But now that is racism too, so all this raging and sympathizing is theatre that reinforces the status quo.

See, that's a racial imposition. No white person has any obligation whatsoever to do anything for black people. It is not moral to demand it, nor immoral to refuse it. White women do not have to act relaxed around black men. White men do not have to shut up and listen when black women are speaking. They are not our superiors and we are not theirs. We cannot be "all the same" if there are special rules and customs depending on which phenotype you represent, regardless of the social/legal situation. Color blindness was the path, the only path, so that our son's son's son's son's son might not know any of this.

I tend to agree with that. Nothing more to say. Then again, I'm white, so I don't suffer from racial bias. It's easier to propose a super long-term solution when you're in a good place to begin with.

The main issue is that color blindness takes a hell of a lot of time to lead to actual equality, probably several lifespans, and it is hard to convince humans that what they are doing will work only in four or five decades.

There is also the influence of politics. It is easier to promise a short-term benefit for a politician, and you can say that both parties have done that - Democrats promised quick progress to black voters through the means of government uplifting as you put it, and Republicans promised quick progress to white voters through staunch opposition to any measure that would shift the status quo in their favor.

It is also why ecologists as a whole have a super hard time becoming relevant despite the current environmental situation. Promising sacrifices to make things not that bad in a couple decades - not that enticing. But others who say "yeah, don't care, let's make that cool thing and damn the consequences" - well, people can relate to the cool thing better.

[Sinekein]

And yet the police force in that solidly democratic city did nothing to take him off the streets properly before this. Strange isn't it?

Why would these Democratic strongholds not do the police reform you've been banging on about Mobius? They definitely have the votes to push such a thing through. Most police forces are organized at the local and state level, so surely the Democratic states should have been able to do any kind of reform they wished...

But they haven't. Curious isn't it?

As it turns out, it can be perfectly explained. There is a police union leader in place that systematically resists any change on police management or behavior, whether it comes from the mayor or the police chief.

There's even a hint as to the union leader's political affiliation in the article:

[Union leader] Kroll makes no secret of his taste for old style police tactics and courts controversy. Last year he appeared at a campaign rally with Donald Trump and praised him as a “wonderful president”.

“The Obama administration and the handcuffing and oppression of police was despicable,” he told the rally. “The first thing President Trump did when he took office was turn that around … and decided to start letting the cops do their job; put the handcuffs on the criminals instead of us.”

So you see, with a modicum of research, you can actually find explanations as to why Democratic cities have issues with cop behavior. And the best thing is, some of the fault might actually be blamed on Republicans!

And if you think that this Kroll is some kind of great cop hindered by political pressure from the Democrats in office, you should really read the rest of the article, his resume is quite interesting - getting suspended for beating a man and arresting him on false charges, calling a congressman a "terrorist", a list of racist/homophobic slurs...

[Mobius_118]

It's almost as if we said the same thing.

To add on to that, Kroll stacked the union with sycophants so he can't be easily removed.

The problem will continue until either the union is disbanded or he and his ilk are removed.

[Vol]

*snip*

Either it is a problem, that somehow is not solved with black people possessing the support of the entire system, public and private, as well as official power, or, it is not a problem, but people are so sure it is that positive affirmation makes it de facto truth, as dissent is public suicide. I don't rightly know, myself.

To answer in a roundabout way, the modern western sense of empathy and fairness is easy to subvert against itself. The tolerance of intolerance allows tolerance to be destroyed. My tolerance for their vocation, the lies they print, the dogma they preach, their intolerance of my essential existence, would be irrational. And yet I don't call for their scalps, not yet, because I do earnestly believe in the First Amendment, and the theoretical value of journalism as a public check on power. To take a position of fairness or pity for the press in the reality we live would be self-destructive, as they actively show disdain for the kind of empathy and fairness you and I hold as objective goods. They subvert it, twist it, mutilate it, and use it as a weapon for compliance. Case in point, the entire public discourse right now. They hate the concept of equality, peace, love, and prosperity, because their livelihoods depend on their opposites occurring. And If it is in fact moral to treat all humans with dignity and a baseline of respect, then how can you possibly defend those who work so hard to erode those principles? Your morality would be used for the sake of the immoral to allow them to usurp your morality with immorality. In short, brutes of the state aren't to be defended, but neither are those anathema to western values. At worst, you should be neutral on the matter, as there are no good people in this sort of situation.

