|
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 28 2017 09:48 Danglars wrote:... You lead me to surmise that you're unable to view dispassionately absolute denials ( example/starting point) because your position is that an accusation already digs them a hole with heightened burden of proof on the accused...
Are you sure you are not confusing the act of the accusation with the reasons why the accusation was made?
|
This confirms what I've felt for a while. Wonder if republicans will start restricting travel by those who associate with the right? Just until we can figure out what's going on?
Almost twice as many people have died in attacks by right-wing groups in America than have died in attacks by Muslim extremists. Of the 26 attacks since 9/11 that the group defined as terror, 19 were carried out by non-Muslims. Yet there are no white Americans languishing inside the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. And there are no drones dropping bombs on gatherings of military-age males in the country's lawless border regions.
Attacks by right-wing groups get comparatively little coverage in the news media. Most people will struggle to remember the shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin that killed six people in 2012. A man who associated with neo-Nazi groups carried out that shooting. There was also the married couple in Las Vegas who walked into a pizza shop and murdered two police officers. They left a swastika on one of the bodies before killing a third person in a Wal-Mart parking lot. Such attacks are not limited to one part of the country. In 2011, two white supremacists went on a shooting spree in the Pacific Northwest, killing four people.
source
|
The professed white supremacist accused of traveling to New York City just to kill a black man — with the intention of stirring racial fears and claiming even more lives — was charged with murder as an act of terrorism on Monday.
James Harris Jackson, 28, was charged with one count each of murder in the first and second degrees as an act of terrorism, among other charges in New York State Supreme Court on Monday for fatally attacking 66-year-old Timothy Caughman with a sword one week ago, the Manhattan district attorney announced.
Jackson was also charged with second-degree murder as a hate crime, as well as three counts of criminal possession of a weapon.
"James Jackson prowled the streets of New York for three days in search of a black person to assassinate in order to launch a campaign of terrorism against our Manhattan community and the values we celebrate," District Attorney Cy Vance said in a statement following the indictment.
"Last week, with total presence of mind, he acted on his plan, randomly selecting a beloved New Yorker solely on the basis of his skin color, and stabbing him repeatedly and publicly on a Midtown street corner," Vance added. "James Jackson wanted to kill black men, planned to kill black men, and then did kill a black man."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/terrorism-charges-white-man-accused-hunting-down-black-men-n739146
|
On March 28 2017 08:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 08:46 Danglars wrote:On March 28 2017 08:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 28 2017 07:43 LegalLord wrote:On March 28 2017 05:59 KwarK wrote:
The allegations of working with the Russians would have a lot less weight to them if our reality didn't look identical to one in which they were actually working with the Russians. I mean sure, it's possible that there is absolutely nothing to this, just because it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck doesn't necessarily mean it's a duck. But they'd have a better case for it not being a duck if they didn't quack so much.
I mean even if we accept the official story, that he flew out to meet with the deputy chairman of Russia's state bank in order to discuss "nothing of consequence", that's still a little odd. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, but comes from a highly untrustworthy source, odds are it's a vulture. Maybe there's an underground conspiracy to collaborate with the Russians to achieve some goal. It's possible, and that's why there's an investigation. But the actual reality looks a lot more like a bunch of corrupt and/or incompetent dipshits looking out for themselves ahead of their own country. Some of their interests lie in countries that include Russia. Problem is that most stories that look like garden variety profiteering or incompetence that involve Russian business interests. There's also unfortunate chats with the Russian ambassador to the US. But they are almost without fail seen as "Russia Russia Russia OMG@@@@." I suppose a decent sanity check would be to look at if the shitty officials in question have shitty ties to other nations. Flynn has shitty ties to Turkey, Manafort to Ukraine, Kushner to China, Sessions I dunno but the case against him was kinda very middling, and so on. Beyond saying that Russia hacked the DNC and leaked documents to Wikileaks, every connection to Russia of particular merit is... tenuous. What doesn't help is that even our intelligence agencies seem to be completely ignorant of even the most simple matters of Russia in a way that makes me wonder if they even know what they are talking about. I made the case earlier, but perhaps if I link the thoughts of a rather consistent Putin critic that would be more meaningful. When the circumstantial evidence is highly dependent on the opinion of an intelligence team that is not known for its strong human intelligence prowess, it's important to have a proper level of suspicion. There's much more than that in favor of saying that Russia hacked the DNC - although the ODNI releases are similarly ineffective at proving it. I see every sign of a bunch of incompetent buffoons looking out for themselves in ways that are bad for the country. Democrats want to see a Russia behind every bush and under every rug. And it's clearly not without a sense of self-interest. That this election had Russian-influenced elements in it is of concern, but Democrats want to make more of it than that, to try to say that they were robbed of what was rightfully theirs by a foreign devil. But if that's true, the proof just hasn't been shown to be there. The problem with Sessions is he is a racist. Democrats are grasping for a lot of straws to make a point of their being robbed, but I don't think it is more than Russian influencing the election by spreading false narratives. They need to get their shit together and come together as a party and find their angle and new speaking points. Leave Trump out of it. He'll ruin himself, by himself. I agree with mostly everything else. If Russia is the boy who cried wolf, racist/racism is the boy who cried lion. It changes little. Sessions is racist, Trump is racist, Trump voters are racist or unconsciously racist, xDaunt is racist, immigration policies are racist ... you get the idea. I have come to understand the charge has more to do with hatred of the Red Team combined with believing too much of the Dem's/media's own spin. But what would politics be without partisanship? I'm not sure you really understand the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. The point is that he cried wolf over and over again where there was no wolf. That's not really the case here with Sessions, Trump, Trump voters or xDaunt and racism.
