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 June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote: Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt.
The economy was also based around the exploitation of white workers... And it is still the case. Your reasoning is akin to considering a miner who happens to be 16 years old to be responsible for slavery. We have a common responsability to help the poor and the weakest in society, we have no responsability over the crime of a minority of our ancestors.
You don't jail someone for killing someone else for the actual murder but to stop other people from freely murdering. People are equating guilt of a crime with some sort of needed punishment for it. People are just asking to deal with the societal impact of that crime our ancestors committed.
Can someone confirm this is true in the US?
In Croatia's laws, which are basically a copy of all the european- roman derivative laws, we do indeed punish people for commiting a crime. Thats one of the goals of the punishment. They serve retribution, special prevention (for that person), general prevention (for everyone else not to commit crime) and rehabillitation. I believe this is how it is in the rest of Europe.
I want to see if this guy has no clue on what he is talking aboug on this issue aswell.
I believe the general consensus in most modern societies is that jailing someone isn't to punish them but prevent them from causing more harm to society.
It's the reason the death penalty has grown less and less popular. You don't really see a difference in preventing suffering between jailing someone vs executing them, execution is just a form of 'revenge' against someone.
Any sort of law enforcement is taught that you don't shoot to kill someone, you shoot when you have reason to believe you have to do so to prevent them from hurting you, i.e. self defense or the safety of others
Im not talking about general consensus, im talking about whats written in the laws. In our Criminal law we have an article that states what are the reasons for sanctuons; and punisment is the first on the list. As i also said, i believe this is how it is in most of europe.
trump's twitter reads like a terrible infomercial. every other tweet is confident declaration of making america rich or giving you a job. it's probably his trump university marketing team running that thing.
On June 10 2016 06:34 oneofthem wrote: trump's twitter reads like a terrible infomercial. every other tweet is confident declaration of making america rich or giving you a job. it's probably his trump university marketing team running that thing.
On June 10 2016 06:34 oneofthem wrote: trump's twitter reads like a terrible infomercial. every other tweet is confident declaration of making america rich or giving you a job. it's probably his trump university marketing team running that thing.
I honestly still feel like I'm in a PK Dick novel and have woken up in a wrong dimension ever since Trump was declared presumptive nominee. Is there some kind of historical US presidential race that resembles this?
On June 10 2016 06:40 Nyxisto wrote: I honestly still feel like I'm in some kind of PK Dick novel and have woken up in a wrong dimension ever since Trump was declared presumptive nominee. Is there some kind of historical US presidential race that resembles this?
probably; but I can't say for certain myself, as I haven't read up on the history of it. Some have said there are considerable parallels to Andrew Jackson's run. There was another name some have mentioned it being like, something involving the Know-Nothing party I think, but I don't remember exactly.
On June 10 2016 06:42 SK.Testie wrote: Hillary's.. bots?
Please do not post unacceptable content that violates the Website Terms of Use. TeamLiquid™ does not condone spreading political rumors and conspiracy theories. Thank you.
On June 10 2016 06:40 Nyxisto wrote: I honestly still feel like I'm in a PK Dick novel and have woken up in a wrong dimension ever since Trump was declared presumptive nominee. Is there some kind of historical US presidential race that resembles this?
I am convinced Robocop was a vision of the future, not satire.
Climate activists on Wednesday delivered more than 90,000 petitions to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) demanding that the party's 2016 platform include a nationwide ban on fracking.
As the DNC convened in Washington, D.C. for its open forum on shaping the platform, activists with Food & Water Watch, 350.org, Honor the Earth, and other groups handed over the appeals and said officials must acknowledge the harm that fracking has caused the environment.
"The Democratic Party has been complicit in the U.S. fracking boom which is poisoning communities and our climate," said Emily Wurth, water program director at Food & Water Watch. "Any serious plan to combat climate change must include a ban on fracking, and as the committee develops the platform, they should heed the calls of the growing movement to ban fracking and keep fossil fuels in the ground."
The groups noted that more than 137,000 fracking wells have been opened in the U.S. since 2005 as part of President Barack Obama's "all-of-the-above" energy policy that included promoting the use of natural gas. By contrast, the 2016 presidential election has seen candidates backing away from the fossil fuel industry, with Bernie Sanders standing out for his support of a nationwide ban on fracking.
And as Environmental Action policy director Anthony Rogers-Wright explained, the majority of people that now find themselves in proximity of a fracking well are in communities of color—who largely vote Democratic.
"This is the face of fracking in America: Latino, Native, African American and other communities are disproportionately impacted by the toxic effects of fracking and its infrastructure," Rogers-Wright said. "It's time for the DNC, a political party that is totally dependent on the participation of People of Color, to show that our health is as important as our votes. Including a fracking ban in the party platform is an essential step to demonstrate this."
That call echoes at the local level, such as in Texas, where the state Democratic party's convention is scheduled for next week in San Antonio. To that end, the Austin American-Statesman reports, a longtime Texas environmental activist is getting ready to stage a "guerrilla maneuver" on the floor of convention.
On June 10 2016 04:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: A really, really great endorsement by Obama for Hillary. I think he did a solid job of incorporating Bernie as well, giving us a taste of the "Yes, they were rivals, but in the bigger picture, they are allies". That's something that needs to be made extremely clear by Hillary, and I think the two best ways to do that is for her to continue moving more to the left on some issues and for her to select a running mate who is more non-establishment and comparable to Bernie or Elizabeth Warren.