The length of time is irrelevant. I choose to believe that black people are as capable as any other group of humans. The effort put into providing for them in America is unprecedented, we've discarded the western concepts of equality specifically to aid them, and yet, so little has been accomplished. I have to conclude it is the way the benevolence is given that is the problem, such as the unintended consequences of public housing policy creating financial incentives for fatherless households, as the alternative is unpleasant to consider. The maternal model of government is clearly not effective. It's a bigoted ideal to think white people must bleed empathy and resources to "fix" other populations. Attempting to do so has done little but fester wounds and degrade us all. Our empathy and sense of fairness has, again, been used against us. By truly benevolent people with limited minds, by malicious actors wanting to affect radical change, by the greedy, by the needy, by the oppressed, by the oppressors. There will never be enough to be given, there is no end point where all this stops and we can be friends without conflict or hate, with this system.

This particular, physical attack on the press is mostly inconsequential. Not that it is not important, but those guys are just among the many who got hit by overzealous law enforcement - they just happened to have a camera. There have been cases of recorded police brutality in the past where the first reflex of the men in blue is to try and shut cameras down: I assume it's a natural defense mechanism when you know you have done something wrong, and in many cases, the issue is not with "the press" but with "filming me doing something wrong" (in many cases the images came from random bystanders, not pro journalists).

However, the discourse of world leaders openly criticizing the free press of democratic countries is something new and can have dangerous consequences. Trump is the most visible example, but he is far from alone in that regard (even Macron who is rather moderate in comparison attacked the press which revealed that his bodyguard was a violent crook).

And it's really atrocious to see media criticism become so common, because all leaders are faillible and will do good and bad things during their tenures - if they make "criticizing the bad" synonymous with "lying", then it means that media sources only have two choices : become sycophantic yes-men that agree on everything, or being publicly branded by a figure of authority as unreliable, even though being reliable is supposed to be their point. It also purposefully blurs the line between what is "news" and what is "comment".

Probably. Always pissed me off how often bodycams or car cams "weren't working" at pivotal moments during confrontations. Were I dictator for the day, I'd codify it as a default judgement for the civilian if the officer couldn't provide consistent footage of the incident, within reason.

Yes, I agree, it can and has been dangerous to go at the press. However, in America, this is not an issue. We do not have a free press on the large scale. We have an owned press, wherein a couple giant companies own virtually all outlets. They receive special permissions, access, a veneer of credibility, despite factually being liars, misleading, ignorant, and worse, quite often. The value of a free press is debatable, but as an extension of our First Amendment, I agree they aught exist. But the media we have is not that, they're not Pravda, but adjacent. And as the employees freely choose to go into these fields, they in turn hold culpability for what they do. Freedom of speech, but not from consequences, as I see so many people throw around these days. Dehumanization of personnel is positively benevolent as retaliation for their propaganda compared to the evils they've manipulated us to.

I tend to agree with that. Nothing more to say. Then again, I'm white, so I don't suffer from racial bias. It's easier to propose a super long-term solution when you're in a good place to begin with.

The main issue is that color blindness takes a hell of a lot of time to lead to actual equality, probably several lifespans, and it is hard to convince humans that what they are doing will work only in four or five decades.

There is also the influence of politics. It is easier to promise a short-term benefit for a politician, and you can say that both parties have done that - Democrats promised quick progress to black voters through the means of government uplifting as you put it, and Republicans promised quick progress to white voters through staunch opposition to any measure that would shift the status quo in their favor.

