US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

Actually what your article stated is this (of Alderman Lopez):

"He offered no evidence of who might have vandalized the statue, and though no one has since been arrested for the vandalism, or claimed responsibility, Lopez noted that nearby Marquette Park had been a stronghold for Illinois Nazis."

So actually there is no evidence that "white supremacists" vandalized the statue.

I said two things: that you have been claiming that happened in the last two weeks, when it happened two years ago. (Although tacit, I guess you concede that.) And that it was deemed by authorities to have been likely the work of white supremacists, given the timing...just after Charlottesville, and the proximity to a "stronghold for Illinois Nazis." So how was I wrong?

It's an easy cop-out to blame "white supremacists" for everything. We saw that with the recent riots. Despite Antifa and Black Lives Matter destroying everything, some people actually put blame on "white supremacists" for it on the grounds that most of the people in Antifa are white. What brilliant logic.

It's an easy cop-out to blame Antifa for everything, too. Or people who were really just there to protest that Black Lives Matter. It seems that you don't believe that "outside agitators" could include folks on the right? I'm not sure how you would know that. But if you look at how basically peaceful protests have been in places like Newark, NJ have gone, where no outside agitators would likely have been bothered, I think the case can be made that they came to the bigger cities.

 

[the AntiPusher]

How do you get killed because you feel asleep in the drive thru line at Wendy’s in ATLANTA..of all places? Why did the Wendy's personnel felt compelled that the police was needed to awake a person who had fallen asleep? Was the late Mr Brooks considered a danger or it was too dangerous to knock on his window? Why would the Police shoot the man who fired at taser gun afterwards he resisted arrest. Yes..Mr Rashad Brooks escalated the incident by resisting arrest but to shoot the man too shit when they could have shot him in the leg is truly the reason for this antiPolice uprising. This is what Internal Affairs 99.9 percent rule as a "bad police shot" meaning the taser wasn't consider a deadly weapon. It appears that they was embarrassed because Mr Brooks was able to out tussle the two cops. The police knew that the taser couldn't harm them because Mr Brooks was more than 20 to 30 feet out of the range of the taser. The shoot to kill mentally will always take precedence over sparring the life of a non Caucasian person..

 

[the AntiPusher]

The quickest and only solution is to reallocate funds of the police department is what is warranted in America immediately. The dumbass slogan Defund the police is in the same zipcode with "Fuck the Police". If someone at Wendy called the fire department or EMS , Mr Brooks would still be alive.

 

[Federberg]

You are missing the point, and you are wrong. This is a basic misconception . Police was not created to keep black people down. Period. PERIOD. This is so blatantly obvious that it feels like talking about flat earth.

please don't embarrass yourself mate, learn about the history of policing in the USA before you make such a declarative statement. You're well meaning, albeit your tendency to try to explain things to the rest of us poor souls is humorous But really you've gone off the reservation with that statement.

On the other hand I do agree that something more than systemic racism is required to explain current day South Africa. At least in terms of the lack of progress. 25 years is a long time. The day the ANC finally fractures is the day we can start to anticipate real economic and social advances there

 

[the AntiPusher]

please don't embarrass yourself mate, learn about the history of policing in the USA before you make such a declarative statement. You're well meaning, albeit your tendency to try to explain things to the rest of us poor souls is humorous But really you've gone off the reservation with that statement.

On the other hand I do agree that something more than systemic racism is required to explain current day South Africa. At least in terms of the lack of progress. 25 years is a long time. The day the ANC finally fractures is the day we can start to anticipate real economic and social advances there

Mrzz. You are extremely extraordinary WRONG..I know over the past few months alot of chatter has been addressing these systemic racism incidents and other events yet it appears that you still are looking for the Why... correct me if I'm not accurately describing your posts.

 

[Moxie]

Important distinction I made is that systemic (or structural) racism and institutionalized racism are completely different things. Institutionalized racism can easily exist, as Jim Crow and the Apartheid are sad evidences. My point is that "systemic" or structural racism either do not exist or are useless concepts, what exists is either real (closet, veiled) racism or incompetence to deal with social consequences of past Institutionalized racism. If you say I confuse the two, you put me in the position of one who denies reality.

I still disagree with you that they are completely different things. You are acting as if when Jim Crow or Apartheid were repealed, that just because the "Institution" of racism, i.e., sanctioned by law, ceased to exist, that racism simply became anecdotal and individual. If I'm understanding you correctly, then you are ignoring the fact that, given that the institution was ever in place, and the people that effected it and had the power over it, (lawmakers, police,) are still in positions of power, that you still have de facto institutionalized racism. And it is systemic. Which doesn't even account for the deeply ingrained racist ideas that you have formed with all of that. There are many complicated issues that come into play here, but the US has a long history of racism, and a long history of violence. And they often conflate.

You do know that Mandela rose to power in 1994, right? And that the Apartheid system is no more? 25 years ago, a quarter of a century ago. Do you think that South Africans are so incompetent that they could not change the laws and the institutions in 25 years? Are you saying that the laws in South Africa are racist? South Africa is clear example of a society trying to deal with the heritage of institutionalized racism. And, yes, obviously there are probably still racist whites in South Africa in positions of power (probably in an Economics sense). But, again, that is real people being bluntly racist. Try to find one South African blaming "systemic" racism for the problems they have there. The only way someone would do that is to call the real world problem that most land is owned by whites "systemic racism".

