Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On May 24 2020 01:05 farvacola wrote: To complicate the picture, Biden has effectively baited Trump and his campaign into talking about race, even if only by proxy reference to Biden's gaffe, and if this leads to Trump thinking he can say something *smart* about blackness at a debate, I have little doubt that things will wash out, if not go back the other way.
Another angle is that Biden apologized that very same day, and while that's typically regarded as something a candidate does not want to do, it isn't a stretch to imagine that Biden could benefit from doing the one thing Trump never will. Naturally, that'll do little to assuage the concerns of black people tired of white people's apologies, but translating that into the ultimate question of whom to vote for isn't especially clear cut at a high level of generality.
I for one am tired of white people paying lip service without action. I don't care that you've apologized. I want to know what actions you have taken either politically or in your personal life to make the situation better. If you are new and open to ideas/suggestions, then I'm sure there are avenues for you to take to learn more. Otherwise, it's all empty words and does nothing but what you've mentioned farva, make black people tired of apologies. Along those same lines, I think ultimately, if played correctly, this won't hurt Biden at all if they can hammer home the disproportionate affects this pandemic has had on communities of color and how this administration has done little to nothing to help mitigate those issues. I also think that no matter how you cut it, there will be people voting against their best interests again just to spite the candidates. It'll be interesting to see the tone of the campaign going forward.
A lot of Trump's most potent attacks on Democrats and Clinton were birthed from outrageous, seemingly insane gaffes. After a little walk back and a little commitment, he was able to make some pretty big attacks by having the camera on him and explaining why Clinton was satan or whatever. I like the idea of Biden adopting the same tactic.
This is also good for Biden to develop what I am thinking of as "gaffe antibodies". Trump immunized himself from gaffes by being super aggressive/offensive for a long time. "Blood coming out of her wherever" for example. Biden should do the same. Saying someone isn't black is a good bait to talk about Trump's policies hurting people of color.
On May 24 2020 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 24 2020 01:34 Mohdoo wrote:
On May 24 2020 01:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 24 2020 00:56 Mohdoo wrote:
On May 24 2020 00:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 24 2020 00:25 Mohdoo wrote:
On May 23 2020 21:17 brian wrote: i’m going to try not to talk out both sides of my mouth too much here, but i think Biden said it after explaining his record on voting in alignment with most equal rights measures, etc. so i do think he was well intentioned.
but you don’t say that to charlemagne, much less anyone else, and do so respectfully? idk. charlemagne could’ve dunked him on the spot, it was merciful on his part that it ended like it did. he’s one of the most passionate ppl in radio, he’s far from stupid.
oh i’m sorry, i misunderstood which video had the idiot. my inner cthagod fanboy got triggered.
Yeah, the one who had a chant ready and waiting (with other people ready and waiting to join the chant LOL) while he raddled off his shitty monologue, waiting for Biden to say he will deport convicted felons. Biden saying he'd deport felons (probably waiting for him to say he'd deport anyone at all) was clearly the pre-determined chant cue. It was a big swing and a miss.
I'm short, bravery isn't enough. You need to also make a positive difference. Bravery is situational and just like the women who interrupted Bernie, it was a clear example of how bravery can be misplaced and non productive. Gotta do a good job, can't just try your best.
Is that how you would articulate your efforts toward rectifying the horrific treatment Biden shares responsibility for regarding immigrants and the children in cages denied basic sanitary supplies during his time as VP?
I'm not rectifying anything. The mistake you're making is thinking any of that would impact my decision to vote for him. All deportations are unethical in my eyes, but we've already been through your whole "only vote for people you truly believe in and share your core values and whatnot". I reject it. I've told you my reasons and you've heard them. No need to make people read the same shit over and over.
As a Hispanic man looking to decrease Hispanic suffering, a vote for Biden is a slam dunk for me. If there's a point you feel you haven't made before, I'd love to hear it, but I don't think that is going to be the case. Let's not repeat arguments.
Basically just that the belligerence from Biden and in your argument toward these people seems preposterous to me. That your celebration of that belligerence is celebrated by racists who will imitate it. So when Trump tells some immigration protesters to shut up and says they are idiots hurting their cause when they protest about the same things, you'll celebrate them too or your hypocrisy will be on full display.
Also that the standard moderate line "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" is sufficient without the berating and belittling imo.
