Total posts: 1,950
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The media's obsession with mass shootings follows the typical pattern of anything else they're obsessed about.
In the 1990s, it was "rising crime" where there was none, which led to passage of the most egregious crime bills this country has ever seen --- including in particular the 94 crime bill that Joe Biden called his own.
Same thing with child sex abuse. In the 1980s-2000s, the media became so obsessed with the notion of child sex abuse that the entire field of psychiatry had to develop a (now abandoned) fictitious category of "late onset female" sexual abuser, to describe a media-driven witch-hunt against "satanic daycare workers." This stuff is so stupid it defies comprehension that it was ever taken seriously. And that is to say nothing about people like that Dateline creep, whose "efforts" led to passage of laws that have ruined the lives of high school boys who sext with their girlfriends the country over.
Another example of the media's stupidity we seem to forget about is how vigorously they promoted the idea that vaccines cause autism, even as late as 2006-2007. Of course, there is not now and has never been a scintilla of evidence --- beyond pseudoscience and quackery --- to support that proposition, but the media (being incredibly stupid, biased, sensationalist and willing to report on any gotcha headline they aren't even smart enough to understand) took that story, ran with it and here we are.
Now, they've embraced the collective delusion that there's some kind of onslaught of "white supremacy" in the country, that all republicans/conservatives are "white supremacists" and Donald Trump in particular was a "white nationalist." This is insanity. The media so wholly fail at their most basic, essential function that it is a wonder we can even hold elections in the country that do not descend into complete civil war every cycle like some third-world shithole country.
But of course, they put liars like Adam Schiff on the air to lie directly into the camera on any topic that offends their sensibilities; like the nature and contents of fool Hunter Biden's laptop.
While I don't agree with Steve Bannon on many things, I fully agree that the media are "the real opposition party."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
The language you use matters, but I'm glad you've clarified what you meant.
Created:
Posted in:
I am old enough to remember when the so called "war on terror" was front and center of American foreign policy, to the exclusion of nearly all else. Then, the focus was to dismantle terrorist networks, disrupt their operation and destroy their ability to execute future attacks.
Now, it seems the focus has changed. Formerly, we were interested in Al Qaeda and ISIS. Currently, the Biden administration seems preoccupied with "right wing" groups.
Several developments inform my consideration, as well.
1. Christopher Wray's statements on "domestic terrorism" both before and after the events of January 6, 2021.
2. The media's characterization of the events that took place on January 6, 2021 as an "insurrection" and those who participated in any way in the events of January 6, 2021 as "terrorists."
3. The strange obsession media seem to have with "mass shootings," where a "mass shooting" is defined as the public discharge of a firearm anywhere in the United States where at least two people are injured (see CNN's chart on the same, from a few weeks ago).
4. The strange obsession media seem to have with so called "white supremacy" and other delusions of racial persecution.
I really, really do not like being in the position of defending right wing nut jobs. But as much as I loathe that exercise, my contempt for government branding political dissent as "terrorism" exceeds my contempt for defending right wing nutjobs. Nut job or not, they have as much right to freedom of thought and the first amendment as anyone else.
And this sets a dangerous precedent, which is even more horrifying. Today, it's lone wolves and right wing nutjobs. Tomorrow? Who will it be, then? Right now the democrats are in power, but they won't be forever. If that precedent is set during the Biden administration, how might a Josh Hawley administration follow in kind?
This is an issue people need to think about. If the government is big enough to come after right wing nut jobs, they're big enough to come after leftist dissidents as well. And while the lettered agencies of the Federal Government's law enforcement apparatus seem to have lost interest in such groups as Antifa or others, since the outcome of the election in 2020 --- who is to say things won't change, again?
I would like to hope that, collectively, we all take a deep breath and pull back from the brink. Maybe see our way through to pulling back from the brink.
But things are looking mighty rough. Not obvious to me there even is a light at the end of this tunnel. And from where I'm sitting, this is going to end in the country's law enforcement turning against whatever group happens to be the party out of power. That is a road that leads directly to hell and the destruction of our democracy in any recognizable form.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Happy to offer them up.
