|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 04 2018 09:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2018 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2018 09:16 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2018 09:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2018 09:02 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2018 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2018 08:47 Danglars wrote:
This is injustice. Does the fact that the cops involved in this conspiracy to cover a crime (and frame an innocent person) still have jobs indicate to you this is a incredibly pervasive problem, not a few bad apples? EDIT: Also serves as a great illustration that driving is a privilege that the government can take away without any just cause. An incredibly pervasive problem of juries and police management  We always differed about whether or not it's more about police corruption or additionally police targeting of blacks. There's no argument, one look at NYC's stop and frisk data shows anyone with eyes that they are disproportionately and illegally targeting black people. I'm pretty sure if we go back we don't find that you endorse the idea that corruption (this has nothing to do with a jury) was a pervasive and corrosive problem in PD's across the country. Pretty sure you were more of a: "Don't let the bad apples stain the credibility of police around the country." kinda guy. But as a group that highly values justice and law I expect a surge of folks on the right to speak up about this and call for punishment and reform. /s I'm pretty sure you're letting your black activism act as a standin for ignoring the points of agreement you might have with others in the forum. And if this forum proves anything, it's that ignorance promotes misunderstanding. In my neck of the woods, that's known as linking people not "down for the struggle" to all sorts of evils-by-proxy. Was that supposed to be a response to what I said? I know you quoted it, but that's a non sequitur. If you're looking for praise for having the slightest bit of intellectual consistency (only to be washed away with a comment like this) you're barking up the wrong tree. I mean, you responded exactly with what I expected: the conflict I already said existed between us is the real disagreement beyond police reform. So, truth proven. I think the immense racialization of the issue is one barrier to police reform generally.
So because police are illegally targeting black people and the black people want that addressed as well as the general criminal nature of police departments, that is the main stumbling block for those on the right to have the integrity and intellectual honesty to actually push for police reform and you want that not to make them appear to have a terrible ethical/moral framework?
That's not how any of this works.
The immense racialization starts with the police (and society at large), trying to place it on the victims is absolutely preposterous.
|
On March 04 2018 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2018 09:30 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2018 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2018 09:16 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2018 09:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2018 09:02 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2018 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Does the fact that the cops involved in this conspiracy to cover a crime (and frame an innocent person) still have jobs indicate to you this is a incredibly pervasive problem, not a few bad apples? EDIT: Also serves as a great illustration that driving is a privilege that the government can take away without any just cause. An incredibly pervasive problem of juries and police management We always differed about whether or not it's more about police corruption or additionally police targeting of blacks. There's no argument, one look at NYC's stop and frisk data shows anyone with eyes that they are disproportionately and illegally targeting black people. I'm pretty sure if we go back we don't find that you endorse the idea that corruption (this has nothing to do with a jury) was a pervasive and corrosive problem in PD's across the country. Pretty sure you were more of a: "Don't let the bad apples stain the credibility of police around the country." kinda guy. But as a group that highly values justice and law I expect a surge of folks on the right to speak up about this and call for punishment and reform. /s I'm pretty sure you're letting your black activism act as a standin for ignoring the points of agreement you might have with others in the forum. And if this forum proves anything, it's that ignorance promotes misunderstanding. In my neck of the woods, that's known as linking people not "down for the struggle" to all sorts of evils-by-proxy. Was that supposed to be a response to what I said? I know you quoted it, but that's a non sequitur. If you're looking for praise for having the slightest bit of intellectual consistency (only to be washed away with a comment like this) you're barking up the wrong tree. I mean, you responded exactly with what I expected: the conflict I already said existed between us is the real disagreement beyond police reform. So, truth proven. I think the immense racialization of the issue is one barrier to police reform generally. So because police are illegally targeting black people and the black people want that addressed as well as the general criminal nature of police departments, that is the main stumbling block for those on the right to have the integrity and intellectual honesty to actually push for police reform and you want that not to make them appear to have a terrible ethical/moral framework? That's not how any of this works. The immense racialization starts with the police (and society at large), trying to place it on the victims is absolutely preposterous.
Because you can't wrap your head around a diverse set of people opposed to the abuse of police powers, the issue won't be resolved that easily. It always devolves to your demands that the police vs black people must be accepted and pushed instead of police corruption and violence against all people.