EDIT: As an aside, has anyone here talked with Black Trump supporters personally?
I think we fundamentally disagree on the role of civility in discourse. I don't see it as entirely necessary. It can be good. It can be bad. Sometimes you need to throw a molotov cocktail, sometimes you don't. It all depends on the situation. There are lots of ways to be very uncivil, but still successful, which I fully support. Interrupting Bernie's speech may have gone well, but it didn't. They did a bad job. Swing and miss. The little posse waiting for their moment to chant at Biden could have been done well, but it wasn't. Another swing and a miss.
If someone yelled some anti-vax thing, I'd totally support Trump or Biden or whoever saying "shut up you fucking idiot". The message and the quality both matter. Without both, big thumbs down from me. That girl who got meme'd for yelling at someone about "you're a fucking white male" likely had ideas I agree with somewhere in her head, but she was a disaster and made things worse.
I see no reason not to belittle people in this circumstance. I see them as damaging to causes I believe in. It saddens me that they use their time making matters worse. So I won't hesitate to clearly articulate the extent to which I think they are poor performers. We are here discussing the role of activism in political movements/action. Critiquing what we think works and doesn't feels appropriate. I can recall a few times when you didn't think people were going a good direction with regards to political action. Critique is a part of the conversation. When I think someone is particularly bad, I will describe them as such. "white male", biden posse and the 2 girls interrupting bernie were all notably bad.
Are you doing this kind of work providing you with relevant experience and insight on capabilities and effectiveness or is this more like shouting at the players from the stands?
Can't help but wonder if you could do any better and what excuse you would have for not doing it?
I'm not going to get into one of these personal back and forth conversations you have with people. You are welcome to think what you will.
Just trying to give the critique what I see as appropriate context and offer a bit of my own. After all, 'no reason not to belittle people in this circumstance. I see them as damaging to causes I believe in. It saddens me that they use their time making matters worse. So I won't hesitate to clearly articulate the extent to which I think they are poor performers. We are here discussing the role of activism in political movements/action. Critiquing what we think works and doesn't feels appropriate.'
By all means, criticize as you see fit. I'm just saying the thread is better without the persistent personal stuff. I won't be participating, but I see no problem with you pointing out issues you perceive.
On May 24 2020 01:05 farvacola wrote: To complicate the picture, Biden has effectively baited Trump and his campaign into talking about race, even if only by proxy reference to Biden's gaffe, and if this leads to Trump thinking he can say something *smart* about blackness at a debate, I have little doubt that things will wash out, if not go back the other way.
Another angle is that Biden apologized that very same day, and while that's typically regarded as something a candidate does not want to do, it isn't a stretch to imagine that Biden could benefit from doing the one thing Trump never will. Naturally, that'll do little to assuage the concerns of black people tired of white people's apologies, but translating that into the ultimate question of whom to vote for isn't especially clear cut at a high level of generality.
I for one am tired of white people paying lip service without action. I don't care that you've apologized. I want to know what actions you have taken either politically or in your personal life to make the situation better. If you are new and open to ideas/suggestions, then I'm sure there are avenues for you to take to learn more. Otherwise, it's all empty words and does nothing but what you've mentioned farva, make black people tired of apologies. Along those same lines, I think ultimately, if played correctly, this won't hurt Biden at all if they can hammer home the disproportionate affects this pandemic has had on communities of color and how this administration has done little to nothing to help mitigate those issues. I also think that no matter how you cut it, there will be people voting against their best interests again just to spite the candidates. It'll be interesting to see the tone of the campaign going forward.
A lot of Trump's most potent attacks on Democrats and Clinton were birthed from outrageous, seemingly insane gaffes. After a little walk back and a little commitment, he was able to make some pretty big attacks by having the camera on him and explaining why Clinton was satan or whatever. I like the idea of Biden adopting the same tactic.
This is also good for Biden to develop what I am thinking of as "gaffe antibodies". Trump immunized himself from gaffes by being super aggressive/offensive for a long time. "Blood coming out of her wherever" for example. Biden should do the same. Saying someone isn't black is a good bait to talk about Trump's policies hurting people of color.
