Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Vol]

A ray of light in these stormy times.

Trump says he's going to ban TikTok. Not sure how, or to what extent, but anything that wounds social media is an objective good for us all.

[Mobius_118]

Covid-19 has killed more than 150,000 people in the US, therefore he's banning TikTok.

What a fucking joke.

[Vol]

The CCP owning a massively popular media application in the west is quite bad. Worse than the western people who own massively popular media applications, if you can believe it.

[Sinekein]

The CCP owning a massively popular media application in the west is quite bad. Worse than the western people who own massively popular media applications, if you can believe it.

Well, if you're Western, yes, obviously. But it's not like a media app sharing data with its home country's administration is really new. There was a little controversy a few years back with Facebook, Google, Apple, Verizon or Vodafone among the participants.

Now, I'll say that TikTok looks like pure trash to me so I won't cry if it suffers, but to see the US indignation over that application siphoning its users' data for the benefice of a foreign power is really entertaining. And I say that in an entirely non-partisan way because both parties are equally guilty of exceptionalism when it comes to what companies can or cannot do.

[Vol]

The cop footage of the Floyd arrest, and death, was leaked. Cops are going to walk, because murder 2 is not going to stick after that. Floyd was saying, "I can't breath," before he was pinned by the neck, resisting arrest, etc., and if the alleged autopsy with above fatal doses of fentanyl (among other drugs) is real, that'll stick a pin in it. Any decent lawyer could argue that down to manslaughter, or even total exoneration.

Though the reality may not matter, since the threat of a riot is obvious, and the country wants blood. It's a weird situation to be in, where I dislike everyone involved in a situation. Remember how everyone was briefly united at first? That was nice.

If they'd stuck with murder 3, leftist agitators hadn't gone wild with the passionate mobs, and Floyd wasn't deified despite being an awful person, could've gotten some sensible police reform through with overwhelming support.

@Sine: When the NSA spying scandal came out, way back when, and nobody cared, I saw a grim future ahead. Pushing back, even if only against a foreign power, is better than nothing, but I would wholeheartedly support the total destruction of all social media and tech monopolies for their spying and evils. Lately, the value of a "strong economy" as defined by these companies has seemed nearly hollow, so I'm on the hunt for reasons why worshiping GDP and our global tech companies isn't an immense harm to the actual people of America.

[Sinekein]

@Sine: When the NSA spying scandal came out, way back when, and nobody cared, I saw a grim future ahead. Pushing back, even if only against a foreign power, is better than nothing, but I would wholeheartedly support the total destruction of all social media and tech monopolies for their spying and evils. Lately, the value of a "strong economy" as defined by these companies has seemed nearly hollow, so I'm on the hunt for reasons why worshiping GDP and our global tech companies isn't an immense harm to the actual people of America.

I figure that nobody cared because all important people benefit from social media presence. Since internet has replaced TV as the most influential media there is, companies need social media to sell their stuff because the information they gather is invaluable to properly target your potential clients. And politicians need social media to communicate now - it would be a bit hypocritical to tweet about the dangers of Facebook or Google, wouldn't it.

The TikTok ban is more political than about security IMO: the U.S. have been losing in soft power in the last few years but they retain social media dominance as almost all the apps and programs everyone uses are American and most countries in the world are also relying on them. But China does not for a variety of reasons and has created local rivals to Facebook or Twitter. TikTok is one of the first examples of a Chinese app gaining worldwide influence, which threatens the almost-monopoly the U.S. have. It follows the whole 5G debate, where the issue is that it is Huawei's whose tech is leading.

Honestly, living in Europe, I am not sure Chinese companies are more dangerous than U.S. ones. The U.S. have relied a lot on economic warfare to screw over European companies, using extraterritoriality to investigate and fine any company using US dollars as a currency (so, any company), and it has been used to pressure companies into selling their parts to US ones. Also, the GAFA are notable for barely paying any taxes despite doing a ton of business in Europe, which of course is detrimental to all local companies who aren't using a variety of schemes to dodge taxes. I think Chinese companies wouldn't be as toxic for our economy because said companies are not as influential yet and because China does not have that extraterritoriality edge - but they might do worse things with our data. It's not really a positive choice either way.

