|
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. |
A Virginia police officer who will stand trial for murder this week told a witness “this is my second one” after shooting dead an unarmed black 18-year-old, a court heard on Tuesday.
Stephen Rankin, who had killed another unarmed man four years earlier, was recorded by his Taser’s camera making the remark to a Walmart staff member seconds after killing William Chapman in the store’s parking lot in the city of Portsmouth in April last year.
At a final pretrial hearing on Tuesday, Rankin’s defense team argued unsuccessfully that the comment should be censored during his trial for first-degree murder at Portsmouth circuit court. “This statement is not probative of anything,” said James Broccoletti, his lead attorney.
But their motion was denied by judge Johnny E Morrison after prosecutors argued that they should not have to “sanitize the evidence” around the deadly shooting.
“The defendant made the comment not just in the presence and earshot of a witness, but to the witness,” said Stephanie Morales, the commonwealth’s attorney, who is leading the case against Rankin.
The judge’s ruling raised the prospect that Rankin’s previous use of deadly force would at least be hinted at to the jury that must consider whether he acted with justification in shooting Chapman.
Source
|
On July 27 2016 07:14 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 07:11 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Is there any reliable polling site like 538 or realclearpolitics gives percentages as by demographics like age/gender/race/etc?
Since I can usually only finding those numbers in individual polls. http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TM651Y15_13/You can filter it by all sorts of categories
Perfect, thank you.
|
Speaking in non english, this would fucking create a storm of shit in france for sure.
"Rhode Island" "yeah !" who the fuck cares about your restaurants mates. This is really funny. Viva american politics.
|
On July 27 2016 07:34 WhiteDog wrote:
Speaking in non english, this would fucking create a storm of shit in france for sure.
"Rhode Island" "yeah !" who the fuck cares about your restauranst mates. This is really funny. Viva american politics.
It's like Eurovision for American states
|
On July 27 2016 07:37 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 07:34 WhiteDog wrote:
Speaking in non english, this would fucking create a storm of shit in france for sure.
"Rhode Island" "yeah !" who the fuck cares about your restauranst mates. This is really funny. Viva american politics. It's like Eurovision for American states
Hahaha, eurovision is at another level man. Respect our collective stupidity.
|
United States44303 Posts
On July 27 2016 07:34 WhiteDog wrote:
Speaking in non english, this would fucking create a storm of shit in france for sure.
"Rhode Island" "yeah !" who the fuck cares about your restauranst mates. This is really funny. Viva american politics.
France has an extremely different take on national identity to the United States. Following the Revolution there was a deliberate and concerted effort to impose the idea of France onto a nation far more diverse than people assume. To this day policies focused on integration through housing, public policy, education, religion and so forth have dominated in France. It could not be further from the American melting pot tradition. The United States is composed of areas that were historically speakers of English, French, Spanish, German, Dutch and various native tongues and the descendants of immigrants from around the world far outweigh the descendants of the "original" English founders. France is the area defined as within the borders of the nation state and those within those borders are made into Frenchmen. The United States is, in my opinion, more like an area in which people who choose to be Americans reside. One defines the people, the other is defined by the people. While English is by far the most popular language in the United States English speakers would do well to remember that they are no more entitled to America than anyone else.
|
On July 27 2016 04:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 04:43 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 27 2016 04:40 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2016 04:38 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 27 2016 04:37 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2016 04:34 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 27 2016 04:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 27 2016 04:11 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 27 2016 04:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 27 2016 04:00 VayneAuthority wrote:
[quote]
this quote should be put in the tumblr hall of fame.
Next time I see a black person ill say due to them being uneducated, they are clearly exercising their ignorance due to black underprivilege. I'll make sure to call him out on it! definitely won't be racist as I now can see. On July 27 2016 03:56 VayneAuthority wrote:
[quote]
it always makes me facepalm when I see people complain about racism but then approve of any racism towards white people. Here's an example of racism against white people: A white guy innocently walks down the street, and a few black guys across the street decide to call the white guy names and/ or beat him up because he's white. This is not an example of racism against white people: Person 1: Blacks should stop crying about what they have to deal with on a daily basis. It's not that bad.