On May 24 2020 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 24 2020 01:34 Mohdoo wrote:
On May 24 2020 01:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 24 2020 00:56 Mohdoo wrote:
On May 24 2020 00:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 24 2020 00:25 Mohdoo wrote:
On May 23 2020 21:17 brian wrote: i’m going to try not to talk out both sides of my mouth too much here, but i think Biden said it after explaining his record on voting in alignment with most equal rights measures, etc. so i do think he was well intentioned.
but you don’t say that to charlemagne, much less anyone else, and do so respectfully? idk. charlemagne could’ve dunked him on the spot, it was merciful on his part that it ended like it did. he’s one of the most passionate ppl in radio, he’s far from stupid.
oh i’m sorry, i misunderstood which video had the idiot. my inner cthagod fanboy got triggered.
Yeah, the one who had a chant ready and waiting (with other people ready and waiting to join the chant LOL) while he raddled off his shitty monologue, waiting for Biden to say he will deport convicted felons. Biden saying he'd deport felons (probably waiting for him to say he'd deport anyone at all) was clearly the pre-determined chant cue. It was a big swing and a miss.
I'm short, bravery isn't enough. You need to also make a positive difference. Bravery is situational and just like the women who interrupted Bernie, it was a clear example of how bravery can be misplaced and non productive. Gotta do a good job, can't just try your best.
Is that how you would articulate your efforts toward rectifying the horrific treatment Biden shares responsibility for regarding immigrants and the children in cages denied basic sanitary supplies during his time as VP?
I'm not rectifying anything. The mistake you're making is thinking any of that would impact my decision to vote for him. All deportations are unethical in my eyes, but we've already been through your whole "only vote for people you truly believe in and share your core values and whatnot". I reject it. I've told you my reasons and you've heard them. No need to make people read the same shit over and over.
As a Hispanic man looking to decrease Hispanic suffering, a vote for Biden is a slam dunk for me. If there's a point you feel you haven't made before, I'd love to hear it, but I don't think that is going to be the case. Let's not repeat arguments.
Basically just that the belligerence from Biden and in your argument toward these people seems preposterous to me. That your celebration of that belligerence is celebrated by racists who will imitate it. So when Trump tells some immigration protesters to shut up and says they are idiots hurting their cause when they protest about the same things, you'll celebrate them too or your hypocrisy will be on full display.
Also that the standard moderate line "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" is sufficient without the berating and belittling imo.
EDIT: As an aside, has anyone here talked with Black Trump supporters personally?
I think we fundamentally disagree on the role of civility in discourse. I don't see it as entirely necessary. It can be good. It can be bad. Sometimes you need to throw a molotov cocktail, sometimes you don't. It all depends on the situation. There are lots of ways to be very uncivil, but still successful, which I fully support. Interrupting Bernie's speech may have gone well, but it didn't. They did a bad job. Swing and miss. The little posse waiting for their moment to chant at Biden could have been done well, but it wasn't. Another swing and a miss.
If someone yelled some anti-vax thing, I'd totally support Trump or Biden or whoever saying "shut up you fucking idiot". The message and the quality both matter. Without both, big thumbs down from me. That girl who got meme'd for yelling at someone about "you're a fucking white male" likely had ideas I agree with somewhere in her head, but she was a disaster and made things worse.
I see no reason not to belittle people in this circumstance. I see them as damaging to causes I believe in. It saddens me that they use their time making matters worse. So I won't hesitate to clearly articulate the extent to which I think they are poor performers. We are here discussing the role of activism in political movements/action. Critiquing what we think works and doesn't feels appropriate. I can recall a few times when you didn't think people were going a good direction with regards to political action. Critique is a part of the conversation. When I think someone is particularly bad, I will describe them as such. "white male", biden posse and the 2 girls interrupting bernie were all notably bad.
Are you doing this kind of work providing you with relevant experience and insight on capabilities and effectiveness or is this more like shouting at the players from the stands?
Can't help but wonder if you could do any better and what excuse you would have for not doing it?
I'm not going to get into one of these personal back and forth conversations you have with people. You are welcome to think what you will.
Just trying to give the critique what I see as appropriate context and offer a bit of my own. After all, 'no reason not to belittle people in this circumstance. I see them as damaging to causes I believe in. It saddens me that they use their time making matters worse. So I won't hesitate to clearly articulate the extent to which I think they are poor performers. We are here discussing the role of activism in political movements/action. Critiquing what we think works and doesn't feels appropriate.'
By all means, criticize as you see fit. I'm just saying the thread is better without the persistent personal stuff. I won't be participating, but I see no problem with you pointing out issues you perceive.