It is also why ecologists as a whole have a super hard time becoming relevant despite the current environmental situation. Promising sacrifices to make things not that bad in a couple decades - not that enticing. But others who say "yeah, don't care, let's make that cool thing and damn the consequences" - well, people can relate to the cool thing better.

Yes, it is easier. But unless we discard the opinions of anyone wealthy, powerful, or even more popular than us, it must be a valid opinion too.

I largely agree with the rest of that. However, the GOP does not promise specifically to white voters. It an unspoken nod, with an extremely heavy emphasis on unspoken, that white people will be better represented by them, because the leadership and base are mostly white. But they will kowtow to diversity, sign off on third world immigration, and generally resign/apologize for offenses against minorities. The most milquetoast white identitarians I've seen loathe them for this. It will come to a head in the coming decades, as the demographic replacement blooms, but for the moment, it's more that they're the only option for white voters who like the status quo.

Sign of a civic breakdown when no one cares to plant trees they won't live to sit in the shade of, eh?

[TTTX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpv1QdV6Toc

okay, that's just dumb.

[Alienmorph]

Par for the course, really. I'm just convinced I'll live long enough to see ALL of pop culture being censored and sanitized in the name political correctness at this point.

Probably be a good idea to start saving copies of old movies, shows and animated stuff, because who knows how long before anything controversial begins to be swiped under the rug. Disney has been already censoring a bunch of the stuff they put on their streaming platform, other companies won't be far behind.



Also, I staid pretty much far aways as possible from the current situation, but I just want to say... everyone who's demonizing police forces as a whole, and anyone who's making a push to underfund and understaff police in the US and Europe because "we need less racist cops on the streets"... you're all fucking idiots. Yes, do have zero tolerance for rotten cops, they deserve nothing better, but wanting to tear down a key piece of any working society because not every policemen on the planet is doing their job properly? That's just ludicrous, and horribly dangerous.

And what's the alternative? Private police forces? Because making healthcare pay-to-win in America wasn't enough, let's make law and order a business too. There's literally whole libraries worth of fiction exploring the possible dystopian outcomes of non-public sanctioned law enforcement. But I guess that if Twitter thinks cops am bad, then we MUST get rid of them!



Ffs... wish I could emigrate to another planet some times. There has to be another habitable chunk of rock in a nearby solar system...

[Vol]

Protesters in the UK went after the statues there, even sprayed graffiti on a Lincoln statue. Of course in the US, they did plenty, tore some down, forced the government to do it for other, vandalized more. Not just Confederate statues, of course. Lincoln, an all black volunteer regiment of Union soldiers, a Polish man that worked to free slaves, really any monument or statue would do for defilement.

If you want a vision of the future of our countries, if these people continue to control them, imagine brutalism crossed with abstract nonsense, everywhere, forever. Cement boxes with nonsensical fixtures and meaningless statues. Destroy the old ways, abolish art, stamp out beauty, tear down buildings, and then life will be perfect.

These idiots cannot create, you see it everywhere, in all creative fields, how shit their work is. Not even derivative, but an imitation of being derivative, as they don't know the roots of what they copy from, and loathe the people that made it.

Imagine it, the Coliseum, Versaille, Notre Dame, all the castles and palaces you guys have, our Greco-Roman inspired buildings, demolished to make way for this:

[Mobius_118]

Got you to notice, didn't it? Too bad you clutched your pearls over a little spraypaint rather than, say, the sordid history the US has on how it treats its black and brown people.

The sooner the systematic racism is fixed in the country, the sooner the super rich are forced back into a fair tax bracket and actually pay their fair share back into the system, the sooner we deal with poverty in such a way that does not involve trying to grind people into dust with minimum wage that doesn't cover basic living expenses, the sooner we'll go back to not being in turmoil as a nation.

But you're too happy with the status quo. It's time to join the real world and get uncomfortable.

[TheodoricFriede]

These idiots cannot create, you see it everywhere, in all creative fields, how shit their work is. Not even derivative, but an imitation of being derivative, as they don't know the roots of what they copy from, and loathe the people that made it.