I'm sure there are people on the site that would take those challenges, if you offered them. May take a few times before you catch someone who will see their way through to finishing the debate, but I'd suggest just posting as open challenges.
I also, from a judging perspective, prefer three rounds of 8k characters or less.
I think I won't do more than that again, from a debating perspective, either. It's just not needed. Less is more, in these cases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I really recommend them. Brad Thor's writing style is more playful than, say, Vince Flynn or Tom Clancy, but it's very good. The characters are compelling. It's basically a fast-paced white-knuckle thrill ride from cover to cover.
That all being said, I have really done a complete 180 on Vince Flynn (and, by implication, Kyle Mills). The Mitch Rapp series may, in the final analysis, be better than Scot Harvath. I made the mistake of starting with American Assassin before Term Limits and Flynn's earlier novels, and frankly .... that poisoned me at first.
Now I've read every single book Vince Flynn ever published and all the ones Kyle Mills has continued. I really, really like Flynn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Agreed, for sure. Voting is such a chore.
I try to make my debates as easy to read as I can, although I have a tendency to get wordy at times. I should vote more, although the reason I don't is because so few debates interest me. And those that do, are written badly.
In my experience, and maybe this is something you've experienced as well, most debates did not need to be more than three rounds. If they are, little if anything productive is said in the fourth or later rounds.
I also find that debates with long character limits (especially those with more than 10k characters per round) are incredibly tedious to read, as well. Not only could 4/5ths of the content been cut, it should have been.
I further find that debaters really struggle to debate their actual resolutions. They don't seem to understand the resolution and don't seem to have thought about it much, if at all. They seem to view resolutions more as a "statement of a topic," as opposed to a claim to be affirmed or negated. This is like listening to music out of tune for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I am not making a positive claim, or a negative claim in the OP.
Are you sure? It sure looks to me like you were asking why we should accept consent as a first principle of morality. In the OP, you asked:
Why should we accept consent as a first principle of morality?
Maybe you meant to ask "whether consent is a first principle of morality," as opposed to "why we should accept consent as a first principle of morality?"
I'm not just splitting hairs here. The OP assumes consent is such a first principle, whereas it seems like now you meant to ask something else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
So that you know . . .
I don't think you can argue that consent is a first principle, because there are more foundational principles on which consent's importance is contingent.
For example. Why would it matter if I did something that affects your rights/interests, but didn't obtain your consent? Why would that be wrong?
It would be wrong because my doing so would imply that I have a right to make decisions affecting your interests, which would mean that I have more rights (and by implication more power) than you do.
So, if I've got more rights and power than you do; we're not equal because I've taken something from you; something which, if we were equal, I would not have a right to take. And maybe we're not equal. Maybe I just have more rights and power than you do, because that's the natural order of things.
Though if we ARE equal, why might that be so? Because human dignity is congruent in its scope among all. We are equal, because we have equal human dignity.
In this way, the importance of consent depends from human dignity, meaning it can't be a first principle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Ok then. So you want to know whether the act of giving permission for something to happen should be considered so essential that it cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.
Do you think consent might be a first principle?
What if there was something prior to consent?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I found your comment very difficult to follow.
Morality, as a social construct, requires at least two people to have its effect.
Whether morality is, as you claim, a "social construct" is hardly a settled issue; yet your comment assumes it is so. The entire notion that morality even "could" be an artifact of social construction did not even enter human lexical usage until the latter-half of the 20th century; yet, the philosophy of morality dates to antiquity. Arguably, moral philosophy is at least as old an enterprise a human society itself.
It's also not clear whether you're claiming that morality is "only" a social construct; or whether you're claiming that morality is a social construct, in addition to being something else. You didn't specify the "something else," so I am left to wonder.
And you should assume for the purposes of our discussion here that I disagree with your claim that morality is, of necessity, "a social construct"; whether "only" a social construct or not.
It's also not even clear what you mean by "social construct." I am pretty sure that if I used that term, we wouldn't be thinking about the same thing, either. You should define what you mean by "social construct," because that term gets thrown around a lot by people with little regard to what they're actually communicating. Clarity would be helpful.