Well then perhaps you do see a reason not to belittle people in these circumstances? That perhaps the dialogue among those of common cause is better without stuff like
They are idiots...making a huge fuss...he presented himself as a joke...They have every right to want the same policies that I want, but they don't have the right to be belligerent idiots.
, even if you really think it is a helpful and accurate description of the argument or person you're critiquing? Maybe not, but I've made my point and I'll let it rest.
So apparently usage of hydroxychloroquine as part of, or alone as, treatment against covid-19 shows to be raising the chance of death or complications associated with the sickness.
Interpretation We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19.
With the information we have, should the continued spread of misinformation from central federal figures not be considered action with malicious intent, and trigger some reactionary measures against said figures? Should said federal authority figures be considered complicit in any injury or damage caused as a consequence of their misinformation?
On May 24 2020 01:05 farvacola wrote: To complicate the picture, Biden has effectively baited Trump and his campaign into talking about race, even if only by proxy reference to Biden's gaffe, and if this leads to Trump thinking he can say something *smart* about blackness at a debate, I have little doubt that things will wash out, if not go back the other way.
Another angle is that Biden apologized that very same day, and while that's typically regarded as something a candidate does not want to do, it isn't a stretch to imagine that Biden could benefit from doing the one thing Trump never will. Naturally, that'll do little to assuage the concerns of black people tired of white people's apologies, but translating that into the ultimate question of whom to vote for isn't especially clear cut at a high level of generality.
I for one am tired of white people paying lip service without action. I don't care that you've apologized. I want to know what actions you have taken either politically or in your personal life to make the situation better. If you are new and open to ideas/suggestions, then I'm sure there are avenues for you to take to learn more. Otherwise, it's all empty words and does nothing but what you've mentioned farva, make black people tired of apologies. Along those same lines, I think ultimately, if played correctly, this won't hurt Biden at all if they can hammer home the disproportionate affects this pandemic has had on communities of color and how this administration has done little to nothing to help mitigate those issues. I also think that no matter how you cut it, there will be people voting against their best interests again just to spite the candidates. It'll be interesting to see the tone of the campaign going forward.
Totally understand (and agree, to the extent it matters). Dems have to offer up substantive reasons why minorities should vote for them, and the taking for granted that has basically become the political mainstay must be addressed. Biden himself played a figurative role in the genesis of all sorts of awful laws and policies that disproportionately harm black people, so something specific and tangible is called for if he’s going to win the general.
The Libertarian party is holding their convention on Zoom, broadcasted live on YouTube. They are the only party besides Republicans and Democrats that are on the ballot in all 50 states.
VP & surrogates for Vermin Supreme (famous for wearing a boot on his head at public events) are making their pitch.
On the topic of misinformation, apparently almost half of the Republican base believes that bill gates is manufacturing corona virus vaccines with the goal of implanting microchips in people's bodies to track them, 30% more are undecided, only a quarter of Republicans don't believe this conspiracy theory. Even 20% of Democrats agreed with it
In the UK apparently 80 5G towers have been vandalised over theories of spreading covid as well
Those are some truly crazy numbers imo. Digital misinformation is causing serious havoc in Western societies and I still don't think people are paying enough attention to it.
On May 24 2020 13:47 Nyxisto wrote: On the topic of misinformation, apparently almost half of the Republican base believes that bill gates is manufacturing corona virus vaccines with the goal of implanting microchips in people's bodies to track them, 30% more are undecided, only a quarter of Republicans don't believe this conspiracy theory. Even 20% of Democrats agreed with it
In the UK apparently 80 5G towers have been vandalised over theories of spreading covid as well
Those are some truly crazy numbers imo. Digital misinformation is causing serious havoc in Western societies and I still don't think people are paying enough attention to it.
I think it's worth disentangling Bill Gates and his foundation's very real efforts to put microchips into people (voluntarily) as a form of birth control/family planning (which should raise concerns, even presuming the best of intentions) and the idea that he's going to secretly slip chips into the vaccine.
The first is a valid concern about the ramifications of normalizing implanting chips. What's after birth control? How do we control forcible/coerced implantation (like making it a job requirement)? What about hackers? Why not add other functionality like gps, rfid, etc?
The second is a distraction meant to undermine serious discussion about the first and make skeptics of chipping people out to be tinfoil conspiracy theorists akin to anti-vaxxers.