I am no expert on South Africa by a long stretch, but some of the bolded above sounds rather naive. Are there really no South Africans who blame systemic racism for the problems they have? I know a white South African who still would, and does. And you say that the "only" thing you count is...oh, right...most land is owned by whites there. That's rather a big deal to say "only" about.

You are missing the point, and you are wrong. This is a basic misconception . Police was not created to keep black people down. Period. PERIOD. This is so blatantly obvious that it feels like talking about flat earth. Police was used, either lawfully when the laws were racist (thus immoral) or downright unlawfully, to keep black people down. The difference is enormous, and extremely important. And, nowadays, Police has a very clear and objective goal, detailed in law and codes of conduct. They are supposed to have accountability.

Right, they're supposed to have accountability. Have you read anything about the history of white cops killing black and brown people and being prosecuted for it, much less held actually accountable? Just because there's a system of laws, doesn't mean it's fairly applied.

Something is not right? Protest. The point is, you either play the social game, act as part of the social contract, or not. If you can challenge the role of police, you open the door to challenge (outside the rules of social behavior) the function of any civilized social institution. Do you want to play that game to the ultimate level (which is the logical consequence of that)? Do you realize what ultimate level means?

Are there contexts where I think the only option is total confrontation? Yes. Do I think this is one? No.

Something is not right, so we're protesting. I've already told you that the social contract, for many people now in my country, and not just black and brown people, feels broken. I've already explained why, so I won't do it again. Too many black people getting killed for no reason, too many cops getting off for it. Too many people crying about the destruction of public property as if it's more important than the lives of actual humans. If this is the "ultimate level," in terms of real change, I hope we are there. Defend the cops in your country if that is right for you, but I'm done defending the cops in mine. I know they're not all bad, but the institution needs a structural change, and that is the issue on the table here. And its time has come.

About stop and frisk. I know what it is. The point, again, is that people don't understand the job police has to do. They don't understand what happens if police works in an environment where, for social reasons, most crime is committed by one ethnic group. A black policeman after ten years on the job will react according to the patterns his brain learnt on his day to day experience. He will himself stop more people from one group than from the other. You want to deal with that, deal with the cause, not with the effect. Train the police to do better profiling and or interact better or whatever you need to do. The police job is to prevent crime. If you don't want the police doing that, fine, so say it out loud. It is a legitimate position. But don't hide it behind a supposedly anti-racist position.

Police (or bad police) is not the disease. It's the symptom.

Again, we fundamentally disagree here. You are very sympathetic to police being in danger, and you say that "one" ethnic group might more likely perpetrate it. This is the crux of the argument, and it goes back to systemic racism. Yes, there's higher crime in neighborhoods of color, (though also in impoverished white communities.) Why? Poverty, which comes from a long history of racism, and classicism. I know that's the same in Brazil. And here's where the long roots of history come into play: In the Jim Crow era, white people vilified black men, also particularly in the context of white women. (I'll come back to this later.) You can't enslave them anymore? Make them the object of white fear. All those years of horrible things you did to them? They must be angry...so you turn your violence on them into threat. Then you also keep them down economically. So they live in shitty circumstances, with fewer options. Then the Civil Rights movement happens. Congress and the Supreme Court pass laws to give blacks equality in many things, like voting. So what happens? Suddenly the NRA goes from being a gun club to a political force. Why? Arm white people against the insurrection to come. "Law and order" becomes a political slogan, and what it means is keeping black people in place. (It took a long time to get here, but this is my point about police being about keeping down black people.) Then we get the war on drugs. (Not powder cocaine, because that was the drug of choice of rich white folks. Crack cocaine, which was a black street drug.) Bottomline: what happens? Cops, even black cops, see black men as a threat. We've created a long running narrative on that. So now a black man reaches for his driver's license, or a 12-year-old black boy has a toy gun in a playground or an African immigrant reaching for his wallet to show ID is perceived as a threat. For no reason other than that they are black, and they get shot and they die. They cop is nervous. And we know why. He's been taught to be. Not by recent history, but by long history.

I am not saying not to talk about racism. I am saying to stop to talk about ghost forms of racism. Real racism will keep kids away from school and jobs, as the social problems we inherit do as well. So we need to talk AND take action. And "action" means real world policies were "systemic racism" is at best a vague notion that can be used to generic justifications.

"At least per se" means that you are talking about specific cases -- and by the way you replied with a list of names. I will analyze the data, yes, because on the data there is a human component too, but in scale. When people march over one case, they are taking this event as a representative one. To pretend that is not the case is hypocrisy on a level I cannot bear.

I don't understand how taking this case of the murder of George Floyd isn't representative, and rightfully so. Straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[calitennis127]

As I said before, it's not subjective to say that the Confederacy was on the wrong side of history. They lost the war, which they fought to keep slavery.

That is such a silly argument. If "losing a war" or losing in general means that you are on the "wrong side of history," then there are a lot of people who you agree with who were on the "wrong side of history." None of us are divine entities who get to determine what is the "right side of history" or the "wrong side of history."

