If Mort Divine ruled the world

[HamburgerBoy]

To be honest, France really is more of a cultural and ethnic issue than a religious one. These French terrorists, for the most part, aren't refugees from the Middle East. They're second/third-generation North Africans that live there due to the pity France had for them after fucking up their countries during the colonial period. In this case I think it's perfectly understandable why Algerians and Tunisians kill the French. Leave your land, live with your former oppressors, liberalism happens, you learn about what a victim you are and how much you should hate us, and when you can't get a job because you live in a socialist shithole, you go full snackbar. France deserves this in so many ways. This is why it's so dangerous that we encourage victim-worship in our local black communities and now have regular protests that exist simply to say "I'm a minority, give me shit, look at me". Multiculturalism only works when you're indifferent and just say "Tough shit" to the survivors; it isn't fair and I wouldn't blame any real victim of political oppression for killing others, but if you look at how the Chinese have fared here when they had far fewer rights than blacks for generations, or how the Japanese were treated during WWII with virtually no reparations and maybe a half-assed apology, it's obvious that simply acknowledging victimhood does not help anything.

 

[CiG]

So Americans might soon start to see Japanese homegrown terrorism? Perhaps native American terrorism?

 

[Einherjar86]

You and Watts are arguing that violent behavior against police is emerging primarily due to a belief that following the law does not grant any sort of protection, or at least an inconsequential measure. Where does this belief come from? It can't come from all of the rhetoric could it? We are also talking about a disproportionately violent population (YBMs). I'm sure the original propensity to violence couldn't possibly have a role. I use rhetoric and belief because that's exactly what it is. You, Watts, BLM, whoever have no basis for blacks fearing being gunned down by cops "willy nilly". Or even not willy nilly.

That's funny.

I'm throwing in the towel because I can't keep going back and forth on this. Good talk.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

"Assault trucks"

 

[Satanstoenail]

Ban assault trucks?

If everyone there had had a truck he could have been stopped so much sooner.

 

[CiG]

If everyone there had had a truck he could have been stopped so much sooner.

Exactly.

 

[Dak]

If everyone there had had a truck he could have been stopped so much sooner.

Too bad big, assault stopping trucks are outlawed in France on holidays and for the general driving public.

http://about-france.com/hgv.htm

HGV's are also banned on public holidays, normally from 10 p.m the night before, until 10 p.m on the holiday itself. The two big summer public holidays in France are 14th July and 15th August. When these public holidays fall on a Saturday or Sunday, Lorries are banned 24/24.

 

[Dak]

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147247313346/when-persuasion-turns-deadly

This article in the Washington Post tells us that although cops kill more whites than African-Americans, we still have a police racism problem because blacks are killed in greater proportion to their relative population. That’s all true, as far as I can tell.

But what got left out?

Well, for one thing, it doesn’t address the fact that most police shootings happen in high-crime areas (I assume). And high crime areas in the United States often have high concentrations of African-American citizens. If the police accidentally shoot someone in my neighborhood, the victim will almost certainly be white, Asian, or Indian, because that’s who lives here. But if police accidentally shoot someone in a predominantly African-American neighborhood with a high crime rate, the odds are high that it will be an African-American victim. Does that tell us anything about racism?

To be clear, racism exists. What we don’t know is how it plays out in every scenario. Cherry-picked data doesn’t tell us anything useful. But it probably does get cops killed.

You also have to ask yourself how the environment influences the amount of resistance one shows to a police officer. If you grow up in a tough neighborhood, where you’ve learned to use aggression to resist all forms of bullying and abuse, you might not surrender to police as passively as people raised in a less violent world. Statistics don’t capture that sort of difference, if there is any.

I think they can capture those differences if one has the funding to collect. But yeah. Adams is quite the insightful one even when lacking backing stats. Apparently I can have all the stats in the world and can't persuade like a trained persuader. Maybe those are the classes I need to take.

 

[Dak]

Looks like black on black crime carries on.

#MontrellJackson

 

[CiG]

Interesting piece, I don't agree with all of it but it's interesting to see someone argue against the internal politics of their in-group so-to-speak.

https://medium.com/@jencoates/i-am-...t-i-am-not-coming-out-4c2dd1907e42#.mbfga7q1m

It is interesting to see where people insist proximity to a subject makes one informed, and where they insist it makes them biased. It is interesting that they think it’s their call to make.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

lol, I think Google is at it again.

EDIT: Actually I take it back, apparently #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes was trending on Twitter during the whole thing so I can imagine that Google puts top Twitter things at the top of their results, woopsies.

I was searching for transcripts of famous Hitler speeches for a wholly unrelated purpose fwiw.

 

[Dak]

John Oliver has started to get pretty openly partisan, and not in a credible way. He ripped (rightfully so) the Trumpish-GOP focus on "feelings"...but then goes on to act like the focus on feeling over fact (SJWs et al) isn't part of the thing the Trump phenom is a reaction against.

 

[rms]

Youtube?