The natural overlap imo isn't hiding the chip in a vaccine, it is things like "the chip could act as a ID tag for people that have been vaccinated/have anti-bodies. It'll also unlock your Iphone while wearing a mask!" and stuff like that. Assuming Bill Gates has absolutely pure intentions, that if realized would be a benefit to humanity, we still can't ignore the risks presented by both normalizing the idea of chipping people and how it can be abused by nefarious actors.
On May 24 2020 13:47 Nyxisto wrote: On the topic of misinformation, apparently almost half of the Republican base believes that bill gates is manufacturing corona virus vaccines with the goal of implanting microchips in people's bodies to track them, 30% more are undecided, only a quarter of Republicans don't believe this conspiracy theory. Even 20% of Democrats agreed with it
In the UK apparently 80 5G towers have been vandalised over theories of spreading covid as well
Those are some truly crazy numbers imo. Digital misinformation is causing serious havoc in Western societies and I still don't think people are paying enough attention to it.
I think it's worth disentangling Bill Gates and his foundation's very real efforts to put microchips into people (voluntarily) as a form of birth control/family planning (which should raise concerns, even presuming the best of intentions) and the idea that he's going to secretly slip chips into the vaccine.
The first is a valid concern about the ramifications of normalizing implanting chips. What's after birth control? How do we control forcible/coerced implantation (like making it a job requirement)? What about hackers? Why not add other functionality like gps, rfid, etc?
The second is a distraction meant to undermine serious discussion about the first and make skeptics of chipping people out to be tinfoil conspiracy theorists akin to anti-vaxxers.
The natural overlap imo isn't hiding the chip in a vaccine, it is things like "the chip could act as a ID tag for people that have been vaccinated/have anti-bodies. It'll also unlock your Iphone while wearing a mask!" and stuff like that. Assuming Bill Gates has absolutely pure intentions, that if realized would be a benefit to humanity, we still can't ignore the risks presented by both normalizing the idea of chipping people and how it can be abused by nefarious actors.
I think this is a good point. We should be examining how technologies could be a bad thing and make sure we have laws/regulations in place to make sure that technologies don't go bad directions. Even if chips in humans has a slam dunk purpose right now, look at what the internet has given us, for better and worse.
On May 24 2020 13:47 Nyxisto wrote: On the topic of misinformation, apparently almost half of the Republican base believes that bill gates is manufacturing corona virus vaccines with the goal of implanting microchips in people's bodies to track them, 30% more are undecided, only a quarter of Republicans don't believe this conspiracy theory. Even 20% of Democrats agreed with it
In the UK apparently 80 5G towers have been vandalised over theories of spreading covid as well
Those are some truly crazy numbers imo. Digital misinformation is causing serious havoc in Western societies and I still don't think people are paying enough attention to it.
I think it's worth disentangling Bill Gates and his foundation's very real efforts to put microchips into people (voluntarily) as a form of birth control/family planning (which should raise concerns, even presuming the best of intentions) and the idea that he's going to secretly slip chips into the vaccine.
The first is a valid concern about the ramifications of normalizing implanting chips. What's after birth control? How do we control forcible/coerced implantation (like making it a job requirement)? What about hackers? Why not add other functionality like gps, rfid, etc?
The second is a distraction meant to undermine serious discussion about the first and make skeptics of chipping people out to be tinfoil conspiracy theorists akin to anti-vaxxers.
The natural overlap imo isn't hiding the chip in a vaccine, it is things like "the chip could act as a ID tag for people that have been vaccinated/have anti-bodies. It'll also unlock your Iphone while wearing a mask!" and stuff like that. Assuming Bill Gates has absolutely pure intentions, that if realized would be a benefit to humanity, we still can't ignore the risks presented by both normalizing the idea of chipping people and how it can be abused by nefarious actors.
There's nothing more concerning about the microchip than there is about an automated insulin pump, other than that 'microchip' sounds scarier, but actually it's really just a smaller version of the same thing, and less invasive and with a more general purpose.
I mean sure there are questions about information security and there actually have been hacks done on medical devices like pacemakers or insulin pumps which have remote interfaces, but this has nothing to do with Bill Gates as a person.
There's really a lot of harm done by trying to find some overlap between these theories and medical technology like this. Women already have hormonal IUD's, it's just that it currently consists of rather medieval medical procedures with quite a lot of side effects.