[TheodoricFriede]

If they'd stuck with murder 3, leftist agitators hadn't gone wild with the passionate mobs, and Floyd wasn't deified despite being an awful person, could've gotten some sensible police reform through with overwhelming support.

Either it will be a kangaroo court, which is in of itself fucking terrifying, or the cop gets off (Because of course he will. It's now, CLEARLY, not second degree murder) and there will be more riots because a drugged up asshole resisted arrest.

[Sinekein]

The cop footage of the Floyd arrest, and death, was leaked. Cops are going to walk, because murder 2 is not going to stick after that. Floyd was saying, "I can't breath," before he was pinned by the neck, resisting arrest, etc., and if the alleged autopsy with above fatal doses of fentanyl (among other drugs) is real, that'll stick a pin in it. Any decent lawyer could argue that down to manslaughter, or even total exoneration.

If the guy said "I can't breathe" and the cops reacted by putting a knee on his neck for 7 minutes, I would argue that it absolutely qualifies as second degree murder. That would be like reacting to someone mentioning a tummyache by repeatedly kicking them in the stomach. It is involuntary manslaughter at the absolute best and with very aggravating circumstances.

As for the leaks, they don't make the police look better in any way nor do they make Floyd look worse - and you can't really accuse the freaking Daily Mail to have a leftist agenda. Apparently the footage just shows one cop being preoccupied by what's happening, and his lawyer apparently wanted to use it to exonerate his client (and only his client).

I have found absolutely nothing on that "alleged autopsy". All autopsies mention he had used drugs and was possibly intoxicated, but none have found fatal doses of either.

So all in all I don't see much of a change brought by those leaks.

[Mazder]

the freaking Daily Mail to have a leftist agenda

True.
It is the Mail...
Urgh

Insert Daily Mail Cancer song here, lol

[Vol]

I figure that nobody cared because all important people benefit from social media presence. Since internet has replaced TV as the most influential media there is, companies need social media to sell their stuff because the information they gather is invaluable to properly target your potential clients. And politicians need social media to communicate now - it would be a bit hypocritical to tweet about the dangers of Facebook or Google, wouldn't it.

That too. But explaining to a layman how mass metadata collection works, and the convoluted checks and balances on warrants and such, is impossible. A pithy, "The government is collecting your personal data," was the oversimplification, and it didn't penetrate the collective conscious. Shrugs and memes only.

The TikTok ban is more political than about security IMO: the U.S. have been losing in soft power in the last few years but they retain social media dominance as almost all the apps and programs everyone uses are American and most countries in the world are also relying on them. But China does not for a variety of reasons and has created local rivals to Facebook or Twitter. TikTok is one of the first examples of a Chinese app gaining worldwide influence, which threatens the almost-monopoly the U.S. have. It follows the whole 5G debate, where the issue is that it is Huawei's whose tech is leading.

Pre-emptive security, entirely political. Though the vaunted "soft power" approach has bled America of wealth and given us gangrene. China is welcome to spend seen and unseen hundreds of billions on that approach. All those financial tendrils of friendship haven't seen to done very much for _Americans_.

Honestly, living in Europe, I am not sure Chinese companies are more dangerous than U.S. ones. The U.S. have relied a lot on economic warfare to screw over European companies, using extraterritoriality to investigate and fine any company using US dollars as a currency (so, any company), and it has been used to pressure companies into selling their parts to US ones. Also, the GAFA are notable for barely paying any taxes despite doing a ton of business in Europe, which of course is detrimental to all local companies who aren't using a variety of schemes to dodge taxes. I think Chinese companies wouldn't be as toxic for our economy because said companies are not as influential yet and because China does not have that extraterritoriality edge - but they might do worse things with our data. It's not really a positive choice either way.