Millennial's truly are the worst generation.

They will feast upon themselves for decades to come until a more sane generation finally comes along.

[Mobius_118]

I cannot stress enough how idiotic you're both being right now.

[Mazder]

Spraying the Lincoln statue, kinda idiotic.
Spraying Churchill's kinda dumb, but understandable as he had a shit track record. He was the guy in charge when defeating the Nazi's so he gets a semi-pass on that front.

I did see a guy try to burn the UK flag on the Cenotaph, which is kinda shitty. Wanting to protest a broken system is one thing, but the flag represent more than just the breaks, it also represents the good. Only anarchists and terrorists burn flags because they don't want to fix, but destroy. Passionate and angry protesters should not burn the flag of the place they wish to fix. I understand they're wanting to show the bad parts of the UK so they can be fixed, but to those you wish to convince you'd just be seen as an enemy, rather than a friend that's been marginalized.

BUT I also notice how there has been no mention of the removal of Edward Colston in Bristol.
The statue of a Slaver. Not an abolishonist, but a guy who was in the Trade and profited form it.

If you didn't know some protesters in Bristol removed the statue, dragged it across the town and threw it into the harbour. Videos here, here and here.

No-one was hurt, they came with proper equipment and the police let them do it, as to intervene would mean people got hurt.

Now this statue has been petitioned for removal to a museum piece on Slavery for years. Every time the local council has said no. The establishment and proper channels have kept a statue of a slaver on display for years.
That's the kind of change we want to happen.

Protesters in the UK went after the statues there, even sprayed graffiti on a Lincoln statue. Of course in the US, they did plenty, tore some down, forced the government to do it for other, vandalized more. Not just Confederate statues, of course. Lincoln, an all black volunteer regiment of Union soldiers, a Polish man that worked to free slaves, really any monument or statue would do for defilement.

If you want a vision of the future of our countries, if these people continue to control them, imagine brutalism crossed with abstract nonsense, everywhere, forever. Cement boxes with nonsensical fixtures and meaningless statues. Destroy the old ways, abolish art, stamp out beauty, tear down buildings, and then life will be perfect.

These idiots cannot create, you see it everywhere, in all creative fields, how shit their work is. Not even derivative, but an imitation of being derivative, as they don't know the roots of what they copy from, and loathe the people that made it.

Imagine it, the Coliseum, Versaille, Notre Dame, all the castles and palaces you guys have, our Greco-Roman inspired buildings, demolished to make way for this:
*img snips*

As I said, lincoln being prayed, dumb.
But I'm sorry...what?
Removal of statues that glorify slavers equal....no artistic ability? Or do you just mean to infer that just because it's not from specific art styles you like that it means there is no room for it's existence?

Removal of statues that glorify slavers and slavery isn't the same as abolishing art, nor is it removing beauty. Your standards are different, there is nothing wrong with others wanting to try theirs.
We're not talking about removal of big old cathedrals and shit that are still structurally sound. redesigns are allowed to happen.
And hell if we're going to talk about boring buildings then we should, by that logic, tear down the pyramids, the Washington monument, most apartment buildings, The Pentagon, etc, because they're all basic shapes. All boring, dull, angular.

People trying new things doesn't mean older ways are forgotten. Historic sites still stand. You don't see USA protesters advocating en masse to burn down the White House, you don't see protesters en masse advocating to burn down The Houses of Parliament or Buckingham Palace.

A few buildings trying things you don't like is not the end of the world and is not a sign of the end times of "culture". The idea that a certain type of building must stay around forever is also kind of bollocks.
You're technically advocating for the same thing you fear happening in the brutalist fashion but the design is just different. Always Roman-Gothic, never changing from that. Is that any better? Not really.

[Alienmorph]

I cannot stress enough how idiotic you're both being right now.

Says the guy who seems to think the only two possible positions are "brave human right activist" and "shill slave of the status-quo".