Person 2: Excuse me, Person 1, but you're white and apparently not aware of the prejudice that blacks have to deal with on a daily basis, despite the fact that it's well-documented, historic, and systemic. Your position of ignorance and dismissal of other people's racial struggles is something called white privilege; you are fortunate enough to not need to deal with these experiences that others deal with, but you shouldn't belittle them. Learn the difference. thats your made up tumblr version of what racism is. I didn't make up the term racism or white privilege, and they're well understood in sociological contexts. I strongly recommend some general reading on the subject of the latter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege There are ~150 additional citations at the bottom of that page, if you're interested in learning more. On July 27 2016 04:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:Person 2: Excuse me, Person 1, but you're white and apparently not aware of the prejudice that blacks have to deal with on a daily basis, despite the fact that it's well-documented, historic, and systemic. Your position of ignorance and dismissal of other people's racial struggles is something called white privilege; you are fortunate enough to not need to deal with these experiences that others deal with, but you shouldn't belittle them. That is 100% racist though. White privilege as currently defined in contemporary political discourse is racial original sin and collective guilt wrapped into one. Racist as hell. They could avoid this by dropping the bullshit and going back to what it actually is and what it used to be called: discrimination. White privilege is discrimination by and for whites. Simple as that. Drop the racist pop pyschology about how whites can't understand or cannot have the proper empathy and all the other racist bullshit that is simply a way to tell white people to shut up and accept the political opinions of non-whites as superior. White people absolutely can be empathetic towards other races, but to be immediately dismissive and assume that minorities are overstating their well-documented issues of dealing with prejudice is a position of blissful ignorance. No one is saying that non-whites are superior; in fact, the point is that non-whites are frequently viewed as automatically inferior due to bigotry. wew lad trying to rewrite extremely easy to look up clear cut things, interesting racism ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/Submit noun the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. There is no picking and choosing, it is all negative/positive bias aka my definition, not your made up one. The meaning of words is not set in stone and citing a dictionary isn’t going to win this argument. The discussion of privilege within a demographic and region is completely valid and real. Privilege is regional and based on the dominate demographic in that culture. White privilege does not exist in Japan. But is very real in the US. ok so your position is words dont mean anything. guess ill just use the N word whenever I feel like it, its meaning isnt set in stone right? Ok, so you do realize that the word you just cited has different meanings based on who uses it and who they are saying it to, right? No it doesn't. No one uses the hard R word in any context except one. Yeah it does, sorry. The N-bomb means different things depending on who says it to whom. White as the driven snow guys like me don’t get to use it.
I've never found a compelling rational argument for this phenomenon whenever people try to explain it to me it just seems driven purely by emotions.
Either a word is offensive and shouldn't be used, or it isn't.
The very idea that certain skin colors should be able to say or do certain things that others can't is inherently racist
|
On July 27 2016 07:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 04:45 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2016 04:43 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 27 2016 04:40 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2016 04:38 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 27 2016 04:37 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2016 04:34 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 27 2016 04:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 27 2016 04:11 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 27 2016 04:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
Here's an example of racism against white people:
A white guy innocently walks down the street, and a few black guys across the street decide to call the white guy names and/ or beat him up because he's white.
This is not an example of racism against white people:
Person 1: Blacks should stop crying about what they have to deal with on a daily basis. It's not that bad.
Person 2: Excuse me, Person 1, but you're white and apparently not aware of the prejudice that blacks have to deal with on a daily basis, despite the fact that it's well-documented, historic, and systemic. Your position of ignorance and dismissal of other people's racial struggles is something called white privilege; you are fortunate enough to not need to deal with these experiences that others deal with, but you shouldn't belittle them.