Eh, that's fair. They don't have the veneer of morality, everyone knows the CCP is authoritarian and willing to commit evil in the open, bribe, lie, steal, and cheat. Whereas the US is the military for most of the world, and claims some vague philosophical righteousness invented after WW2, and can get away with far greater evil for it. Though it's in the better interest of Europe that the USA is their brother-bully, rather than China. Yeah, the EU would be in a better position relative, but at least we have a (rapidly fading) link of shared history and belief, a sense of fair play.

Though in 50 years or so, that'll change, as we become Brazil 2, and our guiding philosophy is mutilated into some sort of hedonistic, debt-based totalitarianism. Or everything works out fine! Can never tell with these crystal balls. But we're in the middle stages of globalist rot over here, you guys are still in the honeymoon. The benign threat, the minor annoyance, the subtle changes, they don't stop.

Either it will be a kangaroo court, which is in of itself fucking terrifying, or the cop gets off (Because of course he will. It's now, CLEARLY, not second degree murder) and there will be more riots because a drugged up asshole resisted arrest.

Pretty much. The best case would've been conviction on murder 3, a moderate punishment for that sentence, and some police reform on top. Instead, existential threat to justice, or, more riots. For all these claims of brutality and oppression, they really have a hard time finding genuinely innocent people to deify as great martyrs for the cause. Which is why Floyd, at first, unified everyone, because that really looked like cold-blooded murder. I didn't hear a word supporting that cop for weeks.

[TheodoricFriede]

If the guy said "I can't breathe" and the cops reacted by putting a knee on his neck for 7 minutes,
.

...He was claiming to be claustrophobic, and shouting 'I cant breath' for about 10 minutes before the cops even touched him, while an audience of black people was shouting "STOP RESISTING! STOP RESISTING!"

You ever hear the story of the boy who cried wolf? Do you know why we tell children that story?

[Sinekein]

If the guy is claiming he has trouble breathing, why would you even pull a move that can make breathing harder for him? Even if you don't trust him, surely there are better ways to assess that claim than making breathing harder only to realize that, shit, he really could not breathe.

Especially after he claimed he was claustrophobic, and started panicking after being stuck in the back of a police car, which is a course of action that tends to substantiate his earlier claims, drug/substance abuse or not.

If that is a standard course of action for these cops they're sociopaths. "He claimed his ankle was broken, so I stepped on it to see if that was true".

[TheodoricFriede]

Or, hes a drugged up bullshit artist.

He was full of shit, and trying to resist arrest.

It is far closer to someone shouting "I'M BEING ATTACKED BY WOLVES, I'M BEING ATTACKED BY WOLVES" for attention. And then when the wolves attack, no one comes to help.

[Mobius_118]

What's funny is that panic attacks are real, and Floyd was murdered. The video did not exonerate the officers whatsoever.

If a person is having a panic attack while being arrested over a fake 20 dollar bill, then the proper response is not to kneel on his neck for 10 minutes. Guarantee you if Floyd was white, he would've gotten a talking to and would've walked.

So all of you trashing a murdered man, you can fuck off. You don't kill a man having a panic attack.

This motherfucker got arrested after shooting at people over a mask mandate. Yeah, no use pretending anymore.

[Sinekein]

Even if they thought he was lying, why would they make breathing more difficult for him? In the Man who cried wolf story, you don't see villagers releasing wolves just to see if the boy indeed gets attacked.

I also doubt that he was entirely lying. The whole police footage shows that while he was in his car, the cops started the encounter by shoving a gun to his face. I am pretty sure a gun less than one meter away from your head is reason enough to cause a panic attack. I know I would panic, and I don't do drugs - and I am probably not the only civilian in the same situation.

[TheodoricFriede]

Even if they thought he was lying, why would they make breathing more difficult for him?

Because they didn't believe him when he said he could breath, because he clearly wasn't having trouble breathing before and was still shouting 'I cant breath'.

Moral of the story here seems to be dont be a fucking scumbag.