On May 24 2020 13:47 Nyxisto wrote: On the topic of misinformation, apparently almost half of the Republican base believes that bill gates is manufacturing corona virus vaccines with the goal of implanting microchips in people's bodies to track them, 30% more are undecided, only a quarter of Republicans don't believe this conspiracy theory. Even 20% of Democrats agreed with it
In the UK apparently 80 5G towers have been vandalised over theories of spreading covid as well
Those are some truly crazy numbers imo. Digital misinformation is causing serious havoc in Western societies and I still don't think people are paying enough attention to it.
I think it's worth disentangling Bill Gates and his foundation's very real efforts to put microchips into people (voluntarily) as a form of birth control/family planning (which should raise concerns, even presuming the best of intentions) and the idea that he's going to secretly slip chips into the vaccine.
The first is a valid concern about the ramifications of normalizing implanting chips. What's after birth control? How do we control forcible/coerced implantation (like making it a job requirement)? What about hackers? Why not add other functionality like gps, rfid, etc?
The second is a distraction meant to undermine serious discussion about the first and make skeptics of chipping people out to be tinfoil conspiracy theorists akin to anti-vaxxers.
The natural overlap imo isn't hiding the chip in a vaccine, it is things like "the chip could act as a ID tag for people that have been vaccinated/have anti-bodies. It'll also unlock your Iphone while wearing a mask!" and stuff like that. Assuming Bill Gates has absolutely pure intentions, that if realized would be a benefit to humanity, we still can't ignore the risks presented by both normalizing the idea of chipping people and how it can be abused by nefarious actors.
There's nothing more concerning about the microchip than there is about an automated insulin pump, other than that 'microchip' sounds scarier, but actually it's really just a smaller version of the same thing, and less invasive and with a more general purpose.
I mean sure there are questions about information security and there actually have been hacks done on medical devices like pacemakers or insulin pumps which have remote interfaces, but this has nothing to do with Bill Gates as a person.
There's really a lot of harm done by trying to find some overlap between these theories and medical technology like this. Women already have hormonal IUD's, it's just that it currently consists of rather medieval medical procedures with quite a lot of side effects.
You can ignore the concerns, but it'll just end up like cell phones and Snowden imo.
On May 24 2020 14:34 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's worth disentangling Bill Gates and his foundation's very real efforts to put microchips into people (voluntarily) as a form of birth control/family planning (which should raise concerns, even presuming the best of intentions) and the idea that he's going to secretly slip chips into the vaccine.
The fact that people can't tell the difference between a microchip that delivers drugs (a real thing) and a drug that delivers microchips (a fabrication) is part of what makes this idiocy so astounding.
The former is a real concern, and what the article you're linking to discusses. But very basic critical reasoning skills would make it clear that the two things are not the same, and why these conspiracy theories are so stupid.
A vaccine wouldn't even make sense to deliver via microchip, barring a very odd set of circumstances. The types of drugs you would want to deliver via microchip are drugs that must be taken on a strict, regular schedule that people frequently forget or do not adhere to when they should (e.g. birth control, blood thinners, insulin, etc.), because the benefits have to be worth the up-front procedural costs of manufacturing and implanting the chip. A vaccine is something you get very infrequently (ideally once in a lifetime, but even at its most frequent, the flu vaccine is delivered once a year). Putting a chip on someone wouldn't be worth it just to get one shot.
I watched the video of the Minneapolis cop suffocating a handcuffed man to death for no reason other than to spite the bystanders and it fucked up my evening. We've all had an insecure coworker/relative/whatever that thinks doing what someone else tells them to is some kind of great loss to be avoided at all costs, but that tends to be about some trivial chore, not another person's life.
And then there's the second cop that just puffs his chest at the crowd as if his partner being in the act of killing someone is the most normal thing in the world and the bystanders are just hysterical about lizard people.
Even terrorism is easier to rationalize than this blood boiling mess. Tell you what, if this happened in my country, everyone from their direct superior all the way to the minister of internal affairs would be lining up at TV stations shitting on those cops. But in the land of deniability you get some robotic statements about resisting arrest and get left with the feeling that no one in uniform gives a shit which only perpetuates the issue.