Learn the difference. thats your made up tumblr version of what racism is. I didn't make up the term racism or white privilege, and they're well understood in sociological contexts. I strongly recommend some general reading on the subject of the latter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege There are ~150 additional citations at the bottom of that page, if you're interested in learning more. On July 27 2016 04:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:Person 2: Excuse me, Person 1, but you're white and apparently not aware of the prejudice that blacks have to deal with on a daily basis, despite the fact that it's well-documented, historic, and systemic. Your position of ignorance and dismissal of other people's racial struggles is something called white privilege; you are fortunate enough to not need to deal with these experiences that others deal with, but you shouldn't belittle them. That is 100% racist though. White privilege as currently defined in contemporary political discourse is racial original sin and collective guilt wrapped into one. Racist as hell. They could avoid this by dropping the bullshit and going back to what it actually is and what it used to be called: discrimination. White privilege is discrimination by and for whites. Simple as that. Drop the racist pop pyschology about how whites can't understand or cannot have the proper empathy and all the other racist bullshit that is simply a way to tell white people to shut up and accept the political opinions of non-whites as superior. White people absolutely can be empathetic towards other races, but to be immediately dismissive and assume that minorities are overstating their well-documented issues of dealing with prejudice is a position of blissful ignorance. No one is saying that non-whites are superior; in fact, the point is that non-whites are frequently viewed as automatically inferior due to bigotry. wew lad trying to rewrite extremely easy to look up clear cut things, interesting racism ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/Submit noun the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. There is no picking and choosing, it is all negative/positive bias aka my definition, not your made up one. The meaning of words is not set in stone and citing a dictionary isn’t going to win this argument. The discussion of privilege within a demographic and region is completely valid and real. Privilege is regional and based on the dominate demographic in that culture. White privilege does not exist in Japan. But is very real in the US. ok so your position is words dont mean anything. guess ill just use the N word whenever I feel like it, its meaning isnt set in stone right? Ok, so you do realize that the word you just cited has different meanings based on who uses it and who they are saying it to, right? No it doesn't. No one uses the hard R word in any context except one. Yeah it does, sorry. The N-bomb means different things depending on who says it to whom. White as the driven snow guys like me don’t get to use it. I've never found a compelling rational argument for this phenomenon whenever people try to explain it to me it just seems driven purely by emotions. Either a word is offensive and shouldn't be used, or it isn't. The very idea that certain skin colors should be able to say or do certain things that others can't is inherently racist
We're now arguing it's racist to say white people shouldn't use the N bomb?
|
Can we please please please pretty please not have this discussion again?
|
nomination by acclamation, there we have it
|
Removed per Gorsameth request. Sorry
|
On July 27 2016 07:13 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:On July 27 2016 06:19 biology]major wrote:On July 27 2016 05:52 Mohdoo wrote:On July 27 2016 05:48 xDaunt wrote:On July 27 2016 05:47 Doodsmack wrote:On July 27 2016 05:45 xDaunt wrote:
The underlying problem with Democrat/Progressive unity is Hillary herself. Looking at the situation in the light most favorable to her, she lacks the charisma to unify the party like Obama did after that nasty primary. Looking at the situation a little more realistically, she clearly is unlikable to a large chunk of the Democrat base, which makes it very difficult to rally behind her. Donald Trump makes it very easy to rally. That theory hasn't worked out so well thus far. People can be livid about Sanders and still vote for Clinton. As an Oregonian, this is basically the case everywhere, especially in Portland. I don't know how to fully convey just how bad people think trump is. People see him as Hitler. People are mad, pissed even that they have to vote Clinton. They are quick to point out Clinton is awful and the worst but that electing trump is just beyond reasonable. Impossible even for them. Portland is not very representative of the country. Place is weird as hell and is one of the most liberal places in the country. That's why I'm using it as an example of why even the most die hard of Bernie supporters (gh is common. Imaging having 5+ people like gh on your Facebook) tend to begrudgingly agree to vote Clinton. It basically comes down to "I fucking loathe Clinton, but trump represents an actual destruction of our country." If Romney was running, they wouldn't bother. Trump is seen as an actual antichrist. I think conservatives underestimate how these people see trump. It goes so far beyond what I have ever seen. I know people who want Clinton to go to prison, but will vote for her because the other option is unthinkable. After pence, even more so. They would send her to prison, but they are choosing to vote for her. The wonders of a two party system. You hate both alternatives, but you still have to vote for one of them because the other possibility is just horrifyingly disgusting. FPTP is just so incredibly archaic and nonsensical. Imagine how different the US political landscape would look like if there were multiple parties, one for the crazy christian republicans, one for the tea party people, one for the center democrats, one for Bernie people, and possibly 1-2 more. Suddenly the priority of everyone doesn't just become "Make the other guy look worse then us", they actually have to do good and convince people to vote for them and not just against the other guy, because there are alternatives if they are shitty. Of course, for that to work, 15% of the votes needs to have more influence then 0% of the votes. And for that you need a reasonable voting system. But the people who win at the election system are not going to fix that. So you are stuck with this situation, where you don't have any choice whatsover and Hillary can basically do whatever she wants, be as corrupt and as shady as she wants to, because no one sane will allow a Trump presidency.
The electoral college is a good thing. So is the two-party system. Promotes stability and helps keep down regionalism (which would be a huge issue in the USA without a two-party system).