That's exactly how this works and continues to work. You're going out of your way to prove it right now.
|
On March 04 2018 09:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2018 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2018 09:30 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2018 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2018 09:16 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2018 09:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2018 09:02 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2018 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Does the fact that the cops involved in this conspiracy to cover a crime (and frame an innocent person) still have jobs indicate to you this is a incredibly pervasive problem, not a few bad apples? EDIT: Also serves as a great illustration that driving is a privilege that the government can take away without any just cause. An incredibly pervasive problem of juries and police management We always differed about whether or not it's more about police corruption or additionally police targeting of blacks. There's no argument, one look at NYC's stop and frisk data shows anyone with eyes that they are disproportionately and illegally targeting black people. I'm pretty sure if we go back we don't find that you endorse the idea that corruption (this has nothing to do with a jury) was a pervasive and corrosive problem in PD's across the country. Pretty sure you were more of a: "Don't let the bad apples stain the credibility of police around the country." kinda guy. But as a group that highly values justice and law I expect a surge of folks on the right to speak up about this and call for punishment and reform. /s I'm pretty sure you're letting your black activism act as a standin for ignoring the points of agreement you might have with others in the forum. And if this forum proves anything, it's that ignorance promotes misunderstanding. In my neck of the woods, that's known as linking people not "down for the struggle" to all sorts of evils-by-proxy. Was that supposed to be a response to what I said? I know you quoted it, but that's a non sequitur. If you're looking for praise for having the slightest bit of intellectual consistency (only to be washed away with a comment like this) you're barking up the wrong tree. I mean, you responded exactly with what I expected: the conflict I already said existed between us is the real disagreement beyond police reform. So, truth proven. I think the immense racialization of the issue is one barrier to police reform generally. So because police are illegally targeting black people and the black people want that addressed as well as the general criminal nature of police departments, that is the main stumbling block for those on the right to have the integrity and intellectual honesty to actually push for police reform and you want that not to make them appear to have a terrible ethical/moral framework? That's not how any of this works. The immense racialization starts with the police (and society at large), trying to place it on the victims is absolutely preposterous. Because you can't wrap your head around a diverse set of people opposed to the abuse of police powers, the issue won't be resolved that easily. It always devolves to your demands that the police vs black people must be accepted and pushed instead of police corruption and violence against all people. That's exactly how this works and continues to work. You're going out of your way to prove it right now.
An innocent US citizen was injured by police, they lied about what happened, framed him for a crime, took his freedom, took his ability to drive, etc... and the right can't get outraged about it because people will mention black skin plays a role and they want to think that doesn't look like childish and cowardly behavior. No.
They can use that justification and accept the obvious verdict on their moral/ethical framework or they need a new argument.
You seem to think I'm rejecting your argument that it's racialized, it's not so much that, I'm rejecting the idea that the 'racialization' of this topic provides any material, moral, or ethical defense for not acting on the corruption/abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
On March 04 2018 09:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2018 09:42 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2018 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2018 09:30 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2018 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2018 09:16 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2018 09:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2018 09:02 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2018 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Does the fact that the cops involved in this conspiracy to cover a crime (and frame an innocent person) still have jobs indicate to you this is a incredibly pervasive problem, not a few bad apples? EDIT: Also serves as a great illustration that driving is a privilege that the government can take away without any just cause. An incredibly pervasive problem of juries and police management We always differed about whether or not it's more about police corruption or additionally police targeting of blacks. There's no argument, one look at NYC's stop and frisk data shows anyone with eyes that they are disproportionately and illegally targeting black people. I'm pretty sure if we go back we don't find that you endorse the idea that corruption (this has nothing to do with a jury) was a pervasive and corrosive problem in PD's