[Mobius_118]

Someone quote this to Theo.

Or don't. He's made up his mind to be a complete asshole about a situation that should not have resulted in a mans death. No amount of facts will change that asshole's mind.

[Vol]

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/ ... al-record/

Mob posted this, for context of Floyd's criminal history. I don't know exactly what that aims to prove or disprove, but he seems like a bad person by any metric, and was clearly intoxicated at the moment of arrest. The legal question here will be whether or not the neck-kneeling killed him, if the cop intended to kill him, and whether he reasonably would think it might.

[Mobius_118]

If I have to abide by the rules of war and if a combatant surrenders even after killing three of my buddies, I cannot, by law, do what Chauvin did to Floyd. I'd be in Fort Leavenworth.

Jesus fucking christ, this isn't hard.

[Mobius_118]

AK dude get arrested after a shootout with cops. He was a clear and present threat to all of those around him. Dylan Roof got a fucking hamburger after murdering people.

[Vol]

Then your sense of ethics is greater than your sense of vengeance. Which is important in civilized times. This will be a jury trial, however, and the job of the lawyers will be to persuade them to unanimously vote to condemn the cops, or get at least 1 not to. The recording has made the prosecution's job far more difficult.

[Mobius_118]

No, no it didn't. Floyd was having a panic attack. There was zero reason to kill him, then delay medical treatment like Chauvin did.

[Sinekein]

Mob posted this, for context of Floyd's criminal history. I don't know exactly what that aims to prove or disprove, but he seems like a bad person by any metric, and was clearly intoxicated at the moment of arrest. The legal question here will be whether or not the neck-kneeling killed him, if the cop intended to kill him, and whether he reasonably would think it might.

The guy's last brush with law enforcement was in 2007. So either he is a hardened criminal who suddenly became a genius at avoiding consequences after displaying no prior criminal mastermind abilities, or he really was trying to turn his life around. Considering the quality of the US rehabilitation system, 13 years without a conviction with his rap sheet puts him firmly in the "success story" category, continued drug use or not.

Especially since the US have a huge drug crisis on their hands. Apparently there are roughly 40-50k fatal overdoses a year in the US - in comparison, in France the worst year in the mid-90s there were 451. That's a 100-to-1 ratio despite the population being "only" 5 times larger. With so many overdoses there probably are millions of drug users in the US, so automatically dismissing them as "bad people" sounds incredibly manichean to me.

Because they didn't believe him when he said he could breath, because he clearly wasn't having trouble breathing before and was still shouting 'I cant breath'.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con ... c-20376021

[Vol]

Right, nothing he did that night deserved death. The prosecution, pursuing murder 2 charges, has to prove that he was both killed by the cop kneeling on him, and would have otherwise lived if he had not, and that the cop intended to murder him in that moment. Whereas with murder 3, all that was needed to be proven was that the cop was maliciously indifferent in a way that led to Floyd's death, which he factually was, by not getting him medical attention for his clearly impaired physical state.

[Mobius_118]

I really like how people have been mocking Chauvin's method of restraint, coming out with the kneeling challenge to show that it's not lethal.

Let me do it. You'll tap in 20 seconds. Fucking assholes.

[Sinekein]

Right, nothing he did that night deserved death. The prosecution, pursuing murder 2 charges, has to prove that he was both killed by the cop kneeling on him, and would have otherwise lived if he had not, and that the cop intended to murder him in that moment. Whereas with murder 3, all that was needed to be proven was that the cop was maliciously indifferent in a way that led to Floyd's death, which he factually was, by not getting him medical attention for his clearly impaired physical state.

That's probably the summary of the law indeed. Murder 3 looks likely to pass, for Murder 2 it is the third point you wrote that is probably going to be the most hotly debated. The first (independent) autopsy concluded to a homicide causing the death (not drug abuse), so intent is going to probably end up being the crux of the trial.

I really like how people have been mocking Chauvin's method of restraint, coming out with the kneeling challenge to show that it's not lethal.