I argue that it's exactly the case. Every accusation follows a partisan line, like Red Team supports this immigration policy ... racist xenophobic ... 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 and on and on. You look back and none of them were guilty of anything beyond word choice in a politically correct climate. The highest charge was some people bristled at the terminology, which is today more of the smear of emboldening white nationalist frogs wearing red hats. The wolves are hard to find. But, naturally, I'm encouraged to squint hard, tilt my head sideways, and imagine a level-headed dude who it rubs the wrong way, and expand that to actual believed dislike of non-white races beyond indifference/not-full-throated-diversity-advocacy. The record's on repeat. The broad meaning remains someone/something that disagrees with my views on the subject.
|
given the typical bias/error levels, getting people to actually see things accurately re: racism the term doesn't work out in practice.
so I prefer to avoid the topic, unless there's someone truly uninvested in the topic who simply seeks understanding, which does not seem to be the case here.
I recommend dropping the topic for it being unproductive.
|
In reality racism has more to do with effect than intent. Intent is only relevant if we care about what the person what was thinking when the racist thing happened. Google searches end up with some racist results, like black girls providing mostly mug shots through their image search. Google's intent clearly isn't racist. But that intent also has no impact on the end result.
Now if google had refused to address that outcome, claiming their software was working as intended, we could make some conclusions about the company and its views. But again, that is based on outcome, not intent.
|
On March 28 2017 09:25 LegalLord wrote:
Well in any case, would we all agree that "Sessions pushes forward policies that are undesirable for people for whom racial issues are a major concern" is fair? Without trying to put a specific label on him?
Nonsense. He advances policies that some already-opposed parties take issue with. 'Racial issues are a major concern' is equivalent to 'Social justice issues are a major concern' and 'Cultural assimilation issues are a major concern.' It's certainly an editorial viewpoint that takes a debatable side on the issue. I'd rather have people take stands to have the usual suspects (left AND right) react strongly than some centrist RINO that has never taken a position on a class/race/gender warfare topic.
|
On March 28 2017 09:58 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 09:48 Danglars wrote:... You lead me to surmise that you're unable to view dispassionately absolute denials ( example/starting point) because your position is that an accusation already digs them a hole with heightened burden of proof on the accused... Are you sure you are not confusing the act of the accusation with the reasons why the accusation was made?
I'm positive. Did you read the exchange?
|
Trump going back to the blame the Clintons strategy.
|
On March 28 2017 11:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 09:58 Aquanim wrote:On March 28 2017 09:48 Danglars wrote:... You lead me to surmise that you're unable to view dispassionately absolute denials ( example/starting point) because your position is that an accusation already digs them a hole with heightened burden of proof on the accused... Are you sure you are not confusing the act of the accusation with the reasons why the accusation was made? I'm positive. Did you read the exchange?
Yes, I did.
On March 28 2017 08:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I'm going from the reading I have done to base my opinion on Sessions. My being black, I have an innate caution built in towards people who have exhibited this behavior before. He may have changed and he may have completely new views that are more inline with the modern times. I won't know unless I talk to him personally or read something directly from him that convinces me 100%. Is that partisan?...
ZerOCoolSC2 is talking about the reasons why the accusation was made: "exhibited this behaviour before", "he may have changed", "he may have new views". ZCSC2 said nothing at all about the fact that an accusation was made.