As for saying that the Confederates "fought to keep slavery," that is a gross oversimplification. Lincoln never justified his invasion as a moral crusade to end slavery. In fact, he offered in his First Inaugural address in March 1861 to introduce an amendment to the constitution that would forever protect slavery if the Southern states stayed in the Union. I'm sorry you don't know about that:

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

The Avalon Project : First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln

avalon.law.yale.edu

Do you dispute either point?

I dispute both. I don't think there is a "right side of history" or "wrong side of history." I think the Confederacy lost because they ultimately did not have the manpower and industrial force of the North. It was a pragmatic reason. The outcome of the war had nothing to do with which side was more moral. Many wars have been won by total scum. Winning doesn't validate the moral positions of the victors. Did Saddam Hussein gassing the Kurds and dominating them mean that he was on "the right side of history" because he was victorious over them? Did the U.S. nuking Japan mean that the U.S. was on the "right side of history" and Japan wasn't?

Speaking of morality, what Sherman did to the South - including the blacks he encountered - was one of the most despicable moments in American history. Black women were raped and slave dwellings were ransacked by the Union soldiers. To imply that Sherman was morally superior to his Southern counterparts defies any sense of morality.

And no, the only people who use that phrase are not totalitarians and Nazis. You're making shit up now.

Well I put the modern left in the same totalitarian camp as the Nazis and Soviets. The difference is that the modern left doesn't have to shoot people and lock them up to maintain control. It simply controls brains through the mass media and tech monopolies.

The Nazis and Soviets each spoke of a "right side of history" all the time. They both ended up dying out. The same will happen to people who think like you, but unfortunately that won't happen until continued immense damage is done by your ideas.

 

[calitennis127]

I said two things: that you have been claiming that happened in the last two weeks, when it happened two years ago. (Although tacit, I guess you concede that.) And that it was deemed by authorities to have been likely the work of white supremacists, given the timing...just after Charlottesville, and the proximity to a "stronghold for Illinois Nazis." So how was I wrong?

You were wrong because you said that the vandalizing "was most likely the work of white supremacists, as it has been deemed by local authorities," while the article you cited states this: the alderman "offered no evidence of who might have vandalized the statue, and....no one has since been arrested for the vandalism, or claimed responsibility....."

All that the alderman did was speculate that it could have been local Nazis, but he offered no evidence. You jumped the gun in saying that the vandalism "was deemed by authorities to have likely been the work of white supremacists." Those authorities never deemed anything. The alderman simply speculated.

It's an easy cop-out to blame Antifa for everything, too. Or people who were really just there to protest that Black Lives Matter.

No, it's completely rational to blame these people. They just engaged in massive theft, destruction, and arson across the country - everything from burning an Indian restaurant in Minneapolis to a synagogue in Los Angeles. If Trump supporters did 1/1000th of what these left-wing rioters have done, you would be calling them unhinged fascists. But if the white left-wingers in Antifa and their BLM allies vandalize Mexican restaurants, you're cool with it. All fine and dandy.

It seems that you don't believe that "outside agitators" could include folks on the right?

Very rarely.

But if you look at how basically peaceful protests have been in places like Newark, NJ have gone, where no outside agitators would likely have been bothered, I think the case can be made that they came to the bigger cities.

Most protests have devolved into chaos and have not been peaceful. As I've said many times, if any group on the right caused 1/1000th of the damage that Antifa and Black Lives Matter have caused in the past 2 weeks, you would be calling them unhinged fascists and blaming it on "Trump's America," especially when you consider all the damage to non-white businesses and restaurants (not to mention that 70 COVID testing sites that were destroyed). Just a couple reminders for you:

79 Korean Businesses & Several Viet Businesses Looted and Destroyed
June 3, 2020

79 Korean Businesses & Several Viet Businesses Looted and Destroyed - Asian Dawn

June 3, 2020 The numbers are staggering. Hundreds of Asian owned businesses have been destroyed and with them, the hopes and dreams of hundreds of hard-working Asian families across the United States. It is not clear how many Chinese-American, Indian-American, and other Asian businesses have...

www.asian-dawn.com

70 coronavirus test sites were destroyed during the George Floyd protests, according to the US government. Officials worry it could lead to a spike of infections.
Bill Bostock

Jun 10, 2020, 10:59 AM

70 coronavirus test sites were destroyed during the George Floyd protests, according to the US government. Officials worry it could lead to a spike of infections.

White House coronavirus chief Deborah Birx also warned that protesters' yelling could override the benefit of wearing masks, The Daily Beast reported.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[calitennis127]

As to the statues, they have also often been erected as a threat to black people...defining boundaries and reminding of the power of white racists.

No, believe it or not Moxie, some people can look at a statue and not have the first thought that comes to mind be "did this guy own slaves?" Those monuments were erected for a variety of reasons, and hardly ever for reasons having to do with slavery. Robert E. Lee, for example, was one of the most admired men in the USA throughout the 20th century. He was praised by, among others, both Roosevelts (Teddy and FDR) as well as Eisenhower. They all spoke glowingly of him and his life. And Teddy Roosevelt was born in New York City. FDR was born in Hyde Park, New York. Northerners gushed over Lee for decades, and their admiration for him had nothing to do with "threatening" black people.