across the country. Pretty sure you were more of a: "Don't let the bad apples stain the credibility of police around the country." kinda guy. But as a group that highly values justice and law I expect a surge of folks on the right to speak up about this and call for punishment and reform. /s I'm pretty sure you're letting your black activism act as a standin for ignoring the points of agreement you might have with others in the forum. And if this forum proves anything, it's that ignorance promotes misunderstanding. In my neck of the woods, that's known as linking people not "down for the struggle" to all sorts of evils-by-proxy. Was that supposed to be a response to what I said? I know you quoted it, but that's a non sequitur. If you're looking for praise for having the slightest bit of intellectual consistency (only to be washed away with a comment like this) you're barking up the wrong tree. I mean, you responded exactly with what I expected: the conflict I already said existed between us is the real disagreement beyond police reform. So, truth proven. I think the immense racialization of the issue is one barrier to police reform generally. So because police are illegally targeting black people and the black people want that addressed as well as the general criminal nature of police departments, that is the main stumbling block for those on the right to have the integrity and intellectual honesty to actually push for police reform and you want that not to make them appear to have a terrible ethical/moral framework? That's not how any of this works. The immense racialization starts with the police (and society at large), trying to place it on the victims is absolutely preposterous. Because you can't wrap your head around a diverse set of people opposed to the abuse of police powers, the issue won't be resolved that easily. It always devolves to your demands that the police vs black people must be accepted and pushed instead of police corruption and violence against all people. That's exactly how this works and continues to work. You're going out of your way to prove it right now. An innocent US citizen was injured by police, they lied about what happened, framed him for a crime, took his freedom, took his ability to drive, etc... and the right can't get outraged about it because people will mention black skin plays a role and they want to think that doesn't look like childish and cowardly behavior. No. They can use that justification and accept the obvious verdict on their moral/ethical framework or they need a new argument. You seem to think I'm rejecting your argument that it's racialized, it's not so much that, I'm rejecting the idea that the 'racialization' of this topic provides any material, moral, or ethical defense for not acting on the corruption/abuse.
Very much different from how you portray it, but I know your game, and it’s a duplicitous one. I will join with anyone against police brutality and perversion of justice, but from the abundance of past conversations, it simply isn’t enough for you. You even doubt my steadfast position on this issue because I won’t travel as far as you will on racial components.
Which is pretty hilarious.
|
He stands against police brutality, but won’t be tricked into opposing systematic racism.
|
Aside from the notion that I don't understand how you could look at the issue and conclude it couldn't possibly have some racial undertones, why would you object so vehemently at the consideration? I mean, why can't you just look at someone like Colin Kaepernick and go "he's protesting police violence, good on him for bringing attention to the issue" instead of focusing on the racial part of it?
I mean, I kind of agree that it's sort of pointless to focus on blacks being shot by the cops considering the issue is a lot more wide ranging than that, but rather than attempting to undermine any protests you should be supportive of it and attempt to expand the thing being protested. But no, seemingly because some people focus on it as a racial issue, you're ready to object to those protests altogether.
It's weird man.
Different aims, different means, but common ground in between, yes? Focus on the common ground.
|
Imagine Obama proclaiming that the leader of the communist party of China is a great guy and that America really should try out eternal leadership
Yet it's just another day in the Trump presidency. Amazing.
|
On March 04 2018 11:41 Nyxisto wrote:
Imagine Obama proclaiming that the leader of the communist party of China is a great guy and that America really should try out eternal leadership
Yet it's just another day in the Trump presidency. Amazing.
Now think about all the shit talked about Obama by the Cons and team Con on this board. It was all bad faith nonsense. They voted Trump and will spin to defend his newest authoritarian quips. Every last criticism they made about Obama was merely a convenient argument. They didn't believe a word of what they were saying.
EDIT: Does anyone remember Constitutional Conservatives? I do. I won't forget.
|
CNN will wait for Trump/the WH to deny it. Then you release it and wait for the "it was a joke" defense, again. Given the context, they may jump right to the joke defense. Won't change anyone's votes sadly.
|
On March 04 2018 11:56 On_Slaught wrote:
CNN will wait for Trump/the WH to deny it. Then you release it and wait for the "it was a joke" defense, again. Given the context, they may jump right to the joke defense. Won't change anyone's votes sadly.
I'd say it's pretty clear from the audio that it was a joke this time
On March 04 2018 11:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Release the tape.