I think it would be a huge mistake for Hillary not to try to convince Sanders to be her VP.
Maybe she already has and his terms are just too much but I don't see her standing a chance against Trump without Sanders on her ticket.
I agree that Sanders being the VP would be the easiest possible win for Hillary. And it would be great for Democrats who are more liberal than Hillary (so like, almost all of them lol).
I think it is racist to think that blacks were somehow inferior and the "superior" whiteman enslaved them all. That is not what happened, but a lot of liberals like to illustrate history that way.
In the 1400s/1500s at the dawn of the Atlantic Slave Trade, African nations rivaled European nations in warfare, technology and economics. Slaves were bought from Europeans off insular forts built across the coast of Africa. During this time Europeans feared of even stepping foot in Africa due to numerous factors. Those being harsh climate, disease, powerful Africans, and just xenophobia in general.
Europeans were tapping into an already existing system. People have a common fallacy of viewing Africa as a unified people with the same identity. Africa was a diverse continent with hundreds of regimes, bandits, and slave traders all with their own motives. Powers would conquer other powers and enslave the people they would conquer. Bandits would make it there business to raid small villages and capture people to sell off in slavery. As Europeans began purchasing more and more slaves, this business grew. West African countries profited the most from slavery and made an effort to enslave other African powers.
My point is not to excuse Europeans for helping to create racial based slavery in the "New World". My point is that at least in some way everyone's hands are dirty in this disciple thing called slavery. It is not just a white thing. It is a human thing and that is what needs to be addressed.
Racial based slavery was created in the Americas from this as White plantation owners began to see their slaves as less than them. Since all the slaves that were bought were black. Typically, when someone has control over another they began to treat those people inhumanely. Please see studies on prison guards treat prisoners.
Please note that I am discussing events during the early colonial period. I am not speaking of the colonization of Africa that occurred in the late 1800s by a variety of European countries, notably Belgium being the worst.
On June 10 2016 04:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: A really, really great endorsement by Obama for Hillary. I think he did a solid job of incorporating Bernie as well, giving us a taste of the "Yes, they were rivals, but in the bigger picture, they are allies". That's something that needs to be made extremely clear by Hillary, and I think the two best ways to do that is for her to continue moving more to the left on some issues and for her to select a running mate who is more non-establishment and comparable to Bernie or Elizabeth Warren.
I think it would be a huge mistake for Hillary not to try to convince Sanders to be her VP.
Maybe she already has and his terms are just too much but I don't see her standing a chance against Trump without Sanders on her ticket.
I agree that Sanders being the VP would be the easiest possible win for Hillary. And it would be great for Democrats who are more liberal than Hillary (so like, almost all of them lol).
I disagree completely. Picking Sanders as VP is the scenario that makes Clinton the weakest for the general election. Not only would all of Sanders' glaring weaknesses be happily exploited by the GOP to bring down the ticket, but you would have even more ads quoting Sanders' attacks on Clinton on loop until November. I really do not think that he would look good in the VP debate either if he was to be pitted against someone competent enough to push him on policy. My favorite would be Tom Perez, but he has the double disadvantage of not being well-known and of not coming from a swing state (even though he's loved by labor unions/the left, is a policy wonk, is quick on his feet and charismatic, and is a latino who can speak Spanish). He's also never held an elected office above the very local level.
Kid gets intimated by police into an illegal search. His retired police officer father and mother teach him about his rights and then his mother calls the officer who did the illegal search and bitches him out because, you know, white people. A few days later the kid's car is specifically targeted. Kid demands to know if he is under arrest and if so, what for, exactly as his retired police officer father told him to do because, you know, rights.
Police officer tasers him in the chest for 23 seconds, stopping his heart and leaving him dead. The he cuffs the 17 year old, looks at the dashcam, drags the 17 year old to the very edge of the dashcam view, looks at it again, decides it's probably out of frame and drops the dead body of the 17 year old, hands cuffed behind his back, face first onto the concrete. A few minutes later more officers show up and the dashcam shows them gloating about it how this is what you get if you don't respect their authority until one of them notices that the kid is blue. Because, you know, his heart hasn't been beating for the last few minutes, what with the whole dead thing.
The kid was subsequently resuscitated but was in a coma and his parents were told it was a 50/50 if he would ever wake up. He eventually did but has permanent brain damage from the prolonged loss of oxygen to his brain. Despite it actually being the child of one of their own the police investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing, even though they possessed a dashcam video showing literally nothing but wrongdoing. The video was kept from the public and the parents but the FBI got hold of it and pressed charges against the officer. It leaked two days ago.
To paraphrase GreenHorizons, we ought to do something about police brutality before it starts impacting more white people. For a long time it's been fine to blame the victims and tell them that they deserved the treatment they got because, you know, niggers, right? But if the police don't learn that it's not okay to treat whites the same way that they've gotten away with treating blacks forever then maybe they shouldn't brutalize anyone. It's like when you're kids at school, if you can't learn when it is appropriate to kill kids then nobody will be allowed to kill any kids at all. At least the officer in question wasn't racist though, quite the opposite, his crime was thinking it's okay to do that to people who look and sound like us.
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.sli.mg/v0lo7g.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Mg69UmY.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.sli.mg/ENfqoX.png)