 

[Dak]

 

[Einherjar86]

I am swayed by this narrative:

https://www.google.com/search?q=avi...rome..69i57.4571j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He himself was not especially racist — he believed it was wrong, on free market grounds, for the federal government to force private businesses to desegregate. But this “principled” stance identified the GOP with the pro-segregation camp in everyone’s eyes, while the Democrats under Lyndon Johnson became the champions of anti-racism.

This had a double effect, [Avik] Roy says. First, it forced black voters out of the GOP. Second, it invited in white racists who had previously been Democrats. Even though many Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act in Congress, the post-Goldwater party became the party of aggrieved whites. “The fact is, today, the Republican coalition has inherited the people who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — the Southern Democrats who are now Republicans,” Roy says. “Conservatives and Republicans have not come to terms with that problem.”

The available evidence compiled by historians and political scientists suggests that 1964 really was a pivotal political moment, in exactly the way Roy describes.

Yet Republican intellectuals have long denied this, fabricating a revisionist history in which Republicans were and always have been the party of civil rights. In 2012, National Review ran a lengthy cover story arguing that the standard history recounted by Roy was “popular but indefensible.” This revisionism, according to Roy, points to a much bigger conservative delusion: They cannot admit that their party’s voters are motivated far more by white identity politics than by conservative ideals. “Conservative intellectuals, and conservative politicians, have been in kind of a bubble,” Roy says. “We’ve had this view that the voters were with us on conservatism — philosophical, economic conservatism. In reality, the gravitational center of the Republican Party is white nationalism.”

Conservative intellectuals, for the most part, are horrified by racism. When they talk about believing in individual rights and equality, they really mean it. Because the Republican Party is the vehicle through which their ideas can be implemented, they need to believe that the party isn’t racist. So they deny the party’s racist history, that its post-1964 success was a direct result of attracting whites disillusioned by the Democrats’ embrace of civil rights. And they deny that to this day, Republican voters are driven more by white resentment than by a principled commitment to the free market and individual liberty.

In other words, since the 1960s Republicanism has been the party of "white identity politics."

 

[CiG]

Trump wants to raise the minimum wage. What an evil right-wing neo-Nazi conservative republican.

 

[Einherjar86]

You address this topic as though political affiliations, platforms, and positions are physical objects with hard-edged, unyielding lines, or "truths" as your signature would mislead people to believe. They simple aren't.

Trump is an unconventional republican who appeals to a wide republican base. So yes, he's republican; and it's also the case that this wide republican base happens to partake of a white nationalist mentality that goes back decades.

This is something I've believed for some time and simply diverting the subject toward a generic political position doesn't really amount to much of an argument when the past half-century gives us way more information.

 

[Dak]

I thought the CRA/Goldwater thing wasn't contentious. White nationalists vs white universalists and their minority bond-servants.

I saw a video where some WU was interviewing a black guy trying to explain how whites could be guilty as a group and complaining about how whites are individualistic and so don't see their connection to the crimes of white cops or white slavers. He's wrong either way. Either whites aren't really individualistic, or he'd be mad and/or scared if they were, not glad.

The discussions about race in this country are on an incredibly juvenile level on "both sides of the aisle", but it's easier to roll my eyes at the simple and consistent old white guy blanket dislike of " my pals!" than have some "educated" younger white person simultaneously say that A. There is no such thing as race B. "Whites enslaved blacks at a point in history" C. That means current year whites are responsible. D. You can't be a proud member of the group that doesn't exist but which gives you guilt. It's an incoherent body of beliefs.

 

[CiG]

This is something I've believed for some time and simply diverting the subject toward a generic political position doesn't really amount to much of an argument when the past half-century gives us way more information.

My comment wasn't a response to yours, which I didn't even see until just now. It was just a stand alone comment.

 

[Einherjar86]

I thought the CRA/Goldwater thing wasn't contentious. White nationalists vs white universalists and their minority bond-servants.

I saw a video where some WU was interviewing a black guy trying to explain how whites could be guilty as a group and complaining about how whites are individualistic and so don't see their connection to the crimes of white cops or white slavers. He's wrong either way. Either whites aren't really individualistic, or he'd be mad and/or scared if they were, not glad.

The discussions about race in this country are on an incredibly juvenile level on "both sides of the aisle", but it's easier to roll my eyes at the simple and consistent old white guy blanket dislike of " my pals!" than have some "educated" younger white person simultaneously say that A. There is no such thing as race B. "Whites enslaved blacks at a point in history" C. That means current year whites are responsible. D. You can't be a proud member of the group that doesn't exist but which gives you guilt. It's an incoherent body of beliefs.

It is absolutely an incoherent body of beliefs. From my perspective, identity politics is a troublesome mode of political organization.

But, also from my perspective, identity politics tends to be ethically in the right place even if it's misguided in its route of arrival. To put this in the context of the 1960s, I understand the right-wing emphasis on individual liberty and right for businesses to serve whomever they wish (even if I don't buy into those rights personally). But I also think that the Civil Rights Movement superseded those concerns (again, even if I don't buy into those rights personally). My position of allegiance is an ethical one.

My comment wasn't a response to yours, which I didn't even see until just now. It was just a stand alone comment.

Hahaha, well then hopefully that explains the tone of my response. I was a bit shocked by the abruptness of what I took to be yours. My bad.