I read in France that one cop was suspended for doing that to a colleague to show that it wasn't too bad, and sending him to the hospital.

[Vol]

I really like how people have been mocking Chauvin's method of restraint, coming out with the kneeling challenge to show that it's not lethal.

Let me do it. You'll tap in 20 seconds. Fucking assholes.

I assume it's painful and very unpleasant, given you can't move, but I don't know how much it restricts breathing. I assume somewhat, though the spine would stop most of the compression, but in a panicked state, with the knee somewhat sideways on the neck, I can see it suffocating someone already in a compromised state.

That's probably the summary of the law indeed. Murder 3 looks likely to pass, for Murder 2 it is the third point you wrote that is probably going to be the most hotly debated. The first (independent) autopsy concluded to a homicide causing the death (not drug abuse), so intent is going to probably end up being the crux of the trial.

Exactly as we were talking about when this all started. Murder 3 was the best charge, then systemic police reform to focus on deescalation and a massive reduction in authorized use of force. C'est la vie.

The drug use cannot be proven to have killed him or not at this point, so the defense will absolutely hammer on it. In a non-committal way, mind you, they can't say he _did_ die from an overdose of a cocktail of drugs, because there's no proof, but they'll reference it repeatedly and imply he was a dead man either way. That's how lawyers operate, s'why I could never be one, despite it being a ticket to an easy life if I had been inclined. Too honest.

[Mazder]

Moral of the story here seems to be dont be a fucking scumbag.

Someone should tell that to the cops that knelt on a guy's neck for 7 minutes.
Fuck me you don't even do that to terrorists, so how is it magically "okay" to do that to a citizen, even a scummy one?

Because they didn't believe him when he said he could breath, because he clearly wasn't having trouble breathing before and was still shouting 'I cant breath'.

Also, hyperventilating.
To an asshole who doesn't care, the rapid intakes of breath can be seen as "breathing fine".



Even if the claims of resisting arrest are true the methodology still isn't to immediately slam the person to the ground and kneel on their neck.
3 cops to one guy and their method is still the same, to overpower and abuse.
If they'd done one thing different the guy would probably be alive. Instead of trying to make sure the person they were arresting stayed alive to be able to do so they went with their methods that are honestly just shit.
I mean, the very concept of someone maybe having a panic attack prompts the "stop resisting" mantra from the community around them shows just what methods the cops are utilising in that area.
I don't think ANY amount of co-operation would have been satisfactory in that instance. From beginning to end the entire confrontation was less investigative and more antagonistic than necessary.

[Vol]

Apparently a major point in the breakdown of Congressional talks for the new stimulus bill was over voting. The Democrats wanted universal mail-in voting, outlawing voter ID requirements in every state, and outlawing signature verification on mail-in ballots. Allegedly anyway, because I cannot find the actual House bill out of hand this moment.

I would assume you could get a majority of support for that, because it would factually increase voter participation rates, enfranchisement, and provide a safer means of voting. I would also assume no election ever held after that could possibly be trusted, unless the mailed-in ballot count is irrelevant because of the margin by which a candidate won.

But I hope it's just red meat for the base, not a plan that would ever be acted on, much like how the GOP attempted to repeal Obamacare constantly, until they had the power to actually do so. Then they did not, theoretically because of McCain turning heel at the last minute, but in all likelihood because they lack balls and were terrified of the consequences, so McCain was the lightning rod.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Seems Biden has been roused from his dementia slumber long enough to name a VP.

Kamala Harris. Hahahahahaha

[TheodoricFriede]

...He picked the cop, huh?

Jesus maybe he really is senile.

[Mobius_118]

Still better than the unholy lemon-party that is the trump administration.

It's going to be hilarious to watch trump and pence wilt like fucking flowers in the debates. 4 years of bullshit, lies, and video evidence will not work out in trumps favor at all.

[Vol]

Really handcuffed himself with committing to a non-white non-male. Very small pool of people who are even theoretically able to handle the VP role and the political capital to audition. Nobody seems happy about Kamala, but we'll see how her career is addressed (spun) for the actual effect.