Anyway, people way overestimate the "dangers" of a Trump presidency. He's going to have to deal with the most hostile Congress possible (Democrats will despise him and Republicans will want their power back). He is already pretty moderate on most domestic/social issues and his foreign policy is centered on less-intervention and less military involvement.
|
Hillary Clinton is so camera shy this cycle.
|
On July 27 2016 07:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 07:34 WhiteDog wrote:
Speaking in non english, this would fucking create a storm of shit in france for sure.
"Rhode Island" "yeah !" who the fuck cares about your restauranst mates. This is really funny. Viva american politics. France has an extremely different take on national identity to the United States. Following the Revolution there was a deliberate and concerted effort to impose the idea of France onto a nation far more diverse than people assume. To this day policies focused on integration through housing, public policy, education, religion and so forth have dominated in France. It could not be further from the American melting pot tradition. The United States is composed of areas that were historically speakers of English, French, Spanish, German, Dutch and various native tongues and the descendants of immigrants from around the world far outweigh the descendants of the "original" English founders. France is the area defined as within the borders of the nation state and those within those borders are made into Frenchmen. The United States is, in my opinion, more like an area in which people who choose to be Americans reside. One defines the people, the other is defined by the people. While English is by far the most popular language in the United States English speakers would do well to remember that they are no more entitled to America than anyone else.
Of course you are right, but just one small precision that means a lot to a frenchman.
The revolutionary project of France and of the Republic was universalist. The first revolutionaries considered that anyone who believed in the ideas of the revolution could be called a "French". In the first draft of the french constitution, people who, for exemple, saved children, could legally ask to get the french nationality whoever they were. For this reason, the first revolutionary gave the citizenship to various people as long as they accepted to defend the values of the revolution, such as Anarchasis Cloots, a german. In fact, there is a famous work from a historian that argue that the term "stranger", during the revolution, was used to refer to people who fight against the ideas of the revolution. So it's not the nation and its frontiers that define the frenchmen, at least not originally : it is common values (which is also the reason why france was imperialist).
|
On July 27 2016 07:56 Cowboy24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 07:13 Simberto wrote:On July 27 2016 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:On July 27 2016 06:19 biology]major wrote:On July 27 2016 05:52 Mohdoo wrote:On July 27 2016 05:48 xDaunt wrote:On July 27 2016 05:47 Doodsmack wrote:On July 27 2016 05:45 xDaunt wrote:
The underlying problem with Democrat/Progressive unity is Hillary herself. Looking at the situation in the light most favorable to her, she lacks the charisma to unify the party like Obama did after that nasty primary. Looking at the situation a little more realistically, she clearly is unlikable to a large chunk of the Democrat base, which makes it very difficult to rally behind her. Donald Trump makes it very easy to rally. That theory hasn't worked out so well thus far. People can be livid about Sanders and still vote for Clinton. As an Oregonian, this is basically the case everywhere, especially in Portland. I don't know how to fully convey just how bad people think trump is. People see him as Hitler. People are mad, pissed even that they have to vote Clinton. They are quick to point out Clinton is awful and the worst but that electing trump is just beyond reasonable. Impossible even for them. Portland is not very representative of the country. Place is weird as hell and is one of the most liberal places in the country. That's why I'm using it as an example of why even the most die hard of Bernie supporters (gh is common. Imaging having 5+ people like gh on your Facebook) tend to begrudgingly agree to vote Clinton. It basically comes down to "I fucking loathe Clinton, but trump represents an actual destruction of our country." If Romney was running, they wouldn't bother. Trump is seen as an actual antichrist. I think conservatives underestimate how these people see trump. It goes so far beyond what I have ever seen. I know people who want Clinton to go to prison, but will vote for her because the other option is unthinkable. After pence, even more so. They would send her to prison, but they are choosing to vote for her. The wonders of a two party system. You hate both alternatives, but you still have to vote for one of them because the other possibility is just horrifyingly disgusting. FPTP is just so incredibly archaic and nonsensical. Imagine how different the US political landscape would look like if there were multiple parties, one for the crazy christian republicans, one for the tea party people, one for the center democrats, one for Bernie people, and possibly 1-2 more. Suddenly the priority of everyone doesn't just become "Make the other guy look worse then us", they actually have to do good and convince people to vote for them and not just against the other guy, because there are alternatives if they are shitty. Of course, for that to work, 15% of the votes needs to have more influence then 0% of the votes. And for that you need a reasonable voting system. But the people who win at the election system are not going to fix that. So you are stuck with this situation, where you don't have any choice whatsover and Hillary can basically do whatever she wants, be as corrupt and as shady as she wants to, because no one sane will allow a Trump presidency. The electoral college is a good thing. So is the two-party system. Promotes stability and helps keep down regionalism (which would be a huge issue in the USA without a two-party system). Anyway, people way overestimate the "dangers" of a Trump presidency. He's going to have to deal with the most hostile Congress possible (Democrats will despise him and Republicans will want their power back). He is already pretty moderate on most domestic/social issues and his foreign policy is centered on less-intervention and less military involvement.
