Culture

[arahop]

Lol Jesus.

For certain things, I'm perfectly fine throwing the book at someone harder. An example being a burning cross in a yard or spray painting a Swastika on a synagogue. Those go beyond regular vandalism or whatever.

But who should get in more trouble, the guy who murders 10 people indiscriminately or 10 people discriminately? I dont see much utility or logic behind the hitting the latter harder than the former.

And "if you aren't against hate crimes you support them"....what the hell does that even mean?

One has lost his mind along the way and wants to watch the world burn. The other wants to watch the world burn because he hates the other humans who don't share his likeness in skin pigmentation.

 

[NorthDakota]

One has lost his mind along the way and wants to watch the world burn. The other wants to watch the world burn because he hates the other humans who don't share his likeness in skin pigmentation.

You just made my point. Thanks bud!

 

[NDRock]

Can't the same be said of of the death penalty? Does someone about to commit an extremely heinous murder think to themselves, wait, I might get the death penalty instead of life in prison.

Agree. Seems like every study I’ve seen shows there isn’t any correlation to reducing violent crimes/murders with having the death penalty. May be some out there that shows differently. Doesn’t mean some people don’t “deserve” it, IMO.

 

[Irish#1]

Sometimes racism is OK I guess

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/dailymail/status/1375048128093679616?s=21[/TWEET]

Life is stranger than fiction.

 

[drayer54]

Life is stranger than fiction.

The comeback of segregation as progress is the biggest surprise I see

 

[Irish#1]

Agree. Seems like every study I’ve seen shows there isn’t any correlation to reducing violent crimes/murders with having the death penalty. May be some out there that shows differently. Doesn’t mean some people don’t “deserve” it, IMO.

I don't think the death penalty persuades someone from killing anyone. I used to be for the death penalty, but today, I'm indifferent. Is it a tougher sentence and crueler to put someone to death or make them spend the rest of their life locked up? I could go with either decision the courts hand out.

 

[ab2cmiller]

I guess even streets are racist.

 

[Blazers46]

I guess even streets are racist.

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1375324340800065536[/TWEET]

We need a make a list of all the things the left has accused of being racist. But I guess that list would be racist.

 

[ab2cmiller]

I guess even streets are racist.

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1375324340800065536[/TWEET]

Nobody probably really cares about the above stat, but I was curious why the Asian/Pacific Islander category was so low as well as a few other things that were in the full report. Obviously it's not as simplistic as the below points, but I think they cover a large portion. Here are a few things I found interesting.

1. 42% of all pedestrian deaths involve either an impaired pedestrian and/or an impaired driver (26% only the pedestrian was impaired, 6% both were impaired, and 10% only the driver was impaired). With such a large percentage involving some kind of impairment, it makes sense that Asian category would have the least given the studies have shown they have the lowest percentage of substance abuse of those listed, while the American Indian category would have the highest as those studies have shown they have the highest of those listed.

2. 82% of pedestrian deaths occur in an Urban setting. Race and Ethnicity groups that have a higher percentage of people living in urban settings will see higher rates.

3. Report made a big deal about how Pedestrian Death Rates have been climbing since 2010. For the most part this coincides with the rise in SUV and Truck purchases and a decline in Passenger Car sales. If you get hit by a SUV or Truck you are roughly twice as likely to die than being hit by a car because of the higher front end profile.

4. 73% of pedestrian deaths did not even occur at an intersection. People may be choosing to not go down and cross at an intersection. Many are impaired enough that they are stumbling out into the street. Not sure how much good some of those intersection changes that were proposed would actually do much.

About the only thing that would really do much good is trying to lower speeds. With that said, let's get back to the streets being racist. We should probably add SUV's and Trucks being racist as well.

 

[TorontoGold]

Nobody probably really cares about the above stat, but I was curious why the Asian/Pacific Islander category was so low as well as a few other things that were in the full report. Obviously it's not as simplistic as the below points, but I think they cover a large portion. Here are a few things I found interesting.

1. 42% of all pedestrian deaths involve either an impaired pedestrian and/or an impaired driver (26% only the pedestrian was impaired, 6% both were impaired, and 10% only the driver was impaired). With such a large percentage involving some kind of impairment, it makes sense that Asian category would have the least given the studies have shown they have the lowest percentage of substance abuse of those listed, while the Native American category would have the highest as those studies have shown they have the highest of those listed.

2. 82% of pedestrian deaths occur in an Urban setting. Race and Ethnicity groups that have a higher percentage of people living in urban settings will see higher rates.

3. Report made a big deal about how Pedestrian Death Rates have been climbing since 2010. For the most part this coincides with the rise in SUV and Truck purchases and a decline in Passenger Car sales. If you get hit by a SUV or Truck you are roughly twice as likely to die than being hit by a car because of the higher front end profile.