A single person's actions, wholly separate from another and having no effect on another may have some consequences to that single person, but certainly to no other.
I do not understand this sentence. There is so much going on here and none of it makes any sense. It's too abstract.
What do you mean by "a single person's actions"? Why not just say "a person's actons"? Is that what you meant? Why add the word "single" in there? That is confusing.
It is also unclear what you mean by "wholly separate from another" and "having no effect on another." It seems like you're talking about people doing stuff in a vacuum; but to claim that a person's actions could ever have "no effect" seems like a pretty bold claim, for which you'd have great difficulty even hypothetically describing.
Human beings are social creatures. Nothing we do can fail to affect another in even a trivial way; but any effect, however trivial, is still an effect. Maybe if you added the qualifier "meaningful" before "effect" that would make more sense.
But even then, you're talking in circles. "A person's actions . . . separate from another . . . may have some consequences to that person, but certainly to no other." So you end where you begin? This isn't even comprehensible.
And, generally speaking, whether it is moral, or not, that a single person act without consequence to anyone else, has society really suffered due to those actions?
Again, I have absolutely no idea what this means. The OP was posting about consent. You're talking about action "without consequence." I have no idea how you got from A to B.
If not, then morality is mute.
And having no idea how you got from A to B, I am equally lost as to what this means or what relationship it has to anything else you've said. There is no world where your circular sentence above entails this conclusion; or where this is even a sensible claim in the English language.
What on earth does "morality is mute" even mean? This lack of linguistic precision drives me insane.
The only code that acting, singular person has broken is that of his own well being. That, lone, ma[y] have some effect on another, but it has not a moral effect on anyone else. A sense of loss of some degree, but not a sense of loss of morality.
This is incomprehensible as well. It seems like you talked around the idea that:
If what you're doing impacts other people, then morality requires you obtain their consent.
That is a lucid, clear sentence. One that people can understand. One that, indeed, has meaning and which can be intelligibly discussed. But reading what you posted is like listening to music out of tune played by an orchestra operating at five different tempos. You jumped from one vague, ill-defined concept to another, to another and to another; talked about things that have no relationship to each other whatsoever; and generally posted a bunch of nonsense that was genuinely frustrating to even try to read through.
In the future, endeavor to write with greater precision.
In all other circumstance, when one person's actions do affect another, then consent must be present and expressed by that other person before the first may act on their own thinking to affect the other person[s]. To do so, otherwise, i.e., without their consent, the first person has violated the inherent rights of the other person, whether the action is considered by society as moral, or not.
You should have deleted every word of your post other than the first sentence in the quoted block directly above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I am confused by your question. What do you mean by "consent" and what do you mean by "a first principle"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Here are some topics I'd like to see you debate with people.
1. When liberty and public health are in conflict, governments should always prioritize liberty. (Where you're PRO).
The above is the less-biased approach, but the below is probably the clearer, less abstract and more direct way of phrasing the topic. I prefer the former, but I think the below wording might be easier for people to understand.
Alternatively: "Governmental intrusions on individual liberty can never be justified based on public health concerns." (Where you're PRO).
2. The United States should re-enter the JCPOA, without preconditions imposed on Iran. (Don't care which side you take).
3. Spanking/paddling should replace detentions and suspensions in American public schools. (Where you're PRO).
4. Proof of COVID vaccination should never be required for any purpose by either the government or any private entity. (Where you're PRO).
5. The United States should waive patent protection for COVID vaccines. (I suspect you're PRO on this, though I don't care which side you take).
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Economically left is the same thing as economically authoritarian
That is incorrect. Economically left is as much complete anarchism as complete state ownership of all capital.
Created:
Posted in:
I find it difficult to respond to people who "block" me on this website.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Indeed. The emphasis the Orthodox Church places on the Holy Spirit is, in my view, correct as well. That theological difference in fact relates to debates I've had with other Protestants and Catholics alike.
Created:
Posted in:
As an aside, I don't know many Greek Orthodox people who regularly practice. I know a lot of Greeks that claim to be orthodox, but they're really more of a "go to church on Easter and Christmas" type.