Sorry if I'm sounding like one of the two people you usually argue with, but I'm getting REALLY tired of this shit. Life isn't a tv show, there isn't just cartoonishly evil bad guys and poor innocent people in the world. No easy answers, sorry.

Look at history... how many violent revolutions, or attempts at ones, actually brought upon long-term improvements to a society? The US still had slave labor up until the Civil War, when half the country could afford to be humanitarian and free the blacks. France murdered a King only to end up with an Emperor. And the less we talk about what the Soviets did to Russia after "liberating" it, the better. Just to name a few.

Does it mean things are fine like they are and that we don't need to change anything? Fuck no. But stop treating serious social issues like you're talking of a fantasy novel where all we need to do is find the biggest and meanest guy, get rid of him and then everything becomes butterflies and rainbows.

[Mobius_118]

Did you actually read what they said?

So here's the thing: Not once have I said that getting rid of trump would magically make it all better. This change is a process, and unless it's followed through we'll end up back where we started, possibly worse. But, having him get deposed like the would-be dictator he wants to be is a start.

And no, this isn't some fantasy novel for me. I've been running supplies to Minneapolis for weeks now since it started. It's very real and for you to imply I'm not taking this seriously is about as laughable as GAC being a closeted bootlicker.

This is about systemic change, not just slapping a bandaid on the symptoms. And reading what Vol and Theo have to say is like reading a diatribe from someone who doesn't care and a self-admitted racist muse about those uppity blacks.

It hits different when you're actually there. It really hits different a cop points his weapon at you as his buddy inspects your cargo. The impact from police answering the protests about police brutality with more police brutality is not something you get from a couple facebook posts or the news. You have to be there, tasting the tear gas and helping someone out of the line of fire and putting their face back together.

Anything else is either apathy, cowardice, or hostility to the notion of change. I don't see anyone else here doing something to usher in the necessary change this country needs.

[Alienmorph]

It hits differently if you're white too, apparently. Bad cops have killed or brutalized people of all races and social type over the years, apparently tho the life of a father of two, or of a 19 years old matter less if their skins is pale, because I didn't see riots in the streets and whole contries trying to argue we'd be all better off if police forces weren't a thing anymore until the victim of police brutality was black and we could all pretend racism is the only problem here.

For that matter, I don't recall anyone giving a rat's ass if a black or hispanic cop just doing his or her job gets killed in action either. Nor they care that all those people are gonna be out of a job too if we start to disband police forces.

[Sinekein]

Also, I staid pretty much far aways as possible from the current situation, but I just want to say... everyone who's demonizing police forces as a whole, and anyone who's making a push to underfund and understaff police in the US and Europe because "we need less racist cops on the streets"... you're all fucking idiots. Yes, do have zero tolerance for rotten cops, they deserve nothing better, but wanting to tear down a key piece of any working society because not every policemen on the planet is doing their job properly? That's just ludicrous, and horribly dangerous.

I have heard absolutely no one call for underfunding the police in Europe except for true anarchists, which represent such a fringe part of the public opinion that you can basically ignore them altogether.

When you say "less racist cops on the streets", the key word is "racist", not "less". The actual meaning is "we want to replace racist cops with non-racist cops", not "cops are useless let's get rid of them".

Many people demonstrating or debating right now agree that the police is underfunded already, that the cops are underpaid, that they have no proper psychological assessments despite the potential traumas coming with the job - basically similar to healthcare personnel.

It's different in the US where the police seems to be packing military-grade equipment at will, so yeah you'd think some of that money might be better used elsewhere - even if it's also in the police, like paying for courses to properly explain how to avoid killing too many people.

Imagine it, the Coliseum, Versaille, Notre Dame, all the castles and palaces you guys have, our Greco-Roman inspired buildings, demolished to make way for this:

It has always worked that way. It's really nothing new.

Notre-Dame might end up being at least partly rebuilt with a modern architexture because no one masters the carpentry methods they used to build it in the first place, and imitating them would take decades just to get the proper materials.