Also, how the hell is it in any way the fault of the statues that in Democrat-run Minneapolis a cop killed George Floyd? What do the two have to do with each other? None of the leaders in Minneapolis even lean right politically. Why can't they take blame for their own failures instead of blaming statues hundreds of miles away?

 

[Moxie]

That is such a silly argument. If "losing a war" or losing in general means that you are on the "wrong side of history," then there are a lot of people who you agree with who were on the "wrong side of history." None of us are divine entities who get to determine what is the "right side of history" or the "wrong side of history."

You're trying way too hard on this. Sure, the fascists won the Spanish Civil war, but the right side of the argument eventually prevailed. Is it hard for you to see this? I can understand that it's hard to say who really owns the moral high ground in history, but you're taking a stray remark too far, and you really are pulling in with too many of the bad guys for the sake of stretching a point too far.

As for saying that the Confederates "fought to keep slavery," that is a gross oversimplification. Lincoln never justified his invasion as a moral crusade to end slavery.

It really isn't. It got taught to some of us in school that way, because it was prettier to think so. Obviously every march to war is complicated, but the Civil War was about slavery. And yes, Lincoln had to find his way to understanding where the moral high-ground was on slavery, but he did get there. I do know where he started and how he got there. I am not going to refight the entire Civil War with you. Nor the 2nd World War. You can deflect every argument you want with a thousand pounds of bullshit and a flurry of citations from the internet. It still doesn't answer the question as to whether you actually pull in with the Confederacy and its symbols. Are you waving Old Glory and singing the national anthem, and getting mad at those who take a knee, for the sake of injustice? Or are you waving the Rebel flag? If you wave the Rebel Flag, you should take a knee. You're the one who says it's not a racist symbol. So it's a sign of rebellion. I'm sure the irony is not lost on you.

 

[mrzz]

If I'm understanding you correctly, then you are ignoring the fact that, given that the institution was ever in place, and the people that effected it and had the power over it, (lawmakers, police,) are still in positions of power, that you still have de facto institutionalized racism. And it is systemic.

I am not ignoring that fact. Actually, you did agree with me and haven't noticed, because yourself wrote above that people who are in positions of power are racists. And that is exactly my point. It always comes down to the individual. If it is an individual in a position of power -- the effect is worst. And you are calling that (now) "systemic racism". Again, you can morph this in the shape or form that you want. So, as a concept, it is useless. Fight real racism, don't create ghosts.

I know a white South African who still would, and does. And you say that the "only" thing you count is...oh, right...most land is owned by whites there. That's rather a big deal to say "only" about.

No wonder he is white... and the "only" in no way meant that said problem was small. It is a huge one (that you can actually measure, btw). What the hell is naive on my statement? That there are real problems -- that started in Apartheied days -- that still need to be solved even if the oppressed ethnicity is in power for 25 years? And suddenly inventing an empty expression to describe those problems in not naive? Gimme a break.

Again, we fundamentally disagree here. You are very sympathetic to police being in danger, and you say that "one" ethnic group might more likely perpetrate it. This is the crux of the argument, and it goes back to systemic racism. Yes, there's higher crime in neighborhoods of color, (though also in impoverished white communities.) Why? Poverty, which comes from a long history of racism, and classicism. I know that's the same in Brazil. And here's where the long roots of history come into play: In the Jim Crow era, white people vilified black men, also particularly in the context of white women. (I'll come back to this later.) You can't enslave them anymore? Make them the object of white fear. All those years of horrible things you did to them? They must be angry...so you turn your violence on them into threat. Then you also keep them down economically. So they live in shitty circumstances, with fewer options. Then the Civil Rights movement happens. Congress and the Supreme Court pass laws to give blacks equality in many things, like voting. So what happens? Suddenly the NRA goes from being a gun club to a political force. Why? Arm white people against the insurrection to come. "Law and order" becomes a political slogan, and what it means is keeping black people in place. (It took a long time to get here, but this is my point about police being about keeping down black people.) Then we get the war on drugs. (Not powder cocaine, because that was the drug of choice of rich white folks. Crack cocaine, which was a black street drug.) Bottomline: what happens? Cops, even black cops, see black men as a threat. We've created a long running narrative on that. So now a black man reaches for his driver's license, or a 12-year-old black boy has a toy gun in a playground or an African immigrant reaching for his wallet to show ID is perceived as a threat. For no reason other than that they are black, and they get shot and they die. They cop is nervous. And we know why. He's been taught to be. Not by recent history, but by long history.

I am not sympathetic to police being in danger. I am only not being hypocritical that I want to live in a world with no police. Unfortunately, history shows that we need police. Even countries with sky high social standards need police. I know damn well that policemen can abuse authority -- specially if they have prejudice. But I also am able to acknowledge that their job is a fucking difficult one.

I agree that cops, even black cops, see black men as a threat. The difference between us is how we respond to that question. And, yes, cops are nervous. Problem is that even good cops are nervous (and no, I am not saying that the recent assassination was committed by a good cop, before you accuse me of that). That people would get hurt from the "war on police" climate was, and is, and obvious conclusion.

Of course white racists with access to fire arms and political force would try to bend institutions in their favor. But the moment you conflate it all together, your analysis becomes useless. Do you really think the NYPD is a copy of some local police in some southern state?