[TheodoricFriede]

Really handcuffed himself with committing to a non-white non-male. Very small pool of people who are even theoretically able to handle the VP role and the political capital to audition. Nobody seems happy about Kamala, but we'll see how her career is addressed (spun) for the actual effect.

Considering this race isn't so much Biden Vs Trump, as much as Biden's-VP-Who-Will-Take-Over-When-Biden-Dies-In-Office vs Trump, picking a controversial choice doesn't seem advisable.

But I honestly dont know anymore. Everyone is just as sure that Trump is finished as they were that last 30 times they were sure he was finished.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Really handcuffed himself with committing to a non-white non-male. Very small pool of people who are even theoretically able to handle the VP role and the political capital to audition. Nobody seems happy about Kamala, but we'll see how her career is addressed (spun) for the actual effect.

Considering this race isn't so much Biden Vs Trump, as much as Biden's-VP-Who-Will-Take-Over-When-Biden-Dies-In-Office vs Trump, picking a controversial choice doesn't seem advisable.

But I honestly dont know anymore. Everyone is just as sure that Trump is finished as they were that last 30 times they were sure he was finished.

Such a fucking terrible choice. It's honestly impressive that Biden's handlers thought this would be a good idea. I'm sure Joe was pleased as punch when he was informed who his obvious successor would be.

[Vol]

I would think his most well received option would've been Tulsi Gabbard. But there was no way she has the capital for that, and she's no Obama v2.

But yeah, Theo's correct, in that few people expect Biden to serve a term, much less 2, so the VP actually matters here. I imagine it'd shore up the black woman vote, but he should've already had that in near totality to begin with. Then because Trump's polling well with black men, maybe pull a few points? I don't see who she appeals to, especially in the Democrat party in the midst of "Fuck cops."

[Sinekein]

I really don't get why people doubt Biden's ability to serve a term yet think Trump will be A-OK. The guy is bragging about passing a test that is supposed to spot dementia as if he aced an Harvard entrance exam FFS.

[TheodoricFriede]

I really don't get why people doubt Biden's ability to serve a term yet think Trump will be A-OK. The guy is bragging about passing a test that is supposed to spot dementia as if he aced an Harvard entrance exam FFS.

Because long before people were trying to pin senility on Biden, they were trying to pin it on Trump. That was one of the aforementioned 30 times he was "doomed," Every (I'm sure extremely qualified...) doctor in the country was certain that Trump had Alzheimer's.

So yeah, I dont blame him for bragging about passing it. At least hes not bragging about being 1/1000th Native American.

Maybe if Uncle Joe took the test he'd put those rumors to rest. Frankly I'm amazed he hasn't yet.

[TheodoricFriede]

I imagine it'd shore up the black woman vote, but he should've already had that in near totality to begin with.

...Will it? Before today how many people even realized she was black? I thought she was white 'till like 3 hours ago.

[Sinekein]

Because long before people were trying to pin senility on Biden, they were trying to pin it on Trump.

People are only truly caring about details of politicians' healths once they officially are in position to become POTUS. For Trump it started in 2016, while for Biden it only started when most of the moderates dropped from the Democrat nomination campaign a few months back and it became rather obvious he would be the Dem candidate.

But I really don't see more signs of Alzheimer or poor health in Biden than I see in Trump. If a couple of video montages showing absentmindedness in interviews when asked questions can convince people that Biden is not long for this world, then either they think the same of Trump because you have had exactly the same things happening in the last few years, or they do not and it mostly boils down to wanting to see Biden as senile and Trump as fine because it fits a political orientation. Just like the other way around, actually - thinking that Biden has no issues but that Trump is two steps away from a psychiatric hospital.

[Vol]

Know what's frustrating?

Videos of people going up to random folk, usually college students, and giving them quotes from political figures (Hitler, Trump, etc) they probably disagree with. Then asking them if they agree, before the reveal.

It's puerile, it proves nothing, and yet, they're still a popular format.

That's all for today in autism, starring Vol.

[TheodoricFriede]

Know what's frustrating?

Videos of people going up to random folk, usually college students, and giving them quotes from political figures (Hitler, Trump, etc) they probably disagree with. Then asking them if they agree, before the reveal.

Hitler probably ran out of toilet paper once.

You ever run out of toilet paper? Then you are literally Hitler.

[Alienmorph]

I remember this feminist video with people literally being like "How does it feel to be the same gender as Donald Trump?"

So yeah... you're more than likely not using an hyperbole there.

[Vol]

There's been a lot of variations over the years. Always annoying. It's one of those moments where you've proven no point, but it feels like you have. Must be a word for that.

The secondary frustration is that people in general don't know what they believe beyond a vague, imprinted sense of good and evil.

[TheodoricFriede]

The mass media is astounding.

A few weeks ago Kamilla Harris was an oppressive cop that unjustly and unfairly jailed people of color.

Now shes a cool black woman and doesn't afraid of anything.

[Vol]

I'm more angry about the Cannon Hinnant story they barely reported on. Seemed rather topical, but I suppose white people are too likely to start burning down cities and lynching people if it was made a big deal.

https://christopherrufo.com/national-nu ... e-culture/

Federal government ordering white men, and only white men, who work at a nuclear research facility to undergo diversity training. Which is racist cult bullshit, if you look through the link. I'd like to do a similar workshop for federally employed black men. Jews. Gays. I think it'd be a lot of fun to get people together based on their essential characteristics and make them feel ashamed and apologetic for being what they are. It'll help diversity or some shit.

The equally galling part is that this cult tactic works. And when it's coming from the government, your employer, what can you do?

What the fuck happened to "equality"? That seemed like a nice goal, but we're going right back down the tunnel into essentialism and hatred.

[SciFlyBoy]

An officer involved incident with a taser in Georgia a couple of days ago. It being what it is I'm actually sharing this because of how the article addresses the people involved. The lady is described as a Black woman and the officer is described as a white officer. In fact all black people are referred to as Black with a capital B and all white people are referred to as white with a lower case w.

Now it's USA Today, I'm not sure of their rep, but I know they've been around for a while, so I thought it was poor journalism to bring what I thought was personal bias into a professional news article, in referring to one race with capitals and another without. Is it just bad editing, a poor choice, am I out of touch as to how one race is addressed against another in the media these days?

What's your opinion?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 403805001/

Mine? All races should be addressed equally in the news.

[Vol]

The author of that article is black, mind you. It's unpleasant that noting such things implies the obvious bias, but so it goes. Black is not a specific phenotype in America, nor is white. They are amalgamations of European ancestry, and in the former case, African as well. Since the genetic range is so vast and non-discrete, capitalizing either is silly. As opposed to a Frenchman, or a Chinaman (which is nonspecific in China), or a Tutsi man.

Though I heard some outlets will begin capitalizing White as well.

Unrelated, but what's yous guys' opinion on this Cuties movie on Netflix? Apparently it's poor marketing that made it look like a pedophilic celebration of preteen girls' bodies, and the movie itself is supposed to condemn the lifestyle. It's led to one of the more civil and detailed debates online I've ever seen.

[Mazder]

Unrelated, but what's yous guys' opinion on this Cuties movie on Netflix? Apparently it's poor marketing that made it look like a pedophilic celebration of preteen girls' bodies, and the movie itself is supposed to condemn the lifestyle. It's led to one of the more civil and detailed debates online I've ever seen.

Yeah the Netflix marketing has really screwed that message over.

For context here is the original poster;


And here is the Netflix one;


On the subject of kids beauty pageants alone. Fuck 'em. They're just fucking wrong.

[TheodoricFriede]

I'll be honest, the fact that people are looking at that poster with such outrage seems like...well...

The fucking point.

I mean the movie, as I understand, condemns the whole concept.