Versailles is basically a replica of another, slightly older castle named Vaux-le-Vicomte, with the Galerie des Glaces being added, so its actual architectural value is not that great. Louis XIV locked the owner of Vaux-le-Vicomte, his former minister of finances, in jail and hired his architect and garden creator to build Versailles from the ground up.

There are dozens of wonderful monuments that got destroyed over the years. Here is the list for France alone. And it might have been way worse in Paris had the nazi commander decided not to surrender and forced a bombing.

It's just how history goes: some monuments stay, some disappear. Right now the rate is no faster than it used to be. On the contrary - the lack of huge all-out wars is slowing down monument destruction tremendously.

And some modern monuments become staples of culture. Everyone hated the Eiffel Tower when it was built, or the Louvre's Pyramid, or the Sacré-Coeur, or the Pompidou Centre, or the Jacques Chirac-Quai Branly museum, or the François Mitterrand National Library. Every one of those was supposed to "deface Paris", to "become a stain on the culture", and yet now most tourists either go look at them or outright visit them.

So only time can judge architecture really, especially in those relatively peaceful times where sackings and bombings have become rather rare. Some of these new buildings will quickly be forgotten, and others will become cultural references in a few decades.

[Alienmorph]

When you say "less racist cops on the streets", the key word is "racist", not "less". The actual meaning is "we want to replace racist cops with non-racist cops", not "cops are useless let's get rid of them".

No argument there, like I said already, there should be ZERO tolerance for bad cops, but I've also seen a ludicrous amount of very bad arguments for why the best way to not having to worry about bad cops is having as few cops as possible around, if any. I am glad not everyone is going nuts and painting things in too broad strokes, but overall it's still a very worrisome situation. The whole police brutality thing is something we should have been dealing with long ago, for everyone's sake, but it feels like doing so in the current climate is one of the best recipes for taking some very stupid and dangerous decisions.

[Sinekein]

Removal of statues that glorify slavers and slavery isn't the same as abolishing art, nor is it removing beauty. Your standards are different, there is nothing wrong with others wanting to try theirs.
We're not talking about removal of big old cathedrals and shit that are still structurally sound. redesigns are allowed to happen.

Yeah redesigns can be really cool too



And I will add that among monuments, statues stand apart, because most of them aim simply at glorifying a (often historical) figure, and that's it. So when time passes and suddenly there is not much glory left bound to that particular figure, the removal of the statue should be perfectly logical.

How many people were outraged when the Lenin or Stalin statues were brought down once the USSR fell?

When you see that Leopold II has statues in Belgium...I mean sure, Belgium's economy was booming when he ruled, because he personally oversaw the colonization of Congo, which was absolutely horrifying even by French of British standards (an interesting read when you want to lose faith in humanity, as it is not that well known).

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Look how those bastard Ottomans defaced the beautiful Hagia Sophia.

[Alienmorph]

Probably be a good idea to start saving copies of old movies, shows and animated stuff, because who knows how long before anything controversial begins to be swiped under the rug. Disney has been already censoring a bunch of the stuff they put on their streaming platform, other companies won't be far behind.

And less than half a week after I said that, HBO Max took off the air Gone with the Wind and a bunch of other "potentially problematic" old and new movies. Temporarily, they claim, but considering they couldn't leave be even the guddamn Looney Toons, I can only imagine the versions coming back up will be noticeably tampered with.

This shit is seriously starting to worry me...

[Vol]

And less than half a week after I said that, HBO Max took off the air Gone with the Wind and a bunch of other "potentially problematic" old and new movies. Temporarily, they claim, but considering they couldn't leave be even the guddamn Looney Toons, I can only imagine the versions coming back up will be noticeably tampered with.

This shit is seriously starting to worry me...

Hmm. Historical revisionism, destruction/censorship of art, struggle sessions, public self-criticism, big character posters (social media lynch mobs), inquisitors, ever-shifting moral code, demanding fervor or tarred with complicity...nah, it's fine, just the growing pains of a glorious future of peace and love.