On May 27 2020 02:54 Dan HH wrote: I watched the video of the Minneapolis cop suffocating a handcuffed man to death for no reason other than to spite the bystanders and it fucked up my evening. We've all had an insecure coworker/relative/whatever that thinks doing what someone else tells them to is some kind of great loss to be avoided at all costs, but that tends to be about some trivial chore, not another person's life.
And then there's the second cop that just puffs his chest at the crowd as if his partner being in the act of killing someone is the most normal thing in the world and the bystanders are just hysterical about lizard people.
Even terrorism is easier to rationalize than this blood boiling mess. Tell you what, if this happened in my country, everyone from their direct superior all the way to the minister of internal affairs would be lining up at TV stations shitting on those cops. But in the land of deniability you get some robotic statements about resisting arrest and get left with the feeling that no one in uniform gives a shit which only perpetuates the issue.
Nope, happens in Europe too, maybe with less deadly outcomes, you just don't hear about it much. Move along, watch some tv, ignore the protests and keep believing that it doesn't happen around your parts. (Don't mean to sound condescending, but it's really like that everywhere)
On May 27 2020 02:54 Dan HH wrote: I watched the video of the Minneapolis cop suffocating a handcuffed man to death for no reason other than to spite the bystanders and it fucked up my evening. We've all had an insecure coworker/relative/whatever that thinks doing what someone else tells them to is some kind of great loss to be avoided at all costs, but that tends to be about some trivial chore, not another person's life.
And then there's the second cop that just puffs his chest at the crowd as if his partner being in the act of killing someone is the most normal thing in the world and the bystanders are just hysterical about lizard people.
Even terrorism is easier to rationalize than this blood boiling mess. Tell you what, if this happened in my country, everyone from their direct superior all the way to the minister of internal affairs would be lining up at TV stations shitting on those cops. But in the land of deniability you get some robotic statements about resisting arrest and get left with the feeling that no one in uniform gives a shit which only perpetuates the issue.
Nope, happens in Europe too, maybe with less deadly outcomes, you just don't hear about it much. Move along, watch some tv, ignore the protests and keep believing that it doesn't happen around your parts. (Don't mean to sound condescending, but it's really like that everywhere)
You have to give a source for that. I saw some horrible police violence during the riots in France last year but nothing that comes close to the situation described by Dan.
On May 27 2020 02:54 Dan HH wrote: I watched the video of the Minneapolis cop suffocating a handcuffed man to death for no reason other than to spite the bystanders and it fucked up my evening. We've all had an insecure coworker/relative/whatever that thinks doing what someone else tells them to is some kind of great loss to be avoided at all costs, but that tends to be about some trivial chore, not another person's life.
And then there's the second cop that just puffs his chest at the crowd as if his partner being in the act of killing someone is the most normal thing in the world and the bystanders are just hysterical about lizard people.
Even terrorism is easier to rationalize than this blood boiling mess. Tell you what, if this happened in my country, everyone from their direct superior all the way to the minister of internal affairs would be lining up at TV stations shitting on those cops. But in the land of deniability you get some robotic statements about resisting arrest and get left with the feeling that no one in uniform gives a shit which only perpetuates the issue.
Nope, happens in Europe too, maybe with less deadly outcomes, you just don't hear about it much. Move along, watch some tv, ignore the protests and keep believing that it doesn't happen around your parts. (Don't mean to sound condescending, but it's really like that everywhere)
You have to give a source for that. I saw some horrible police violence during the riots in France last year but nothing that comes close to the situation described by Dan.
Yeah one guy blinded in FR twice during yellow vest. Diaz (the movie) for brutality during a G8 in Italy, and in Austria a black immigrant died to brutality something like 10 years ago.
You'll be glad when you need them, but unfortunately the job attracts sadistic people too.
NPR reports that 4 officers were fired after the video surfaced. Not sure if there will be criminal charges pressed as I just glanced at my notification.
On May 27 2020 06:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: NPR reports that 4 officers were fired after the video surfaced. Not sure if there will be criminal charges pressed as I just glanced at my notification.
The FBI has taken over the investigation apparently.
The scale of violence in the US and people shot by the police is quite extraordinary and probably shouldn't be played down. Some recent stats from 2018: in the UK the police fired guns 12 times while the US saw over a thousand people killed by law enforcement. In the entire England and Wales region, the entire police force maybe uses their guns a dozen times per year.
The amount of background violence is honestly one of the most shocking things when looking at the US from the outside.
EPT