I know a lot more Ukrainians, who belong to some variation of the Eastern Orthodox church; and Russians who are, of course, Russian Orthodox. I also know several Egyptians who are Coptic Orthodox.
My own experience with the Eastern Orthodox Church is that it's much more liturgical than either Catholic or Protestant religious practices. Chants, in particular, seem to take precedence over sermons. And they do things like recite the Nicene Creed, as opposed to the Apostles' Creed or something along those lines.
From a theological perspective as well, it seems to me that Catholics place a perverse level of emphasis on Mary. Which the Orthodox church rejects, with a wholly different theory of original sin more properly mirroring the Protestant denominations.
Whereas Catholics will even pray to Mary as if she were some kind of intercessor between mankind and God, Orthodox churches engage in no such nonsense.
Likewise, whereas Catholics emphasize the agony and suffering of Christ on the Cross, the Orthodox church seems to correctly place emphasis on the resurrection, Christ's triumph over death and the prospect of eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Finally, whereas Catholics seem to place a lot of emphasis on the celibacy of priests, which invites all kinds of problems. Orthodox priests can marry, and are encouraged to do so. This, to me, makes the most sense. The rule of celibacy seems absurd to me. And I see no evidence in the scripture supporting it.
I know there are differences in transubstantiation as well, and communion as a practice. But I think the Orthodox tradition (everyone takes communion) makes more sense than the Catholic tradition (only after confirmation). The leavened vs. unleavened bread seems stupid to me, and leavened bread was that originally used by the Orthodox and the earliest churches that predate the Catholic church by hundreds of years.
Other differences I'm aware of relate to the role of icons, saints and the like. Catholics pray to saints. Not sure if Orthodox do or not, but the practice of praying to saints is something I do not approve of ("thou shalt have no other Gods before me").
I also agree with the differences in structure and leadership in the Eastern Orthodox church vs. the Catholic church, for what it's worth. As you correctly note, orthodox places much more leadership at the local level; whereas everything from theological meaning to finances goes through the Vatican with the Catholic Church.
I don't belong to Eastern Orthodox church, but I approve of much of its theology. And I like the liturgical aspects of its practice. At least what I've seen in Ukrainian/Russian orthodox settings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
That's an excellent answer, and I appreciate it. That's consistent with my understanding as well.
How about the differences between the Greek, Russian and Coptic Orthodox churches? What would you say makes them distinct, within the Orthodox penumbra?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
What would you say are the major distinguishing factors between the Greek Orthodox church and the Catholic church?
Created:
Posted in:
Oro is quite correct. In an ideal world, Forum Gaming would be the second item in the menu, "stickied" as top threads on Reddit. It is a location where actual games are played on this website.
"Gaming" just refers to video games, in general. Not related to actual playing games on this website.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I'll pass. I'm more of a Ron DeSantis guy.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
yep. Even had a discussion on how sillicone based lube breaks condoms. I was 12 or 13 ... lol
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I had sex ed as a part of my gym class in Boston. That was back around 2004-2005.
They discussed abstinence, for about five minutes. The rest was your typical "condom on a bannana" type instruction, but even gay/lesbian sex were covered.
Though I doubt most of the country did. Or does now.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I fail to see how trans-gender individuals receiving gender-affirming treatment is "pseudo-science", the science is rigorous behind gender identity. It's not that there are more trans people, its that if trans people come out they aren't hung. We saw a similar thing with the statistics for gay and bisexual people a couple of years ago, its merely the fact that people are accepting that trans people exist now.
The "science" behind "gender-identity" is very, very weak. In the United States, most of it is an offshoot of research that was done at Johns Hopkins back in the 1960s-70s, which none regard with any credibility now. Douglass Murray's "Madness of Crowds" does a very good job explaining the history, relevant to that specific issue.
But the bigger issue is with psychiatry, as a practice. Psychiatry functions by defining "abnormality" or "deviance" against some non-specific norm that, more often than not, turns out to be normative, subjective moralization dressed in the language of ostensible scientific inquiry. Foucault was really the first, at least before the behavioral revolution (a move in social science and psychology in the 1960s-70s to focus on that which was empirically true according to sound scientific inquiry, and against all else). He is largely responsible for why, for example, the DSM-IV did not regard homosexuality as a psychological disorder but prior versions did.