[TTTX]

Hmm. Historical revisionism, destruction/censorship of art, struggle sessions, public self-criticism, big character posters (social media lynch mobs), inquisitors, ever-shifting moral code, demanding fervor or tarred with complicity...nah, it's fine, just the growing pains of a glorious future of peace and love.

All hail Big Brother, our master and savior .

[Sinekein]

NFL, then NASCAR. Those are the two sports organizations I did not expect on that field.

...not that banning that flag is uber-leftist really, I doubt moderate conservatives are still flying it today.

Edit: my favorite answer

[TheodoricFriede]

You know, I think France needs to destroy all depictions of Napoleon.

Frankly it is insulting that a maniac hell bent on world domination was allowed to be shown in such a positive light for so long. I think any all all art or statues depicting Napoleon need to be destroyed. Anything he owned should be destroyed or melted down.

[Sinekein]

You know, I think France needs to destroy all depictions of Napoleon.

Frankly it is insulting that a maniac hell bent on world domination was allowed to be shown in such a positive light for so long. I think any all all art or statues depicting Napoleon need to be destroyed. Anything he owned should be destroyed or melted down.

It is always entertaining to see proud American ignorance in full display.

[TheodoricFriede]

It is always entertaining to see proud American ignorance in full display.

Well that sounds like something someone who supports a fascist expansionist dictatorship might say!

[Sinekein]

Well that sounds like something someone who supports a fascist expansionist dictatorship might say!

It is hard to point out what is wrong in a sentence in which everything is wrong.

"World domination", for a start, is just so wrong it's laughable. Napoleon only declared war once in fifteen years - the campaign of Russia. He's also the one who sold Lthe Midwest to the US, so that is at least one part of the world he was not keen on dominating.

All other wars were actually declared against France by various coalitions of countries that included England, since monarchic Europe was afraid revolutionary ideas would spread. Napoleon's "expansionism" was him invading the land of countries that declared on him, and putting his people in charge so that they would not join the next coalition (it didn't always work, see Sweden).

And "fascism" was created in the early XXth century, roughly 100 years after Napoleon left power, making it quite hard for him to actually fit the bill. There was a Napoleon that might be considered a precursor to fascism, but that was Napoleon III who was in charge 50 years later.

So congratulations: you scored a history failure bingo!

[Mobius_118]

Just be disappointed, Sinekein.

He's a product of his environment. Hateful, willfully ignorant, and unwilling to consider an outside perspective.

[TheodoricFriede]

It is hard to point out what is wrong in a sentence in which everything is wrong.

I mean your defending Napoleon so obviously you are a misogynist. Napoleon was known for his misogyny.

This is precisely why any reference to him needs to be destroyed. The fact that you have been hypnotized by right wing pro-Napoleon propaganda is on you, not me.

[Sinekein]

Sure, he was a misogynist. He was also openly pro-slavery. And a big fan of propaganda.

But he was also a huge proponent of meritocracy over aristocracy. A supporter of Jewish emancipation who helped establish modern Poland. He properly reformed the code of law and the education system.

He also was not the world conquering fascist you initially claimed him to be before completely moving the goalposts as per usual.

So not all of Napoleon's achievements are strictly negative, which is more that can be said of the Confederates.

Then again, I live in a country that actually has a long history. Maybe I'd cling to Vichy France if that wasn't the case, I don't know.

[Alienmorph]

And now the show Cops has been taken off the air too. Apparently ANY positive depiction of police officers in media has become, or is becoming, "problematic".

Almost like there's a completely lack of any fucking nuance and we're letting a bunch of out of touch extremists tell us where society should be headed to.

But nah, that can't be it, right?

[Mobius_118]

We're taking things down that glorify racism, white supremacy, and right wing batshittery. Now if only we could get religion out of politics.

COPS has run its course anyway, same with Live PD that filmed a mans death after he also said "I can't breath".

[Alienmorph]

We're taking things down that glorify racism, white supremacy, and right wing batshittery

Like Looney Toons, old movies and Lego sets? Oh the humanity, these horrors can't be allowed to exist any further, truly!