By the way, you mentioned crack. Beware of one thing... I also don't like the "war on drugs" concept (people in principle should be free to do everything, including drug themselves), but crack kills way more than cocaine. The greatest war between drug dealers here happened between cocaine and crack dealers. The cocaine dealer's claim was that crack was killing their clients. But, yes, police force are much more lenient with drugs consumed on higher society (which kills the moral argument of the war on drugs).

I don't understand how taking this case of the murder of George Floyd isn't representative, and rightfully so. Straw that broke the camel's back.

Because it makes a hell of a difference if you are talking about one case which represents thousands of similar others. I fully agree with one thing that's been pointed out (old argument, but still good), which is now that there are cameras everywhere (specially body cameras, and car cameras), you cannot cover up evidence that easily. But see how the best response came from within the system? My whole point is: don't try to change a game that you are winning, or at least starting to make it even. Ask any politically active black person if he thinks that the real number of unarmed black people killed by the police is higher now, or in the 80's? If you listen to what the lawyers of Rayshard Brooks are saying (and I agree with a good part of their points, but not all), they are not asking to defund the police, neither to end it. They are asking for better training and better de-escalation abilities. One of the lawyer's raised an important point: the moment Brooks knew he would be handcuffed, he feared for his life. That's understandable, after Floyd's case. But what would be his reaction if he knew what is the actual percentage of black men who do not resist arrest and are killed? How can this matter of public perception can be ignored, specially in this case? (btw, shooting in the back is murder, even considering all the circumstances. Both killer and killed could have prevented that from happening, but that does not exempt the killer's responsibility).

The straw that broke the camel's back is a good argument on paper, but there are a lot more playing out here, including a pandemic and an incoming election. That cannot be ignored.

 

[calitennis127]

You're trying way too hard on this. Sure, the fascists won the Spanish Civil war, but the right side of the argument eventually prevailed.

Lol.....only in your view. This whole way of thinking is selective garbage, which is of course why you are engaging in it. When exactly is it determined who is on the "right side of history" and who isn't? One minute's winners are the next minute's losers. The Soviets had a pretty long run but then their empire crashed in the late 80s/early 90s. If you had asked them during the 1950s or 1960s if they were on the "right side of history," they would have certainly said yes. How did that view of themselves hold up in the early 90s?

As for the idiotic left-wing social activism that is your religion, why exactly is what you believe on the "right side of history"? Is it because black family breakdown and crime have skyrocketed since the 1950s? So many of the negative social indicators in black America today were far less present before the civil rights regime took control of the country. Your stupid ideas and thinking have harmed black America more than help it. So I don't see why you have any grounds for saying that your beliefs are on the "right side of history." Increasingly, they are imploding and looking more and more absurd.

Is Chicago a success story? Why is a city that just had its most violent day in 60 years on the "right side of history"? I doubt it feels that way for its residents.

It really isn't. It got taught to some of us in school that way, because it was prettier to think so.

Ignorant, philistine comment.

Obviously every march to war is complicated, but the Civil War was about slavery.

Not as much as you are insisting.

And yes, Lincoln had to find his way to understanding where the moral high-ground was on slavery, but he did get there.

For pragmatic reasons, because he was trying to win the war.

I do know where he started and how he got there. I am not going to refight the entire Civil War with you. Nor the 2nd World War.

You may want to take the Second World War up with the philistines in the UK who are defacing Churchill's statue and also going after Gandhi's.

If you wave the Rebel Flag, you should take a knee. You're the one who says it's not a racist symbol. So it's a sign of rebellion. I'm sure the irony is not lost on you.

Kaepernick taking a knee had nothing to do with merely "rebelling." It was an ignorant, stupid message of "f u" to the entire history of the United States. He was essentially saying that the entire history of the country was a racist fraud for black people. That is laughably silly, and most blacks who actually lived through segregation would not have agreed with something so ridiculous. For example, do you know who Bob Woodson is? He is a black man who marched with Martin Luther King but he has dissented from the civil rights orthodoxy and he now hates the Democratic Party. He doesn't even agree with Kaepernick's bullshit, yet he marched against actual segregation in the 60s, while Kaepernick was born in the late 80s and grew up in a 1% black town with two white parents who adopted him. It's funny how so many prominent minority activists are created by stupid white leftists like yourself. You make them.

Most of the hate for U.S. history that is in vogue right now on the left is completely manufactured out of ignorance and bigotry. Earlier generations of Americans who actually knew something about the War Between the States (which most Americans now do not) did not view the Confederacy as evil incarnate. They may have viewed slavery as unjust, but they had a balanced view overall. The current one-sided view is just dumb and ignorant.

There are numerous ways that one can exercise 1st Amendment rights, including writing an essay or starting an organization or giving a speech. What Kaepernick did was the equivalent of mooning your neighbor because you disagree with them. Is that "free speech"? Yeah, in a sense it is. But it isn't exactly high-level political rhetoric either. It's actually what I would expect from someone dumb enough to think that unarmed black males are actually at significant risk from police, when there is no data to support that. Only about 0.1% of deaths of black men in the United States annually are accounted for by police killing "unarmed black males."