Foucault's points are more complicated than I care to type for the moment, though maybe we can talk about it on Discord at some point in the future. But for our purposes now, the issue is that science cannot tell us what constitutes a subjective interpretation of behavior that conforms or does not conform with what is, in the final analysis, little more than gendered stereotypes. Yet, this is the beginning and end of what the "science" on "gender identity" is. The very concept itself does not even lend itself to empirically measurable criteria.
So this places us in the epistemological domain where were trying to figure out what is true based on individual's subjective reports of what they say their "gender identity" is. And so fine. But, as you noted (correctly) the sociocultural turn towards embracing something does invariably lead to a whole bunch of people wanting to jump on the bandwagon. In social science and/or psychology/psychiatry, we call this a "cascading" effect or "snowballing," in lay terms. And just as many of the kids/teens/young adults who "came out" around the early 2000s-2010s, turned out NOT to be gay in the end; we should have every reason to expect that at least a non-trivial percentage of "trans" people in that same category in the 2020s are going to realize at some point in time that, in fact, they are not "trans."
There are already early signs of this, although the magnitude of the problem is largely under-reported. No shortage of horror stories give life to the horrifying data behind namely those young to adolescent boys and girls who underwent one or more of the so called "hormone therapies" or "reassignment surgeries," for the purpose of curing their self-diagnosed "gender dysphoria." I forget his name. But there was a Ph.D. in psychology from Northwestern that did his dissertation on this in 2017 or 2018.
The major concern here is that if you come out as gay, but later change your mind, the risk is fairly low. At least biologically. But if you undergo puberty blocking pharmacological "treatments" or hormone replacements (which are, if you were curious, the same drugs used to chemically castrate pedophiles and gay men for many years, like Depo Provera), the impact on a non-fully developed body's biological process is irreversible. That means if the girl who flirts with the idea of being a boy decides to take testosterone, she will be infertile. As will the boy who decides to take estrogen or other similar HRT-like products. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence of any clinical benefit to any of that. The post-use rates of suicidal behavior and ideation are horrifying; you're far more likely to contemplate and act upon the urge to kill yourself after taking HRT-type drugs, than before --- in direct contravention of the claims made by ideologically possessed fake experts.
Read Madness of Crowds' chapter on this subject. And then I've got some more reading material for you on psychology, generally. We will then see if that changes your mind.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Should they or shouldn't they? Curious what we have as opinions. I'll jump in once I get a few responses.
Yes. Generally, I think people talk about sex more than they should; but the history of gay rights is a part of American history. And it's a complicated one.
As for sex ed, I cannot see how the world is better off where LGBT sex ed is omitted from regular sex-ed. That being said, the amount of trans kids concerns me and it is not at all obvious that we're not making the same mistakes with the (pseudo)science justifying it that was used to justify lobotomies, castrations and electroshock "therapy" to gay men and lesbians less than 40 years ago in some parts of the country. As a country, we've seen this movie before. It's moral panic, wearing different clothes.
Created:
-->
@Athias
pedophilia, 11-14 is hebephilia, and 15-19 ephebophilia.
Generally, yes. But the distinctions focus more on physical/sexual maturity state more than age.
Pedophillia is being sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, without regard to gender.
Hebephilia is being sexually attracted to children who are at or near the point of reaching sexual maturity.
Ephebophilia is being sexually attracted to post-pubescent children who are not fully physically mature/developed.
Created:
Posted in:
Raoul Peck is a Haitian filmmaker. In many ways, he is to Haiti what Adam Curtis is to the UK.
For those of you who know how fond of Adam Curtis's documentaries I am, you will know this is a compliment. Their approach is similar, in many ways, to placing historical events in context.