Also I don't trust anyone who spends their time whining "racism is all this race's fault!" as many people in the current day and age are quite openly doing... there's just that one little, except actually enormous, logical fallacy in that whole mindset that makes it actually quite scary.

And where does it stop? Who gets to decide what glorifies bad behavior and ideologies and what doesn't? Who put that person or people in charge to do so? How unbiased and expert in evaluating such things are they? You can't try to change a whole g'damn civilization based on gut instinct and what a bunch of entitled morons say on the Internet. Yet here we are, apparently.

[TheodoricFriede]

Sure, he was a misogynist. He was also openly pro-slavery. And a big fan of propaganda.

Oh no no no you dont seem to understand this game. You are assuming this is a debate. It's not.

You do not condemn Napoleon entirely, therefor you support, and are culpable in, every evil he may have committed.

We're playing by the rules that get applied to American History, baby.

[Mobius_118]

We're taking things down that glorify racism, white supremacy, and right wing batshittery

Like Looney Toons, old movies and Lego sets? Oh the humanity, these horrors can't be allowed to exist any further, truly!

Also I don't trust anyone who spends their time whining "racism is all this race's fault!" as many people in the current day and age are quite openly doing... there's just that one little, except actually enormous, logical fallacy in that whole mindset that makes it actually quite scary.

And where does it stop? Who gets to decide what glorifies bad behavior and ideologies and what doesn't? Who put that person or people in charge to do so? How unbiased and expert in evaluating such things are they? You can't try to change a whole g'damn civilization based on gut instinct and what a bunch of entitled morons say on the Internet. Yet here we are, apparently.

This has happened before, it'll happen again, round and round until we stop existing as a species. Destruction of a shitty part of our society is nothing new.

Hell, the white supremacists have been doing it to BIPOC for centuries here in the states. All of a sudden some Confederate statues, racist shows, and memorials for genocidal people get fucked up and removed, and there's pearl clutching and monocle popping. Christopher Columbus didn't even discover America, his group just managed to slaughter enough of the Native Americans to establish a foothold.

The monument for Crazy Horse still sits unfinished. White dudebros still deface monuments dedicated to black people. Tulsa, Oklahoma was firebombed by the KKK because the businesses were owned by mostly black people.

And you complain about some shit that needed to go anyway?

[Alienmorph]

This has happened before, it'll happen again, round and round until we stop existing as a species. Destruction of a shitty part of our society is nothing new.

Too bad the shitty part of society that needs to be put down right now seem to be all law enforcers and a whole race of people in general, both because of a small percentage of rotten apples within them and one shitty US president people are obsessed with. And with huge corporations and rich assholes with all sorts of ulterior motives trying to make look themselves like the good guys by siding with the rioters and the crazy people online. Truly, I see nothing that could go wrong with that.

And you still haven't answered ANY of my questions, you just basically went "dem white suprematists tho".

[Vol]

Skimming the public face of the genuine white nationalists still on social media, they're all claiming a surge in support/interest from this recent kerfuffle, but I'm not seeing any metrics to support that. Though I suppose by nature it's hard to calculate soft and hard support for people on the fringes.

Though I suspect it's more a lot of people shocked by what's happening willing to listen to those guys. Or reporters trawling for clickbait material. Bit of both?

[Sinekein]

It might be true. The times are nice to people with radical ideas. It is likely going to continue, on both sides, until at least november, and then it'll depend on who is in the White House. Trump would keep inflaming every single topic to bring more people to the fringes, while Biden would probably be unsatisfying but in a less "let's burn the country down" way.

[Alienmorph]

At this point, I see things getting even WORSE, because if Biden is elected (which I hope to God he is, because the world really doesn't need another 5 years with the orange asshole in charge) then all the stunning and brave american (fake) liberals, which are totally not racist and bigoted because only white people can be racist and bigoted, will want to sanitize western culture even more, because they'll have to make sure that there is never going to be another Trump.