The relevant bit is in that link from the tweet Plansix posted, starts at 0:35 in the video
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/03/politics/trump-maralago-remarks/index.html
|
.
oops hit quote instead of edit
|
The president does not get to praise a leader ending term limits and seizing power for life. And he doesn’t can’t follow that praise with a joke about how the US should give it a try. That isn’t something that the head of our democracy should be doing.
|
On March 04 2018 12:26 Plansix wrote:
The president does not get to praise a leader ending term limits and seizing power for life. And he doesn’t can’t follow that praise with a joke about how the US should give it a try. That isn’t something that the head of our democracy should be doing.
Lighten up comrade. Don't be such a PC stick-in-the-mud. Jokes are a sign of intelligence, and we should be grateful for every meagre, attenuated sign of intelligence we get from this President.
Can't we do a Straussian reading of this joke? Trump is really signalling to the Chinese people his disapproval of the "People's Republic" with the president-for-life?
|
|
|
On March 04 2018 12:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2018 12:26 Plansix wrote:
The president does not get to praise a leader ending term limits and seizing power for life. And he doesn’t can’t follow that praise with a joke about how the US should give it a try. That isn’t something that the head of our democracy should be doing. Lighten up comrade. Don't be such a PC stick-in-the-mud. Jokes are a sign of intelligence, and we should be grateful for every meagre, attenuated sign of intelligence we get from this President. Can't we do a Straussian reading of this joke? Trump is really signalling to the Chinese people his disapproval of the "People's Republic" with the president-for-life? I’ll take him making fun of disabled reporters, comrade. Less worrisome.
|
On March 04 2018 11:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2018 09:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2018 09:42 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2018 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2018 09:30 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2018 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2018 09:16 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2018 09:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2018 09:02 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2018 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Does the fact that the cops involved in this conspiracy to cover a crime (and frame an innocent person) still have jobs indicate to you this is a incredibly pervasive problem, not a few bad apples?
EDIT: Also serves as a great illustration that driving is a privilege that the government can take away without any just cause. An incredibly pervasive problem of juries and police management We always differed about whether or not it's more about police corruption or additionally police targeting of blacks. There's no argument, one look at NYC's stop and frisk data shows anyone with eyes that they are disproportionately and illegally targeting black people. I'm pretty sure if we go back we don't find that you endorse the idea that corruption (this has nothing to do with a jury) was a pervasive and corrosive problem in PD's across the country. Pretty sure you were more of a: "Don't let the bad apples stain the credibility of police around the country." kinda guy. But as a group that highly values justice and law I expect a surge of folks on the right to speak up about this and call for punishment and reform. /s I'm pretty sure you're letting your black activism act as a standin for ignoring the points of agreement you might have with others in the forum. And if this forum proves anything, it's that ignorance promotes misunderstanding. In my neck of the woods, that's known as linking people not "down for the struggle" to all sorts of evils-by-proxy. Was that supposed to be a response to what I said? I know you quoted it, but that's a non sequitur. If you're looking for praise for having the slightest bit of intellectual consistency (only to be washed away with a comment like this) you're barking up the wrong tree. I mean, you responded exactly with what I expected: the conflict I already said existed between us is the real disagreement beyond police reform. So, truth proven. I think the immense racialization of the issue is one barrier to police reform generally. So because police are illegally targeting black people and the black people want that addressed as well as the general criminal nature of police departments, that is the main stumbling block for those on the right to have the integrity and intellectual honesty to actually push for police reform and you want that not to make them appear to have a terrible ethical/moral framework? That's not how any of this works. The immense racialization starts with the police (and society at large), trying to place it on the victims is absolutely preposterous. Because you can't wrap your head around a diverse set of people opposed to the abuse of police powers, the issue won't be resolved that easily. It always devolves to your demands that the police vs black people must be accepted and pushed instead of police corruption and violence against all people. That's exactly how this works and continues to work. You're going out of your way to prove it right now. An innocent US citizen was injured by police, they lied about what happened, framed him for a crime, took his freedom, took his ability to drive, etc... and the right can't get outraged about it because people will mention black skin plays a role and they want to think that doesn't look like childish and cowardly behavior. No. They can use that justification and accept the obvious verdict on their moral/ethical framework or they need a new argument. You seem to think I'm rejecting your argument that it's racialized, it's not so much that, I'm rejecting the idea that the 'racialization' of this topic provides any material, moral, or ethical defense for not acting on the corruption/abuse. Very much different from how you portray it, but I know your game, and it’s a duplicitous one. I will join with anyone against police brutality and perversion of justice, but from the abundance of past conversations, it simply isn’t enough for you. You even doubt my steadfast position on this issue because I won’t travel as far as you will on racial components. Which is pretty hilarious.