@Danglars: I expect you to either justify your statement that ZCSC2 makes judgements based on accusations of racism alone, or for you to apologise to him for slandering him.
|
Seems like he didn't get enough compliments tonight.
|
United States44310 Posts
On March 28 2017 10:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 08:57 KwarK wrote:On March 28 2017 08:46 Danglars wrote:On March 28 2017 08:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 28 2017 07:43 LegalLord wrote:On March 28 2017 05:59 KwarK wrote:
The allegations of working with the Russians would have a lot less weight to them if our reality didn't look identical to one in which they were actually working with the Russians. I mean sure, it's possible that there is absolutely nothing to this, just because it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck doesn't necessarily mean it's a duck. But they'd have a better case for it not being a duck if they didn't quack so much.
I mean even if we accept the official story, that he flew out to meet with the deputy chairman of Russia's state bank in order to discuss "nothing of consequence", that's still a little odd. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, but comes from a highly untrustworthy source, odds are it's a vulture. Maybe there's an underground conspiracy to collaborate with the Russians to achieve some goal. It's possible, and that's why there's an investigation. But the actual reality looks a lot more like a bunch of corrupt and/or incompetent dipshits looking out for themselves ahead of their own country. Some of their interests lie in countries that include Russia. Problem is that most stories that look like garden variety profiteering or incompetence that involve Russian business interests. There's also unfortunate chats with the Russian ambassador to the US. But they are almost without fail seen as "Russia Russia Russia OMG@@@@." I suppose a decent sanity check would be to look at if the shitty officials in question have shitty ties to other nations. Flynn has shitty ties to Turkey, Manafort to Ukraine, Kushner to China, Sessions I dunno but the case against him was kinda very middling, and so on. Beyond saying that Russia hacked the DNC and leaked documents to Wikileaks, every connection to Russia of particular merit is... tenuous. What doesn't help is that even our intelligence agencies seem to be completely ignorant of even the most simple matters of Russia in a way that makes me wonder if they even know what they are talking about. I made the case earlier, but perhaps if I link the thoughts of a rather consistent Putin critic that would be more meaningful. When the circumstantial evidence is highly dependent on the opinion of an intelligence team that is not known for its strong human intelligence prowess, it's important to have a proper level of suspicion. There's much more than that in favor of saying that Russia hacked the DNC - although the ODNI releases are similarly ineffective at proving it. I see every sign of a bunch of incompetent buffoons looking out for themselves in ways that are bad for the country. Democrats want to see a Russia behind every bush and under every rug. And it's clearly not without a sense of self-interest. That this election had Russian-influenced elements in it is of concern, but Democrats want to make more of it than that, to try to say that they were robbed of what was rightfully theirs by a foreign devil. But if that's true, the proof just hasn't been shown to be there. The problem with Sessions is he is a racist. Democrats are grasping for a lot of straws to make a point of their being robbed, but I don't think it is more than Russian influencing the election by spreading false narratives. They need to get their shit together and come together as a party and find their angle and new speaking points. Leave Trump out of it. He'll ruin himself, by himself. I agree with mostly everything else. If Russia is the boy who cried wolf, racist/racism is the boy who cried lion. It changes little. Sessions is racist, Trump is racist, Trump voters are racist or unconsciously racist, xDaunt is racist, immigration policies are racist ... you get the idea. I have come to understand the charge has more to do with hatred of the Red Team combined with believing too much of the Dem's/media's own spin. But what would politics be without partisanship? I'm not sure you really understand the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. The point is that he cried wolf over and over again where there was no wolf. That's not really the case here with Sessions, Trump, Trump voters or xDaunt and racism. I argue that it's exactly the case. Every accusation follows a partisan line, like Red Team supports this immigration policy ... racist xenophobic ... 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 and on and on. You look back and none of them were guilty of anything beyond word choice in a politically correct climate. The highest charge was some people bristled at the terminology, which is today more of the smear of emboldening white nationalist frogs wearing red hats. The wolves are hard to find. But, naturally, I'm encouraged to squint hard, tilt my head sideways, and imagine a level-headed dude who it rubs the wrong way, and expand that to actual believed dislike of non-white races beyond indifference/not-full-throated-diversity-advocacy. The record's on repeat. The broad meaning remains someone/something that disagrees with my views on the subject.
What do you mean none of them were guilty? The Justice Department investigated Trump's rental for discrimination against black people, a charge he didn't even dispute beyond saying it was the 80s and that a lot of people wouldn't rent to blacks. If you can't see the wolves at a certain point it's because you're choosing not to. This is the man who decided that the first black President wasn't an American based upon zero evidence. Who followed that up by saying he was a secret Muslim and was conspiring with terrorists.