4. 73% of pedestrian deaths did not even occur at an intersection. People may be choosing to not go down and cross at an intersection. Many are impaired enough that they are stumbling out into the street. Not sure how much good some of those intersection changes that were proposed would actually do much.

About the only thing that would really do much good is trying to lower speeds. With that said, let's get back to the streets being racist. We should probably add SUV's and Trucks being racist as well.

I shit you not, someone that is clownishly far left made a tweet thread about how SUV's and pickup trucks are racist. The replies dunking on the person were incredible.

 

[NorthDakota]

I shit you not, someone that is clownishly far left made a tweet thread about how SUV's and pickup trucks are racist. The replies dunking on the person were incredible.

Lololol the pros of Twitter is that you can find some incredibly weird people...the con of Twitter is that these weird people can find each other.

 

[Blazers46]

2 Dead, 8 injured, Virginia Beach... relatively zero coverage from major news outlets.

https://www.krqe.com/news/national/...aL8zmRvbNBkPMCYIDVZ2kadmGXhIC3lOA6f2UvrSWfl6U

 

[Bishop2b5]

I just learned something odd related to the Virginia Beach shootings. Some of the coverage seemed unusual or "off" so to speak, and any reference to race, whether it was that of the shooters or the victims or the officer, were left out, and it seemed rather obvious in the two articles I read that they were going out of their way to avoid any mention of race. It wasn't just that it wasn't mentioned, it was that they clearly were tiptoeing around it intentionally and that was rather obvious. I had no idea if the shooters and victims were black or white, and nothing about the circumstances of the shooting gave much of a clue. So, I googled "Virginia Beach shooting race" and got NOTHING about race. When you Google something, the words you put into the search bar are bolded in each of the results. Not here. Even when I included "+race" Google simply ignored the word, didn't bold it in any results and didn't even show the word race struck through, indicating it had found results for "Virginia Beach shooting" but none of them included the word race. Unless I'm missing something, Google has intentionally blocked the ability to use race a search term for this event. Have we really gotten to this point?

 

[NDRock]

Probably because the body count wasn’t high and it started with an argument and had multiple people shooting. The lone wolf guy who kills a bunch of strangers will always get the most coverage. I’m sure people have their own beliefs why that is.

 

[drayer54]

Hate crime in DC today. Awful.
https://twitter.com/mrnukemcocaine/status/1375892793298579456?s=21


https://www.wusa9.com/mobile/articl...anwar/65-359c605a-65e3-4b05-bbe3-b220dd740df7

 

[drayer54]

I just learned something odd related to the Virginia Beach shootings. Some of the coverage seemed unusual or "off" so to speak, and any reference to race, whether it was that of the shooters or the victims or the officer, were left out, and it seemed rather obvious in the two articles I read that they were going out of their way to avoid any mention of race. It wasn't just that it wasn't mentioned, it was that they clearly were tiptoeing around it intentionally and that was rather obvious. I had no idea if the shooters and victims were black or white, and nothing about the circumstances of the shooting gave much of a clue. So, I googled "Virginia Beach shooting race" and got NOTHING about race. When you Google something, the words you put into the search bar are bolded in each of the results. Not here. Even when I included "+race" Google simply ignored the word, didn't bold it in any results and didn't even show the word race struck through, indicating it had found results for "Virginia Beach shooting" but none of them included the word race. Unless I'm missing something, Google has intentionally blocked the ability to use race a search term for this event. Have we really gotten to this point?

The media has a narrative and is driven by activists. If it doesn’t fit the narrative —> crickets.

 

[NDRock]

Article on the shootings on the front page of Yahoo. 3 men in custody, one of the two people killed were by a police officer. No pictures of either the victims or those in custody, nor a dna ancestry breakdown of those involved. Obviously agenda driven.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-2-dead-virginia-beach-052230934.html

 

[Bluto]

Excellent article here. Definitely worth the read.

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1374464945794871302[/TWEET]

Protestant men have had a monopoly on power for most of the country’s existence and I’d dare say they still do. Most of what ills this nation is a byproduct of said groups collective fuckery.

 

[Irishize]

I just learned something odd related to the Virginia Beach shootings. Some of the coverage seemed unusual or "off" so to speak, and any reference to race, whether it was that of the shooters or the victims or the officer, were left out, and it seemed rather obvious in the two articles I read that they were going out of their way to avoid any mention of race. It wasn't just that it wasn't mentioned, it was that they clearly were tiptoeing around it intentionally and that was rather obvious. I had no idea if the shooters and victims were black or white, and nothing about the circumstances of the shooting gave much of a clue. So, I googled "Virginia Beach shooting race" and got NOTHING about race. When you Google something, the words you put into the search bar are bolded in each of the results. Not here. Even when I included "+race" Google simply ignored the word, didn't bold it in any results and didn't even show the word race struck through, indicating it had found results for "Virginia Beach shooting" but none of them included the word race. Unless I'm missing something, Google has intentionally blocked the ability to use race a search term for this event. Have we really gotten to this point?