Reviews:
From Variety:
The project is described as an exploration of the exploitative and genocidal aspects of European colonialism. It will feature documentary footage and archival material as well as original animation and interpretive scripted scenes. Josh Hartnett will play the lead role in the scripted portions.“This project has been my biggest challenge so far,” Peck said. “It forced me to question not only our common knowledge but also my own experience as a filmmaker. I’m excited that HBO is supporting that vision.”The series is based on three works by authors and scholars: Sven Lindqvist’s “Exterminate All the Brutes,” Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz’s “An Indigenous People’s History of the United States,” and Michel-Rolph Trouillot’s “Silencing the Past.”
I've watched several of the episodes that ran on HBO today. They were very compelling.
The overarching message is that the history of European conquest was, in practice, a barbaric exercise of inhuman violence. And there's compelling evidence he's not wrong in this respect, whether in reference to the first European appearance in the New World, to France's endeavor to retake Haiti after the Haitian revolution (an event he correctly regards as the birth of the abolitionist movement) to the events giving rise to Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness.
It's a visceral documentary. It's one thing to read of past barbarism in A People's History of the United States. Yet, it is another thing entirely to see it portrayed in high definition.
He didn't change my mind about European imperialism, or any other political issue. But the documentary was well put together. Done in such a way as to allow people to reach their own conclusions, while reframing the historical narrative from focusing on the myths America's forefathers told themselves to the costs in blood and suffering those efforts entailed.
If you're interested in history, this is worth watching.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I think you're right about that.
He did unblock me briefly, but now ... his feathers are ruffled again.
Created:
Posted in:
Do you want me to provide actual feedback? Because I certainly can.
Created:
Posted in:
It is clear that you fundamentally do not understand how to play this game.
Created:
Posted in:
RM's reads were unidimensionally focused, wholly incorrect and his aggression was an active menace to scumhunting.
Created:
Posted in:
I am glad to know my reads were correct.
My hope is that in future games, we will be in a position to play without the unnecessary drama certain users added.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
I've never been wrong about a fake result btw. This game continues the trend.
And this is at least the third time I've seen you pull that stunt . . . .
Created:
Sharia law is theocratic fascism (a subset of what could be broadly categorized as "fascism"). Fascism is a more general term.
Created:
Posted in:
How the Cubans feel about Guantanamo Bay is the least of my concerns.
Created:
Posted in:
I’m sorry, were white people enslaved for 400 years, and then segregated, lynched, redlined, and mass incarcerated?
I assume you are referring only to the United States, or colonies prior.
Because the history of "white people" (and everyone else on earth) being enslaved predates Western civilization in any form. It is the historical norm across all human civilizations from antiquity to present.
But even in the context of Western civilization, white people were routinely enslaved in the Roman Empire. Slavs, from Eastern Europe, were routinely sold as chatals throughout the Muslim world from before the 9th century AD, particularly in North Africa and Islamic Spain. That continued in some form until well into the 16th century. Similar practices occurred over the entire course of the Ottoman Empire's existence, until WWI.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
@Double_R
So on 9/11 come down to ground zero with an “all buildings matter” t-shirt and explain that same logic to the families of the victims.
I agree that "all lives matter" was response to "black lives matter," and the broadening from only "black" to "all" implies a deliberate effort to shift the focus from people who are shot/killed by or in the custody of police, to something more nebulous.
- When asked, the "all lives matter" types tend to emphasize one or more of cops who are killed in the line of duty, victims of crime in general (and specifically murder/gun violence victims), victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens and etc.
- But also when asked, the "black lives matter" types tend to be unwilling to acknowledge things like who is/what groups are most likely to be behind the barrel of any gun involved in killing black people (it's not cops).
I'm pretty familiar with the data relating to crime rates, gun crimes in particular; murder, including by and against cops; etc. and while there are highly publicized incidents that draw national attention, like that soldier in Virginia Beach in the black SUV (I think was a Tahoe?) or the kid who was shot in Minneapolis suburb because the cop thought she drew a taser when in fact she drew her sidearm. And of course George Floyd, the others and their fallout.
But I'm not interested in the identity politics issue. Maybe I would be if I was black, but I'm not. I'm interested in this from the perspectives of:
- Actually reducing cop-to-citizen interactions, in general (so less people crossing paths with the police); and
- For those who do cross paths with the cops, preventing those encounters from escalating.