In other words, you have no case. Your argument is baseless, irrational, and fact-free.

 

[calitennis127]

Am I the only one who finds Trumps insistence on promoting hydroxychloroquine a bit suspicious? You can sort of give him a pass at first - grading on a curve of course - but to now go back to it? I have to ask...despite push back from the medical research community what's he getting out of this?

Let's revisit this Federberg post from May 19th.....how does it look now?

Pushback from the medical research community, huh? It looks like many in the "medical research community" are actually on Trump's side in the HCQ debate, sorry to break it to you. Unfortunately the media have been covering this up:

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Sues FDA for “Irrational” Interference of Access to Life-Saving Hydroxychloroquine
June 14, 2020

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Sues FDA for "Irrational" Interference of Access to Life-Saving Hydroxychloroquine

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (https://aapsonline.org) filed a lawsuit against Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA for “irrational interference” by the FDA with timely access to hydroxychloroquine. Never in history have we seen such a determined effort by...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[Federberg]

Let's revisit this Federberg post from May 19th.....how does it look now?

Pushback from the medical research community, huh? It looks like many in the "medical research community" are actually on Trump's side in the HCQ debate, sorry to break it to you. Unfortunately the media have been covering this up:

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Sues FDA for “Irrational” Interference of Access to Life-Saving Hydroxychloroquine
June 14, 2020

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Sues FDA for "Irrational" Interference of Access to Life-Saving Hydroxychloroquine

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (https://aapsonline.org) filed a lawsuit against Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA for “irrational interference” by the FDA with timely access to hydroxychloroquine. Never in history have we seen such a determined effort by...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

you only have to google this organisation to discover....

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is a conservative non-profit association founded in 1943. The group was reported to have about 5,000 members in 2014. Wikipedia

FFS mate... step up your game

 

[Moxie]

I am not ignoring that fact. Actually, you did agree with me and haven't noticed, because yourself wrote above that people who are in positions of power are racists. And that is exactly my point. It always comes down to the individual. If it is an individual in a position of power -- the effect is worst. And you are calling that (now) "systemic racism". Again, you can morph this in the shape or form that you want. So, as a concept, it is useless. Fight real racism, don't create ghosts.

I am not morphing anything. I still believe that the terms can be used somewhat interchangeably here in the US because there are laws and precedents on the books that discriminate against black and brown people. The repeal of the Voting Rights act is an example. States where ex-felons will never be allowed to vote, when a disproportionate amount of black people in this society have been convicted of felonies...for various reasons endemic to the society and its notions, the war on drugs being one. The gerrymandering of districts to dilute the influence of the black vote. Laws in 10 states have particularly strict regulations about ID, then make it difficult for black people to get the right ones. (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/challenge-obtaining-voter-identification). This is institutionalized disenfranchisement. And if you can't vote, you don't have a voice. And on it goes....

You insist that it's now just down to individuals being racist, and that if I complain about a system that is regulated to be unfair, I'm "creating ghosts." We fundamentally disagree on this.

No wonder he is white... and the "only" in no way meant that said problem was small. It is a huge one (that you can actually measure, btw). What the hell is naive on my statement? That there are real problems -- that started in Apartheied days -- that still need to be solved even if the oppressed ethnicity is in power for 25 years? And suddenly inventing an empty expression to describe those problems in not naive? Gimme a break.

Why "no wonder" that she is white, my South African friend? I think 25 years is a really short time to fix a lot of systemic and institutionalized racism. "Only" was your word, and I'm not clear what was the "empty expression" you're referring to.

I am not sympathetic to police being in danger. I am only not being hypocritical that I want to live in a world with no police. Unfortunately, history shows that we need police. Even countries with sky high social standards need police. I know damn well that policemen can abuse authority -- specially if they have prejudice. But I also am able to acknowledge that their job is a fucking difficult one.

I am not calling for there to be no police, and I don't think most people who know what they're talking about are, either. Let's leave the "Defund the Cops" for a separate conversation, because it's complicated, though I have addressed it.

I agree that cops, even black cops, see black men as a threat. The difference between us is how we respond to that question. And, yes, cops are nervous. Problem is that even good cops are nervous (and no, I am not saying that the recent assassination was committed by a good cop, before you accuse me of that). That people would get hurt from the "war on police" climate was, and is, and obvious conclusion.

These protests in the US are not and never meant to be a "war on police." The fact that the police in many instances have chosen to meet protest against police violence with violence has been a bad signal and a poor choice. But the very fact that cops are "nervous" when they should be out to protect and serve, as is their general motto, speaks not only to racism, but an over-weaponized society, which unfortunately I live in.

Of course white racists with access to fire arms and political force would try to bend institutions in their favor. But the moment you conflate it all together, your analysis becomes useless. Do you really think the NYPD is a copy of some local police in some southern state?

I don't really understand where you're going with this. You kind of mashed a lot of things together without one coherent point that I can even address. Sorry if I'm missing your point.

By the way, you mentioned crack. Beware of one thing... I also don't like the "war on drugs" concept (people in principle should be free to do everything, including drug themselves), but crack kills way more than cocaine. The greatest war between drug dealers here happened between cocaine and crack dealers. The cocaine dealer's claim was that crack was killing their clients. But, yes, police force are much more lenient with drugs consumed on higher society (which kills the moral argument of the war on drugs).