One side of the political spectrum chooses to define any questioning of whether or not they might have any racist beliefs as an appeal to identity politics which they dismiss out of hand, thus leaving them safe in the knowledge that they're not a racist. My in-laws are a good example of this. Sure, they regularly refer to Obama as a nigger but that doesn't mean they're racist and anyone saying they might be is just trying to push labels because they don't have real arguments.
So let's try and find your benchmark for a wolf.John Ehrlichman said:
The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities, we could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
Racism?
Ultimately your argument comes down to "how come it's always Republicans being called racist?". Well, firstly, it's not always them and secondly, how come it's always Republicans doing shit like publicly stating that they want to strip minorities of voting rights in order to prevent them from supporting the Democratic party? If you want people to stop calling Republicans racist the first step is to identify the fact that the Republicans are super fucking racist and maybe work on that.
To me this whole thing reeks of "I don't like the way people keep calling us out over that thing that we keep doing over and over, they never call out the other guys who don't do it, this is totally unfair".
|
Also Trump took out a full page ad declaring the central park 5 guilty after they were released due to evidence.
also look up the stuff the Maine governor has said and tell me how it's not racist.
to be fair though people do get unfairly accused of being racist. See Roger Ebert and his review of diary of a mad housewife. But if you explain yourself and behave reasonably most people will realize that you're not racist.
also found this amusing
|
On March 28 2017 12:17 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Also Trump took out a full page ad declaring the central park 5 guilty after they were released due to evidence. also look up the stuff the Maine governor has said and tell me how it's not racist. to be fair though people do get unfairly accused of being racist. See Roger Ebert and his review of diary of a mad housewife. But if you explain yourself and behave reasonably most people will realize that you're not racist. also found this amusing https://twitter.com/AndrewBerkshire/status/846196836322988032
The Trump con is going smoothly so far. Trump has spent 1 in 3 days at a Trump branded property since taking office.
|
On March 28 2017 13:27 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 12:17 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Also Trump took out a full page ad declaring the central park 5 guilty after they were released due to evidence. also look up the stuff the Maine governor has said and tell me how it's not racist. to be fair though people do get unfairly accused of being racist. See Roger Ebert and his review of diary of a mad housewife. But if you explain yourself and behave reasonably most people will realize that you're not racist. also found this amusing https://twitter.com/AndrewBerkshire/status/846196836322988032 The Trump con is going smoothly so far. Trump has spent 1 in 3 days at a Trump branded property since taking office.
You know what they say, gotta look out for number one.
|
On March 28 2017 10:08 hunts wrote:
This confirms what I've felt for a while. Wonder if republicans will start restricting travel by those who associate with the right? Just until we can figure out what's going on?
Puerto Ricans have performed more terrorist attacks on American soil than immigrants/tourists from all the Muslim countries combined.
Also, I don't trust the Times article's neutrality unless they included the anti-Milo Berkeley firebombing.
|
On March 28 2017 13:43 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 10:08 hunts wrote:
This confirms what I've felt for a while. Wonder if republicans will start restricting travel by those who associate with the right? Just until we can figure out what's going on?
Puerto Ricans have performed more terrorist attacks on American soil than immigrants/tourists from all the Muslim countries combined. Also, I don't trust the Times article's neutrality unless they included the anti-Milo Berkeley firebombing.
But were those things actually quantified as terror attacks? Because if we broaden what qualifies as "terrorism" from what the letter of the law is to a feel test, then I'm pretty sure we can easily find tons of lone wolf gunmen that are mentally disturbed that we can apply terrorism to.
|
I still want to know why nobody seems tho care that a guy drove too New York to kill a black guy, did it, and is now being charged with terrorism. or why the club shooting which injured 15 people got very little coverage.
|
On March 28 2017 14:25 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
I still want to know why nobody seems tho care that a guy drove too New York to kill a black guy, did it, and is now being charged with terrorism. or why the club shooting which injured 15 people got very little coverage.
Because the perpetrators weren't also tangentially related to Islam. That there is a clear and consistent theme of white supremacy in America and that it contributes to the frequent killings from white males targeting innocent strangers isn't something white people really want to discuss in general.
Or that when the victims are black that the desire to figure out who did it significantly diminishes in most shootings. So yeah, not going to get much interest in those stories in a place like this.
|
On March 28 2017 14:25 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
I still want to know why nobody seems tho care that a guy drove too New York to kill a black guy, did it, and is now being charged with terrorism. or why the club shooting which injured 15 people got very little coverage.
NY thing is pretty open and shut, looking in. Only real remarkable thing about it is that he managed to trigger a terrorism charge. It's fucked up, but this is the world we live in nowadays. As for the club shooting, I think it just got buried underneath the AHCA circus and whatever nonsense Trump tweeted in the mornings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