Do the same search using Duck Duck Go and it shouldn’t be censored like Google. EDIT: I just used Duck Duck Go and it didn’t provide that info either. Sounds like they are still piecing the details together.

 

[drayer54]

Protestant men have had a monopoly on power for most of the country’s existence and I’d dare say they still do. Most of what ills this nation is a byproduct of said groups collective fuckery.

I saw this theory justifying the hate directed white men from journalists as a couple faced backlash after Boulder comments. The general premise was that racism requires power and if it’s a person who isn’t a white male then the comments are not possibly racist and in fact likely justified.

This is part of why we’re moving backwards in this country on racism. Fortunately, I see it more in news and corporate training than in real interactions. This demented ideology is pushing pseudoscience and going to further divide people. Accepting some hate and stirring other hate is only going to accelerate our divide.

 

[Blazers46]

Protestant men have had a monopoly on power for most of the country’s existence and I’d dare say they still do. Most of what ills this nation is a byproduct of said groups collective fuckery.

Yup, America sucks ass. Worst nation on the planet.

Kind of like what I tell my kids when they are getting overly negative, "can we find a positive in this situation?"

So can you say something positive Protestant Men have done for this country?

 

[Bishop2b5]

Protestant men have had a monopoly on power for most of the country’s existence and I’d dare say they still do. Most of what ills this nation is a byproduct of said groups collective fuckery.

I'm reminded of the old saying that Democracy is the worst possible form of government... except for all the others. So, who should run things? The Hispanics? Well, let's see. Didn't the Spanish enslave and kill most of the population of about 2/3 of the New World? I mean, yeah, they've done a remarkable job in Columbia, Venezuela, Central America, and Mexico since, but... Oh, wait. Never mind.

OK, then how about the Blacks? By George when they run a country you end up with some real bastions of peace & prosperity like in Rwanda, Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Nigeria, and Haiti. It only took them half a generation to turn South Africa from a prosperous tourist destination into a hyper-violent shithole. Other than a few small former British colonies in the Caribbean (and Wakanda of course), their track record of war, genocide, selling their own people into slavery, impoverishment, corruption, and just all around lousy governance is abysmal. So, not them.

There are the Asians, though, right? I mean, the Chinese have a long record of respecting human rights, don't they? The Japanese seem like good folks... well, other than that whole invade your neighbors thing and the rape of Nanking. No corruption, human rights violations, no slavery, no mass murders, nothing from the Asians, right. OK, sorry. Bad example.

Ahh, I've got it!!! The Middle Easterners! Now there's the cradle of civilization. Surely they should be the ones in power given their track record of peace, human rights, respect for women, get alo ng with their neighbors, and... and... uh, OK. Sorry. Not the best example. Well, crap.

Shall I go on or has the point been made?

 

[NorthDakota]

Chauvin's trial is available online.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Chauvin's trial is available online.

Basically, there is some evidence out there that doesn't make this a slam dunk and the media isn't preparing the public for the possibility that Chauvin will not be found guilty. We all know what would likely happen if he's found not guilty. At least the prosecution got the 3rd degree charge reinstated. Prosecution was probably overcharging with the 2nd degree charge. Turley does a good job of summing things up.

Below is my column in USA Today on the approaching trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin for the alleged murder of George Floyd. Thus far, many in the media have failed to shoulder their own burden to discuss the countervailing evidence in the case. Indeed, there is a real danger of a cascading failure in the case where a loss in the Chauvin case could bring down the cases against all four officers. This potential domino effect is the result of making the three other cases dependent on the base murder/manslaughter charge against Chauvin.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Shall I go on or has the point been made?

Reminded me of this exchange from The Good Shepherd:

 

[drayer54]

I've been listening to the Chauvin trial. I've only seen the gist of the video and not much beyond. I'm glad I'm not a juror on this case. I wonder how impartial they really are?

To me, it seems you would need to prove that Floyd died from Chauvin's actions, which seems questionable from the toxicology report and autopsy. If you do buy that he died from Chauvin's actions, then you got to buy that it was an unacceptable use of force. You also have to find that Chauvin had intent. It looks like the state and defense will offer the information directly in contrast to each other.

I do agree though. If the verdict is not guilty, prepare for a summer of violence. I actually expect violence regardless of this case, but they may as well evacuate Minneapolis and board up urban areas if it's not guilty.

 

[Irish#1]

Agree. If he's found not guilty, it's not going to be pretty and it won't be just in Minneapolis.

 

[MNIrishman]

The ironic tragedy in all this is that race riots disproportionately hurt black-owned businesses and black communities. A true social justice agenda would require that any rioting and looting be put down with extreme prejudice.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Why am I not surprised. It’s like “heads I win, tails you lose”.

 

[Wild Bill]

Why am I not surprised. It’s like “heads I win, tails you lose”.

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/1376753301014732803?s=21[/TWEET]

Which all white neighborhood do you think he's posting from