I think we agree as to the War on Drugs, but you rather miss my point by a mile, if you want to talk about crack v. cocaine and the dealers. The point was that when there was a crack epidemic in the mostly black community, we got a huge government response in terms of "law and order," and we also got 3 Strikes, which meant 3 felon convictions and you got a mandatory life sentence. Again, this disproportionately sent black men (and some women) away for life. While at the same time, Hollywood, Wall Street and rich white people where blowing coke up their noses in a complete snow storm. We do agree that the higher end of society gets away with drug use and possession to a disproportionate degree. But now that there's an opioid epidemic, and it's affecting loads of white people, including lots of poor ones, we have a huge sympathy, suddenly, for drug addiction, and a reform of drug laws.

Because it makes a hell of a difference if you are talking about one case which represents thousands of similar others. I fully agree with one thing that's been pointed out (old argument, but still good), which is now that there are cameras everywhere (specially body cameras, and car cameras), you cannot cover up evidence that easily. But see how the best response came from within the system? My whole point is: don't try to change a game that you are winning, or at least starting to make it even. Ask any politically active black person if he thinks that the real number of unarmed black people killed by the police is higher now, or in the 80's? If you listen to what the lawyers of Rayshard Brooks are saying (and I agree with a good part of their points, but not all), they are not asking to defund the police, neither to end it. They are asking for better training and better de-escalation abilities. One of the lawyer's raised an important point: the moment Brooks knew he would be handcuffed, he feared for his life. That's understandable, after Floyd's case. But what would be his reaction if he knew what is the actual percentage of black men who do not resist arrest and are killed? How can this matter of public perception can be ignored, specially in this case? (btw, shooting in the back is murder, even considering all the circumstances. Both killer and killed could have prevented that from happening, but that does not exempt the killer's responsibility).

I'm sorry, but as to the bolded above, I DON'T think the best response has come from within the system. It has come from without, where citizens standing by are filming these cases of flagrant abuse. It's ok if you don't know who many times the police body cameras have been turned off when something bad happens, but you can trust me on that. As to the 2nd bolded above, I'm not sure who you mean is "winning," and why the 'game' doesn't need to change. As to the 3rd bolded, as you really asking that Rayshard Brooks might have reacted differently if he was better up on statistics? As you appropriately said before that statement, Brooks had right to fear for his life, once he was cuffed. Trying to make an analytical argument out of an emotionally charged situation is pretty un-empathetic. So what are you saying: that if black men knew that the statistics weren't as bad as they think, they'd react less-emotionally? Or that the cops would? Doesn't it even shock you that this just happened in the context of what is going on in the US? If I call you naive one more time you're going to come through your computer at me, I'm sure, but I don't know what else to think.

The straw that broke the camel's back is a good argument on paper, but there are a lot more playing out here, including a pandemic and an incoming election. That cannot be ignored.

Obviously there are many things in play. These are complicated issues, as we're trying to parse out. The pandemic I agree with. The election, I really don't, unless you're talking about how Trump continues to play one side against the other, and continually divides the nation. But that's not new, or specific to this. I do think that George Floyd is changing minds and hearts. The scales are falling from the eyes of white people in the US, too. I heard this quote today: "that one set of people could be in a cage, and the people outside couldn’t see the bars.” -- Isabel Wilkerson "The Warmth of Other Suns

Thing is, in the US, even the white people are starting to see the bars.

 

[calitennis127]

Again, we fundamentally disagree here. You are very sympathetic to police being in danger, and you say that "one" ethnic group might more likely perpetrate it. This is the crux of the argument, and it goes back to systemic racism. Yes, there's higher crime in neighborhoods of color, (though also in impoverished white communities.) Why? Poverty, which comes from a long history of racism, and classicism. I know that's the same in Brazil. And here's where the long roots of history come into play: In the Jim Crow era, white people vilified black men, also particularly in the context of white women. (I'll come back to this later.) You can't enslave them anymore? Make them the object of white fear. All those years of horrible things you did to them? They must be angry...so you turn your violence on them into threat. Then you also keep them down economically. So they live in shitty circumstances, with fewer options. Then the Civil Rights movement happens. Congress and the Supreme Court pass laws to give blacks equality in many things, like voting. So what happens? Suddenly the NRA goes from being a gun club to a political force. Why? Arm white people against the insurrection to come. "Law and order" becomes a political slogan, and what it means is keeping black people in place. (It took a long time to get here, but this is my point about police being about keeping down black people.) Then we get the war on drugs. (Not powder cocaine, because that was the drug of choice of rich white folks. Crack cocaine, which was a black street drug.) Bottomline: what happens? Cops, even black cops, see black men as a threat. We've created a long running narrative on that. So now a black man reaches for his driver's license, or a 12-year-old black boy has a toy gun in a playground or an African immigrant reaching for his wallet to show ID is perceived as a threat. For no reason other than that they are black, and they get shot and they die. They cop is nervous. And we know why. He's been taught to be. Not by recent history, but by long history.

This entire paragraph is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. It consists of nothing but misconceptions and lies of the left about society and history. And it is a perfect example of why white leftists are, in terms of quality of life, the #1 enemies of black people. There could not have been more effective creatures for inflicting and imposing misery on black people created than white leftists.