I'd note, however, that at least 99.95% of all bodycam footage I've seen depicts cops being reasonable in response to all encounters at all levels of intensity with all people of all skin colors. The incredibly infrequent exceptions are the only ones that make the news. In this way, I think cops do not get a fair shake in the media or culture. On the other hand, any exception however infrequent would be better avoided.
The problem is that the identity politics issues, and media/cultural emphasis on them, isn't making the situation better. If anything, they're making everything worse.
White liberals use black issues to virtue signal, and black people as political cannon-fodder for their higher aspirations. I can't think of a single policy that actually helped black people in the long run, democrats are responsible for since the Johnson administration. Obamacare is the sole exception, and he was the first democrat since LBJ that actually got things right.
I reflect on every major legislative accomplishment, outside of that, passed by Democrats. For example, the Community Reinvestment Act that Bill Clinton expanded in the 1990s, based on the idea that this would enable low-income people to more easily qualify for mortgages. Even when he and Democrats in congress knew that blacks would be the first to sign up for adjustable rate mortgages, the first to default and the most likely to be financially ruined forever.
Or even this so called "covid relief bill," which was nothing more than democrats screwing the very people that, for example, were first-time black voters in Georgia, that Democrats registered in 2020 who had never voted before. Democrats ruined the economy with lockdowns that failed to even slow the rate of community spread, with full knowledge that blacks would be the most acutely harmed by those policies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The assumption here is that socialism and white supremacy are the same things...
I think what you might be trying to say is that socialism and white supremacy do not exist as opposite ends of the same continuum. And if so, I agree. That's exactly right. But, the OP seems to be talking about are trends where people change their political positions in response to how they are characterized by their political opponents.
Liberals, after having been called "socialists" by their political rivals (conservatives); thereafter become socialists.
Conservatives, after having been called "white supremacists" by their political rivals (liberals); thereafter become white supremacists.
So that's a bit different than them being at opposite ends of a spectrum. But the issue of describing "white supremacy" as being some kind of opposite to anything on the left is itself a problem. Because it isn't, as you're correct to note. There is no connection between "white supremacy" and "conservatism."
Created:
Posted in:
And your claim that I refused is demonstrably false, as evidenced by the subsequent posts.
You're just wrong. Period.
And your reads are wrong, to the limited extent you've posted them only after FT and I pressured you for them.
And your reasons for asking me for reads are wrong; you don't understand why I asked for yours, or what to do with the information now that you have it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
outright refused to do it when I asked,
So you are wholly unable to see or understand why I would have been frustrated with your nonsense?
Created:
Posted in:
Your refusal to give reads when I asked for them further leads me to believe that you’re frustrated which is what I’d put your scum meta at.
This is why I would be VTLing you for death absent your role claim.
Read your own post, DP2-157.
That you continue to maintain this delusion I somehow am "refusing" to give reads defies rational comprehension.
Created:
Posted in:
And some meta thoughts, in the unlikely event I'm killed in the night (as I am tomorrow's preferred mislynch it seems, from tunnel vision plagued players, living and dead).
- I have not played mafia on here in a long time. I don't mind playing as scum (although I am not scum in this game), although it is widely known I prefer playing as town.
- I understand that when I was younger, namely on DDO, I might have been the most aggressive player in any game. But now that I play infrequently, if ever, and there are other constraints on my time, I really would prefer to enjoy the games I play without regard to affiliation.
- The way RM played in DP1 is enough to keep me from playing mafia again on this site. It's not that I'm trying to be a bad sport about it, but dealing with that shit just is not fun for me. I am not invested enough in this activity to do it if I'm not enjoying myself. I feel like others likely feel the same way.
- The way we should all play should be oriented towards playing many games, enjoyably and repeatedly. It's less about winning any particular game, as wanting to play again when it's over no matter the outcome.
- That is why live mafia is preferable to this . . . whatever we have here.
If as a site DART struggles to fill a game with less than 15 people . . . maybe that says something.
Created: