RugbyRebels

cashead wrote:
Fuck off.

Here you are, expressing mirth at the death of, at the time, 49 people because they happened to be Muslim.

Digby wrote:It's a disgusting act, though I confess a small part of my reaction was 'hah' and whilst that isn't helpful and perhaps doesn't speak well to my character I doubt I'd be the only one.

Digby wrote:What, responding in part to horrible situations with gallows humour or simply unacceptable humour? I'd reiterate again it was a disgusting act, but it's just not going to be the case that 100% of the response from 100% of the people is entirely informed by compassion and virtue.

And then now you turn around and act outraged when people aren't exactly tearing up at a building owned by an organisation that has historically supported white supremacist groups?

Fuck you and your fucking both sides decorum bullshit, you racist cunt.

I hadn't actually noticed this charming little homily over the last couple of days.

But I will note a few things, you say I'm expressing mirth in a post where I comment that it's a disgusting act and whilst I did have a moment of 'hah' I noted that wasn't helpful and speaks badly to my character, albeit with the caveat I doubted I'd be the only one with some character issues. Yes you could make something of my use of the word 'perhaps' to which I'll merely note on occasion sarcasm influences my writing, I suspect like the bad character traits I mayn't be the only one. Basically in my view to contend in isolation I'm expressing mirth is to not give a fair context, but I have on occasion taken views expressed by others out of context, wilfully even at times I fear, so have at it.

Further I didn't commence commentary in all this with outrage at the destruction of the property belonging to the Children of the KKK or whatever they're called, I drew a comparison between a view expressing enjoyment of the destruction of property and a view expressing the condemnation of destruction of property, and then when pushed on it confirmed I considered illegal destruction of property pretty much a bad idea across the board, even when those doing the destruction assume in they're in the moral right.

I'm not going to agree with your description of me as a racist, I don't like your use of the word cunt owing to a long held view of mine that the construct of our language is itself misogynistic, but it's a free country (sort of) even if I'd prefer a different derogatory label were used, and I don't understand why you think decorum or considering more than one side a bad thing.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:

This is true. They are protests, not riots.

I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.

Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.

In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.

But, again, that is kinda the point... the more the media focus on limited violence, the more you get up in arms about violence... when in reality it’s a tiny, tiny minority. And some of them may even be setups.

Repeating the violence lines just plays into the hands of the racists.

its a minority of police officers who shoot or otherwise kill black men without just cause, yet here we are. Perception matters. Violence happened and its given Trump an excuse. Its that simple.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
So taking this zero tolerance logic, the acts of fraud/sabotage by those attempting to discredit the protestors will have been enough to do the job on their own, regardless of whether any violence came from earnest protestors.

I guess that’s good to know.

On a slightly lighter note is anyone here good at identifying a photoshopped image?

So all (or even most) of the violent incidents were set ups? Are you suggesting that? Were those initial riots set up by the police, who burned out those buildings themselves and ransacked their own police station? If not then this does little to change the overall picture.

I know you don't like hearing it but the painful truth is that violence by protestors is setting the back. There were riots initially and that has done the argument a huge disservice and given Trump an easy way out.

No, not at all. I’m saying if it only takes an instance of perceived violence from protestors to sway the majority of public opinion then they’ve lost the battle already whether they act peacefully or not. We already know there are instances of setups, frauds, police instigating violence etc. Whatever you want to call it.

I totally understand the frustration with the way the protests are turning violent, I don’t think it’s a good thing, but I’m finding it really weird how easily the issues at the root of all this are seemingly being matched, in the eyes of many, by the violent acts in the protests. Despite a) we’re not really sure who is doing most of it b) we’ve seen countless more incidences of police brutality since this started c) this is generations of horrific treatment vs a few days of protesting and “riots”.

I get the urge for some to play devil’s advocate, but it’s pretty notable the issues that certain people choose to focus on out of all the things that are happening.

I've argued all along that the violence gives Trump an excuse to ignore the protests and use force himself. I've not suggested that the incident that sparked all of this is anything but a disgrace. I do have a lot of sympathy for those who have lost businesses or been injured in the riots that followed who were totally innocent. Its quite possible to hold those views consecutively.

morepork wrote:I'm kind of at a loss as to how and reinforce that the Police is a racist institution over here. I don't care how many individuals are not racist, the culture as a whole supports racism.

Also explain to me how lobbing tear gas into residential areas from a tank is a reasonable response to an assumed threat.

Perhaps some academic studies into the issue. There appear to be very few, and some of the ones I have found don't paint the picture you would like them to.

Example, one Police Department found that a black man was more likely to be shot by a black officer than a white officer. The reason are various and often make no sense at all, but one chief element is that in over 84% of shootings where the victim was black, the victim had possession of a firearm.

The issue seemed to be that Black men, particularly those under 30, were more likely to come into contact with the police and as a result the outcome was poor. It would be useful to have some case studies to understand how that has worked in practice.

What another study demonstrates is that Police in the US kill more people than in other wealthy and democratic countries. I believe that is a reflection of the culture at large.

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:So an abortion doctor is fair game if they undertake the murder of a child and that makes you angry enough that nothing is being done! It's a point of view, just not one I share.

Or are you saying that's an absurd comparison, and it's only the right kind of anger and violence that's okay? Although that then seems to share some thinking with the idea that only the right sort of people are okay, and down and down the rabbit hole we go.

Of course it's an absurd comparison, because the issues at play are completely different - one involves women having agency over their own reproductive organs and rights, the other is about systemic, institutionalised racism, and denying a racial and ethnic minority equal rights and protection under the law. You're trying to compare apples and oranges and then demanding to know why they're different. Honestly, the fact that you're trying to suggest there's some sort of equivalence between one group demanding equal, civil rights, and another acting to deny others their reproductive rights is both disgusting and disingenuous as fuck.

And for the record, women's rights activists historically were fucking hardcore.

Women's rights around the world including in the US still rank abysmally, they I assume are allowed to do violence to men because of the ongoing violence toward and subjugation of women? Which means both of us are fair game in the USA for the womenfolk, and if I ever return to NZ I assume I'd be fair game there too given the huge problems of racism in Kiwiland? This covid thing and having to stay home is starting to look more and more like it's saving my life.

I will though agree I am saying there's an equivalence to looking at rights, I think this because in my estimation to have equality we should be treating people equally. I don't agree I'm disgusting though I would stipulate to a number of flaws.

If the societal institutions themselves are an active tool of oppression, with systemic and institutionalised violence against minorities or what have you, then sooner or later, it's inevitable that there will be active and violent resistance those very institutions.

Pretty telling that you're apparently bothered by the idea of non-whites demanding equal rights, or that it's black v. white, when it's racists vs. everyone else.

And hey, look at all the whypeepo getting assaulted and beaten down at this protest.



Edit: it's amazing how this drunk guy gets it, but you seem to be having a very difficult time comprehending it.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: While I agree that peaceful protest is still the best approach for black americans, we should note that:

1) both Gandhi and Mandela were fighting for the freedom of an oppressed majority - a much easier task,

and

2) whilst Gandhi was certainly dedicated to peace, the same cannot be said of Mandela or the ANC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe

Completely agree about the ANC, Mandela did change his approach after early dalliances with direct action.

Mandela and Gandhi did fight for the rights of a majority, but equally they had sod all actual power, particularly in South Africa.

But that makes my argument stronger. The black minority can’t overthrow a majority. What they can do is appeal to those of the white majority who aren’t racist and will support their cause, but would get turned off by violence.

We have the impression that Mandela was a saint, largely because of 1) his charisma and 2) the fact that we was locked up for 27 years, and so not so closely linked to his organisation and its campaign (which included violent acts). Freedom was not won peacefully in South Africa.

I don't understand your assertion that "it makes your argument stronger". You've picked two examples of successful and supposedly peaceful campaigns. Only one of them was peaceful. And both were successful largely because of the number of the oppressed, particularly India where the number of colonials was dwarfed by the number of natives. I don't think your single example of a successful, peaceful campaign proves anything.

As I said, I agree that the protesters in the USA should maintain discipline and be peaceful, and that it's probably the most effective way to protest right now. But I have to be honest, I don't see much evidence to back up this position (ie evidence that a minority can win concessions from an oppressive majority most effectively through peaceful means).

Probably because it almost never happens. MLK fell out of favour hard in the mid-60s and his supporters shifted towards people like Malcolm X, and people seem to forget that the Battle of Cable Street wasn't won through a polite discussion about fascism, it was won by the antifa of their day beating the shit out of Moseley's mob and making them kiss pavement, despite the best efforts of the cops.

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote:
Fuck off.

Here you are, expressing mirth at the death of, at the time, 49 people because they happened to be Muslim.

Digby wrote:It's a disgusting act, though I confess a small part of my reaction was 'hah' and whilst that isn't helpful and perhaps doesn't speak well to my character I doubt I'd be the only one.

Digby wrote:What, responding in part to horrible situations with gallows humour or simply unacceptable humour? I'd reiterate again it was a disgusting act, but it's just not going to be the case that 100% of the response from 100% of the people is entirely informed by compassion and virtue.

And then now you turn around and act outraged when people aren't exactly tearing up at a building owned by an organisation that has historically supported white supremacist groups?

Fuck you and your fucking both sides decorum bullshit, you racist cunt.

I hadn't actually noticed this charming little homily over the last couple of days.

But I will note a few things, you say I'm expressing mirth in a post where I comment that it's a disgusting act and whilst I did have a moment of 'hah' I noted that wasn't helpful and speaks badly to my character, albeit with the caveat I doubted I'd be the only one with some character issues. Yes you could make something of my use of the word 'perhaps' to which I'll merely note on occasion sarcasm influences my writing, I suspect like the bad character traits I mayn't be the only one. Basically in my view to contend in isolation I'm expressing mirth is to not give a fair context, but I have on occasion taken views expressed by others out of context, wilfully even at times I fear, so have at it.

Further I didn't commence commentary in all this with outrage at the destruction of the property belonging to the Children of the KKK or whatever they're called, I drew a comparison between a view expressing enjoyment of the destruction of property and a view expressing the condemnation of destruction of property, and then when pushed on it confirmed I considered illegal destruction of property pretty much a bad idea across the board, even when those doing the destruction assume in they're in the moral right.

I'm not going to agree with your description of me as a racist, I don't like your use of the word cunt owing to a long held view of mine that the construct of our language is itself misogynistic, but it's a free country (sort of) even if I'd prefer a different derogatory label were used, and I don't understand why you think decorum or considering more than one side a bad thing.

Oh, you mean when you showed your hand and made it clear you care more about a Starbucks getting smashed up than systemic murder?

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'm not going to agree with your description of me as a racist, I don't like your use of the word cunt owing to a long held view of mine that the construct of our language is itself misogynistic, but it's a free country (sort of) even if I'd prefer a different derogatory label were used, and I don't understand why you think decorum or considering more than one side a bad thing.

Oh, you mean when you showed your hand and made it clear you care more about a Starbucks getting smashed up than systemic murder?

You're moving there from taking my comments out of context to just inventing stuff. I mean maybe if they sold decent coffee, but at best it's average

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'm not going to agree with your description of me as a racist, I don't like your use of the word cunt owing to a long held view of mine that the construct of our language is itself misogynistic, but it's a free country (sort of) even if I'd prefer a different derogatory label were used, and I don't understand why you think decorum or considering more than one side a bad thing.

Oh, you mean when you showed your hand and made it clear you care more about a Starbucks getting smashed up than systemic murder?

You're moving there from taking my comments out of context to just inventing stuff. I mean maybe if they sold decent coffee, but at best it's average

Because you've shown just as much concern about systemic racial inequality and police violence against minority communities as you have the destruction of property.
Tell me, did you get upset about the Warsaw Jews taking up arms in 1943?

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote: Oh, you mean when you showed your hand and made it clear you care more about a Starbucks getting smashed up than systemic murder?

You're moving there from taking my comments out of context to just inventing stuff. I mean maybe if they sold decent coffee, but at best it's average

Because you've shown just as much concern about systemic racial inequality and police violence against minority communities as you have the destruction of property.
Tell me, did you get upset about the Warsaw Jews taking up arms in 1943?

I didn't think I'd set out a position that ranks racial inequality against the destruction of property, rather I've suggested I'd reject the premise of choosing between the two because I don't consider it an either or, I don't see destruction and violence as advancing the cause of equality.

And no, I didn't get upset about the uprising of the Warsaw in Jews in 1943, tbh I didn't support it either but in my defence I wasn't born. If you're asking do I get upset about it then not really, but I don't think we've got a like for like, the system has huge problems in America but it's not genocide, the violence we already have is too much and I would hope it doesn't escalate further never mind see the senseless slaughter of millions

Anyway...

Mikey Brown wrote:Anyway...

I'm getting a lot of these - it seems to be turning into police doctrine to take out medical and aid stations, usually in as violent a fashion as they can, presumably to try and deter the medics from coming back. Yet another thing where something that's considered a war crime by the USA is a-okay because it's being done to their own citizens.

Puja

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:
You're moving there from taking my comments out of context to just inventing stuff. I mean maybe if they sold decent coffee, but at best it's average

Because you've shown just as much concern about systemic racial inequality and police violence against minority communities as you have the destruction of property.
Tell me, did you get upset about the Warsaw Jews taking up arms in 1943?

I didn't think I'd set out a position that ranks racial inequality against the destruction of property, rather I've suggested I'd reject the premise of choosing between the two because I don't consider it an either or, I don't see destruction and violence as advancing the cause of equality.

And no, I didn't get upset about the uprising of the Warsaw in Jews in 1943, tbh I didn't support it either but in my defence I wasn't born. If you're asking do I get upset about it then not really, but I don't think we've got a like for like, the system has huge problems in America but it's not genocide, the violence we already have is too much and I would hope it doesn't escalate further never mind see the senseless slaughter of millions

Whoosh

Puja

Sandydragon wrote:Example, one Police Department found that a black man was more likely to be shot by a black officer than a white officer. The reason are various and often make no sense at all, but one chief element is that in over 84% of shootings where the victim was black, the victim had possession of a firearm.

But don't let it be a black and a white one
'Cause they'll slam ya down to the street top
Black police showing out for the white cop
Ice Cube will swarm
on any motherfucker in a blue uniform
Just 'cause I'm from, the CPT
Punk police are afraid of me!

It's like those weird moments when Ari Melber starts using lyrics to make a poetic point

Puja wrote:I'm getting a lot of these - it seems to be turning into police doctrine to take out medical and aid stations, usually in as violent a fashion as they can, presumably to try and deter the medics from coming back. Yet another thing where something that's considered a war crime by the USA is a-okay because it's being done to their own citizens.

or "terrorised" as it's otherwise known.

But I heard Trump - the peaceful protestors are terrorists; the violent cops are our staunch defenders who deserve all of our support

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote:
Of course it's an absurd comparison, because the issues at play are completely different - one involves women having agency over their own reproductive organs and rights, the other is about systemic, institutionalised racism, and denying a racial and ethnic minority equal rights and protection under the law. You're trying to compare apples and oranges and then demanding to know why they're different. Honestly, the fact that you're trying to suggest there's some sort of equivalence between one group demanding equal, civil rights, and another acting to deny others their reproductive rights is both disgusting and disingenuous as fuck.

And for the record, women's rights activists historically were fucking hardcore.

Women's rights around the world including in the US still rank abysmally, they I assume are allowed to do violence to men because of the ongoing violence toward and subjugation of women? Which means both of us are fair game in the USA for the womenfolk, and if I ever return to NZ I assume I'd be fair game there too given the huge problems of racism in Kiwiland? This covid thing and having to stay home is starting to look more and more like it's saving my life.

I will though agree I am saying there's an equivalence to looking at rights, I think this because in my estimation to have equality we should be treating people equally. I don't agree I'm disgusting though I would stipulate to a number of flaws.

If the societal institutions themselves are an active tool of oppression, with systemic and institutionalised violence against minorities or what have you, then sooner or later, it's inevitable that there will be active and violent resistance those very institutions.

Pretty telling that you're apparently bothered by the idea of non-whites demanding equal rights, or that it's black v. white, when it's racists vs. everyone else.

And hey, look at all the whypeepo getting assaulted and beaten down at this protest.



Edit: it's amazing how this drunk guy gets it, but you seem to be having a very difficult time comprehending it.

Why do you assume that those who oppose violent protest are being silent?

Puja wrote:

Puja

It's a police state.

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:I'm kind of at a loss as to how and reinforce that the Police is a racist institution over here. I don't care how many individuals are not racist, the culture as a whole supports racism.

Also explain to me how lobbing tear gas into residential areas from a tank is a reasonable response to an assumed threat.

Perhaps some academic studies into the issue. There appear to be very few, and some of the ones I have found don't paint the picture you would like them to.

Example, one Police Department found that a black man was more likely to be shot by a black officer than a white officer. The reason are various and often make no sense at all, but one chief element is that in over 84% of shootings where the victim was black, the victim had possession of a firearm.

The issue seemed to be that Black men, particularly those under 30, were more likely to come into contact with the police and as a result the outcome was poor. It would be useful to have some case studies to understand how that has worked in practice.

What another study demonstrates is that Police in the US kill more people than in other wealthy and democratic countries. I believe that is a reflection of the culture at large.

My dude...come on...

You know, with a Presidential election in 6 months, I'm having to try really hard not to see spooks under the bed with this one.

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:I'm kind of at a loss as to how and reinforce that the Police is a racist institution over here. I don't care how many individuals are not racist, the culture as a whole supports racism.

Also explain to me how lobbing tear gas into residential areas from a tank is a reasonable response to an assumed threat.

Perhaps some academic studies into the issue. There appear to be very few, and some of the ones I have found don't paint the picture you would like them to.

Example, one Police Department found that a black man was more likely to be shot by a black officer than a white officer. The reason are various and often make no sense at all, but one chief element is that in over 84% of shootings where the victim was black, the victim had possession of a firearm.

The issue seemed to be that Black men, particularly those under 30, were more likely to come into contact with the police and as a result the outcome was poor. It would be useful to have some case studies to understand how that has worked in practice.

What another study demonstrates is that Police in the US kill more people than in other wealthy and democratic countries. I believe that is a reflection of the culture at large.

My dude...come on...

Did you not read the part about the firearms, which (cmiiw) are illegal in the US? And possession of which is punishable by death.

I just read someone’s account of being repeatedly chased and beaten by police last night that closed with “I’ve feared for my life many times, but I’ve never felt that I was being toyed with before.” I’m getting very used to reading really harrowing stuff like that.

Meanwhile in other American news.



I’m not sure whether you call this connected or not. The prison system is unbelievably fucked, and it seems to be just the same dynamic as we’re seeing on the streets right now. God forbid that prison isn’t just a money making scam where you can cram countless bodies in with under-trained guards and hope things don’t turn sour.

It does say that he was being disruptive so I guess that’s that. I'm considering spending the next week or so lamenting that he chose to be disruptive and how that may harmed his cause. If only these poor black guys could stop having such a high interaction rate with law enforcement. Why do they choose to do that? It's such an odd choice for them to make.

Don't worry though, folks. Sleepy Joe is on the case.

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/20 ... al-record/

A bunch of guys on rooftops with semi-automatic rifles. Police are cool with them for some reason. Strange, huh.

I’ve seen the question whether Philadelphia is open carry. Did you say that’s your area Porky?

Mikey Brown wrote:A bunch of guys on rooftops with semi-automatic rifles. Police are cool with them for some reason. Strange, huh.

I’ve seen the question whether Philadelphia is open carry. Did you say that’s your area Porky?

White man with a semi-automatic rifle, no problem. Black man driving a car, no fucking way.