 

[calitennis127]

You can deflect every argument you want with a thousand pounds of bullshit and a flurry of citations from the internet. It still doesn't answer the question as to whether you actually pull in with the Confederacy and its symbols. Are you waving Old Glory and singing the national anthem, and getting mad at those who take a knee, for the sake of injustice? Or are you waving the Rebel flag?

No, I am not waving the Rebel flag. I am actually from the North. But like fellow Northerners Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt (both native New Yorkers), I recognize that Robert E. Lee was a very talented and admirable individual.

Speaking of deflecting, you still refuse to address how one of the two dynasty families of the Democratic Party (i.e. the Clintons) did the following:

- Designated a special day through law for honoring the Confederate flag each year in Arkansas
- Threatened misdemeanor penalties and fines up to $1,000 for people who violated the law
- Signed a law that stated “The blue star above the word “ARKANSAS” is to commemorate the Confederate States of America.”

Do you want to stop deflecting from this? Maybe you're the one with these 2008 Hillary-for-president pins?

REMINDER: Hillary Clinton Celebrated Confederate Flag Day Every Year as Arkansas First Lady – Bill Clinton Signed Law to Honor Confederacy
Published June 12, 2020

REMINDER: Hillary Clinton Celebrated Confederate Flag Day Every Year as Arkansas First Lady - Bill Clinton Signed Law to Honor Confederacy | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

In 2016 Hillary Clinton delivered a KKK-white supremacist speech in Reno, Nevada to a small group of supporters.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[the AntiPusher]

Federerberg or Moxie, maybe one of you can get Mrzz to explain how Dylan Roof( a white man) can go into a church in South Carolina and kill nine people( all black), get arrested by the police and taken to Burger King. Dylan Roof lived to stand trial. Yet Rashad Brooks gets shot in the back at Wendy's. This is another example of systemic racism. I don't understand what's so complicated and why there's all these inquiries by him looking for "explainations". My thoughts are in regards to mrzz, he may be creating the same rabbit holes as Cali does but using different methods.

 

[calitennis127]

Federerberg or Moxie, maybe one of you can get Mrzz to explain how Dylan Roof( a white man) can go into a church in South Carolina and kill nine people( all black), get arrested by the police and taken to Burger King. Dylan Roof lived to stand trial. Yet Rashad Brooks gets shot in the back at Wendy's.

Exactly.....those two situations were the same. No differences at all, except that Roof is white and Brooks is black, so the cops treated them differently. Man, with sharp analysis like that you should be hired by the New York Times. You may actually help improve their level of grammar too.

As usual, you can't even spell words right. It's Rayshard Brooks, not "Rashad." Those two situations were entirely different. Officers give everybody the chance to remain silent and accept an arrest, no matter what they have done. Brooks was talked to for over 20 minutes by the officers before he chose to fight them on the ground and take one of their tasers. I am not a fan of DUI arrests in general, but the rules on the books are the rules on the books and the officers followed the procedures they were given to arrest him for clearly having alcohol in his system. Then he resisted and the scuffle ensued.

As for Roof, he was convicted on 33 federal charges and 13 state charges to a total of 9 life sentences. He is not an example you want to cite of an unfair justice system.

This is another example of systemic racism.

No it's not. Brooks violently resisted arrest. Watch the video. When you resist arrest like that and run away from the cops, you're asking for trouble regardless of your race. There were hundreds of whites shot and killed by police in recent years. When they did similar things, they were also shot. But the media hardly covered it because they were white and did not fit the "RACISM" narrative that dupes low-information people.

I don't understand what's so complicated and why there's all these inquiries by him looking for "explainations".

You could start by learning how to spell the word "explanations."

 

[the AntiPusher]

Exactly.....those two situations were the same. No differences at all, except that Roof is white and Brooks is black, so the cops treated them differently. Man, with sharp analysis like that you should be hired by the New York Times. You may actually help improve their level of grammar too.

As usual, you can't even spell words right. It's Rayshard Brooks, not "Rashad." Those two situations were entirely different. Officers give everybody the chance to remain silent and accept an arrest, no matter what they have done. Brooks was talked to for over 20 minutes by the officers before he chose to fight them on the ground and take one of their tasers. I am not a fan of DUI arrests in general, but the rules on the books are the rules on the books and the officers followed the procedures they were given to arrest him for clearly having alcohol in his system. Then he resisted and the scuffle ensued.

As for Roof, he was convicted on 33 federal charges and 13 state charges to a total of 9 life sentences. He is not an example you want to cite of an unfair justice system.



No it's not. Brooks violently resisted arrest. Watch the video. When you resist arrest like that and run away from the cops, you're asking for trouble regardless of your race. There were hundreds of whites shot and killed by police in recent years. When they did similar things, they were also shot. But the media hardly covered it because they were white and did not fit the "RACISM" narrative that dupes low-information people.



You could start by learning how to spell the word "explanations."

MFR who gives a DAMN if I misspelled his name. Again dumbass, I type from a cellphone that is supposed to be a smartphone. I have some people who has the same spelling of Rashard. So I hope that the late Rayshard Brook's family will forgive my type ooh.