Considering Trumps, my way or the highway, attitude I can see him bypass congress through executive action if they try to stop him. And just ask the Republicans how hard it is to stop those.
|
On July 27 2016 08:00 Deathstar wrote:
Hillary Clinton is so camera shy this cycle.
Its been over 230 days since her last press conference.
|
On July 27 2016 06:42 zeo wrote:
DC wants to become a state? wtf?
Yes.
There's two major reasons: first, the "taxation without representation" bit, when DC has a larger population than Vermont/Wyoming, and has a larger GDP than 15 other states. This of course is primarily blocked by the GOP, because the DC population is heavily urban, black, and liberal, which means giving 2 Senators to the Democrats for the foreseeable future.
The second main reason is that the DC budgets has to be approved by Congress (though DC has tried recently to assert budget independence, likely futilely), and successive Republican Congresses have used DC's budget as a political tool for voters at home and consistently worked to slash/undercut them for talking points back home in Iowa and the like. People in DC especially aren't happy their municipal/state budget is consistently held hostage to politicians from outside the state hoping to prove their fiscal conservatism without slashing money going to their own home states/districts.
|
There was a huge walkout at the convention, corporate media will tell you soon, maybe.
|
On July 27 2016 07:54 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 07:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 27 2016 04:45 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2016 04:43 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 27 2016 04:40 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2016 04:38 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 27 2016 04:37 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2016 04:34 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 27 2016 04:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 27 2016 04:11 VayneAuthority wrote:
[quote]
thats your made up tumblr version of what racism is. I didn't make up the term racism or white privilege, and they're well understood in sociological contexts. I strongly recommend some general reading on the subject of the latter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege There are ~150 additional citations at the bottom of that page, if you're interested in learning more. On July 27 2016 04:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:
[quote]
That is 100% racist though. White privilege as currently defined in contemporary political discourse is racial original sin and collective guilt wrapped into one. Racist as hell.
They could avoid this by dropping the bullshit and going back to what it actually is and what it used to be called: discrimination. White privilege is discrimination by and for whites. Simple as that.
Drop the racist pop pyschology about how whites can't understand or cannot have the proper empathy and all the other racist bullshit that is simply a way to tell white people to shut up and accept the political opinions of non-whites as superior. White people absolutely can be empathetic towards other races, but to be immediately dismissive and assume that minorities are overstating their well-documented issues of dealing with prejudice is a position of blissful ignorance. No one is saying that non-whites are superior; in fact, the point is that non-whites are frequently viewed as automatically inferior due to bigotry. wew lad trying to rewrite extremely easy to look up clear cut things, interesting racism ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/Submit noun the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. There is no picking and choosing, it is all negative/positive bias aka my definition, not your made up one. The meaning of words is not set in stone and citing a dictionary isn’t going to win this argument. The discussion of privilege within a demographic and region is completely valid and real. Privilege is regional and based on the dominate demographic in that culture. White privilege does not exist in Japan. But is very real in the US. ok so your position is words dont mean anything. guess ill just use the N word whenever I feel like it, its meaning isnt set in stone right? Ok, so you do realize that the word you just cited has different meanings based on who uses it and who they are saying it to, right? No it doesn't. No one uses the hard R word in any context except one. Yeah it does, sorry. The N-bomb means different things depending on who says it to whom. White as the driven snow guys like me don’t get to use it. I've never found a compelling rational argument for this phenomenon whenever people try to explain it to me it just seems driven purely by emotions. Either a word is offensive and shouldn't be used, or it isn't. The very idea that certain skin colors should be able to say or do certain things that others can't is inherently racist We're now arguing it's racist to say white people shouldn't use the N bomb?
I'm saying if a word is culturally decided to be a racial slur that ought not be used, then no one should use it.
It's irrational to advocate the position 'oh this is a racial slur but it's only bad if white people say it. it's okay for black people to say it'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