How is it different from how I portray it? What's my game? How is it duplicitous?
No you won't join with anyone, you're specifically avoiding joining people who also see the racial component to bad policing.
I don't "doubt your steadfast position" the bad apples thing was a quote from you. I'd love a real response, but I imagine I can just expect more word salad and avoidance of my actual argument though.
|
For years, YouTube profited off all kinds of extremist content; its three-strike policy was directed at copyright infringement. Its current and newly aggressive posture towards content stems from the advertiser revolt that erupted following Trump’s surprise victory. Within weeks of the 2016 election, brands like Johnson & Johnson, and ad-tech companies like AppNexus, began taking steps to distance themselves from Breitbart and other purveyors of "fake news" and extremist content. In early 2017, companies like Starbucks and Walmart started pulling their ads from YouTube, worried that their marketing was sandwiched between clips featuring foaming-at-the-mouth racists and child abusers. In a watershed moment, the global buying agency Havas pulled its ads from Google/YouTube U.K., after the Times of London detailed how ads for well-known charities were supporting Neo-Nazi articles and videos. When the influential research group Pivotal downgraded Google stock from a buy to a hold, Google suddenly grew concerned about the kind of content its proprietary algorithms had been promoting for years – intentionally and by design.
This is not a conspiracy theory worthy of a "strike," but the testimony of a former YouTube engineer named Guillaume Chaslot, who was profiled by the Guardian in early February. Chaslot, a Ph.D. in artificial intelligence, explained how his team at YouTube was tasked with designing algorithms that prioritized “watch time” alone. “Watch time was the priority,” he told the paper. “Everything else was considered a distraction… There are many ways YouTube can change its algorithms to suppress fake news and improve the quality and diversity of videos people see… I tried to change YouTube from the inside, but it didn’t work.”
When Chaslot conducted an independent study of how his algorithms worked in the real world, he found that during recent elections in France, Germany and the U.K., YouTube "systematically amplifie[d] videos that are divisive, sensational and conspiratorial." (His findings can be seen at Algotransparency.org.) At the height of the advertising revolt, in March of last year, YouTube announced that it was "taking a hard look at our existing community guidelines to determine what content is allowed on the platform – not just what content can be monetized." CEO Susan Wojcicki announced the company would hire thousands of human moderators to watch and judge all content on the site.
YouTube's new policies were part of an industry-wide course correction. Over the past year, under the banner of combatting hate speech and fake news, Google and Facebook began to cut off search traffic and monetized content-creator accounts, not only to dangerous scam-artists like Jones, but to any site that garnered complaints or didn't meet newly enforced enforced and vaguely defined criteria of "credible" and "quality."
A number of left-leaning sites of substance, including AlterNet.org and Truthout.org, along with mainstream human rights groups like Amnesty International, were affected. Although "conspiracies," like allegations of CIA drug trafficking, tend to be better sourced than "Pizzagate," the algorithm didn't seem to make a distinction. As a result, these sites saw their traffic fall off a cliff. "Many of the largest progressive news organizations watched their online audiences from Google and Facebook decline as much as 60 percent in 2017," says Jan Frel, associate publisher of AlterNet.org. “And they’re still falling.”
Jones' many critics might keep this in mind as they indulge in some easy schadenfreude. Beneath all the noise, an Internet designed to calm and please advertisers is quietly kneecapping small and independent news sites. It is being sold under the guise of fighting "fake news" and Russian disinformation, and any focus on Alex Jones conveniently deflects attention from the larger implications of this shift. As loathsome and dangerous as Jones' schtick has become, it would be a mistake to think of his newly "public-minded" enemies in Big Tech as benevolent protectors.
Source
Emphasis mine. Is it just me or do I smell some more corporatocracy in there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
