Off Topic Politics Thread

Amazing, didn't think May would consider her for a cabinet role after the 'i'm a mother' fiasco. She is obviously forgiving, unless your name is Michael Gove.

 

Because if Trump wins the election, it's going to be because white people show up in droves to vote for him. He's going to lose the black vote by a massive margin. So to twist this to blame black people for Trump winning is racist and ridiculous.

What's worse it that he plays on negative stereotypes by using racially loaded terms like "street" politics, and he's insinuating that white people are only voting for Trump out of a fear of those lawless irrational blacks causing violence.

 

Sounds horribly all too familiar - Germany interwar period anyone?

 

That is spin. The article is not blaming anyone. It is merely articulating what could happen and why. It isn't racist at all.

Similarly in the UK we have UKIP that are taking advantage of Labour's failure to understand working class issues and me or anyone else pointing that out does not make us something"ist". It just means we are pointing something out.

There are far too many people like yourself that are far to ready to brandish "ist" and "ism" labels around without ever taking a second to think about it.

I will read the article again but on first reading I see nothing racist about it. We have the same over here with a "sudden deluge of racist incidents since the referendum." Reality is there is a slight increase but it is just highlighted much more.

Personally I have seen none in Lincoln despite the huge migrant population here and have heard no comments of any sort while accompanying my black Portuguese wife anywhere before or after the referendum.

Is there racism in America? Yes. Is there racism in the Police Force? I would suspect there is. Are the stats in the article or what it says unfounded? I doubt it but I will take a second look just to see what you think is racist within it.

 

Yes. Crazily so.

 

Which ones and can you provide evidence? Maybe the writer of that article needs the stats.

I assume the stats you talk of are about the black demographic being 13% of US population but commit around a quarter of violent crime including half of its murders?

 

It's bogus for him to raise the first place. He's saying black people are more likely to get shot by cops, because black people are more likely to commit violent crimes. Except that none of the people he cites in that article were committing violent crimes.

 

I get that. What you are saying is partly true however they are isolated incidents and held up as proof of institutional widespread racism at play rather than isolated incidents.

Once the race card is brought into the equation or any kind of discrimination with the portrayal of something more widespread than isolated incidents of "rogue" policemen then you have to take into account how the institution is acting which requires more than a dozen isolated incidents.

Therefore it is quite reasonable to say (as it is in this country) that a higher percentage of violent crime is undertaken by black Americans than black Americans are a percentage of the population.

What it boils down to is that there is a movement in America (and here) that is insistent that their whole demographic is being disproportionately treated and if you just hold up the black statistics then you can think they have a point..........until you add in the comparison to whites, hispanics etc etc. (see links at end)

So while in some cases I agree with you that some of these incidents seem not to be applicable to a "violent crime" it does not seem to be a case of widespread institutional racism. What you can say is that the American police forces may have far too weak vetting systems and or assessments and there seems to be a share of American police that are entirely unsuitable for the job. It is something that is always highlighted by minorities yet ignored when it is not a minority.

I was challenged a dozen or so times a while back over the space of 6 months by some cop (UK) that thinks he is the boss and just wants to give it the big one. I went through a spell where I would walk the 3 miles home from my pool matches (after 12pm) and nearly every week the same cop (in car) but with a different partner each time, coming up the hill from the city centre, would stop me (and my pal) asking the same question "Alright Lads, what you up to, where you going. Are those your bikes, had a drink have we". He would then ask for our name and address which we would then give him and then after hanging around waiting for 5 minutes and getting his all clear he would give us that look that he didn't trust us and say "OK then off ya go"

The point being this cop knew we were the same 2 that he had stopped before, at the same place at the same time on the same day of the week each week. He knew we both had clean records, and he knew they were our bikes that we were always pushing home because we had had a few drinks but he obviously felt some power but the new (at the time) terrorism laws in this country meant that some cops suddenly felt they could do what they want just to throw their weight around.

My mate got really wound up after a few times and refused to give his name and address saying it was police bullying and I had to convince him just to give his details so we could go home. I wrote a written complaint in the end and we also went a different route home.

Point being we are both white, not black and the policeman was an over officious idiot who wanted to act the big man in front of his partner.

My main point being that yes there are arsehole police like there are arsehole non police and there are racist police just as there are racist non police.

When a policeman shoots a black person it is immediately cried out as racism. What is it when a white man is shot without reason by the police? Is there a difference there?

To suggest a discrimination you have to take account of stats and details and valid reasoning. The jury that declined to indict policeman in the Michael Brown case were 9 white, 3 black.

Brown had committed Robbery and when the police officer blocked him and his accomplice in Brown reached through the police car window to get the officers gun and in the struggle it fired twice.[<<<This is now a violent crime] He then ran off.

Now you can start to use hindsight arguments of people being unarmed but police do have to make a snap decision. I think in this case there are grounds to suggest the policeman was not acting out of racism and was shooting to protect himself however you can question him shooting the number of times he shot Brown.

How many of these incidents can be identified as racist? Yes they can mostly be identified as police not acting accordingly but they are in most cases stopping someone who has committed an offence and/or has a record. That they acted incorrectly after the event of stopping them does not make it a racist shooting.

The Trayvon Martin shooting wasn't even a police shooting. It was a neighbourhood watch guy and the guy was cleared by forensic evidence of self defence.

3 of the 6 officers tried in the Freddie Gray case were black officers. Why is this a racist police action?

You can always argue about deprived areas, social class, poverty etc as being causative or at least some reason for the increased crime rates but that is not racism. It is a problem that needs addressing across society as a whole for all races and demographics and it won't be helped by cries of racism. It will be helped by the state choosing to work on the issue.

There is one stat (can't find a source at the mo) that suggests that yes more black people % are stopped by police BUT once stopped white people are more likely to be shot.

At the end of the day we can both agree there is racism in America and there is probably more than in the UK and yes if there is racism in society then by sheer logic there will be the same amount of racism in all areas. However that does not mean that any shooting of a black person by a white man or white police officer is a racist shooting.

What it does show however is that police are too ready to use their weapons. Sometimes in cases where they shouldn't have even thought to unholster them but the reality is that while the NRA continues this bad guy with a gun / Good guy with a gun policy and your government goes along with the "right to bear arms" then this sort of stuff is going to continue. There will be whites and blacks and hispanics killed but it shouldn't continually be a black shooting highlighted and white shooting ignored.


To end, the intended message of Black Lives Matter (BLM) is fine. But then white lives matter too don't they? Why are they not protesting about any people getting shot, instead protesting about black people getting shot? People as a whole, as American residents. As a problem of the country? What this sort of protest instantly does is divide from the start. IT also seems to be that they are ready to jump on anything they can without thinking. Like the "hands up don't shoot" chant which was taken from "witness accounts" which were subsequently dismissed and discredited.

Like many activist groups I suspect they start off with noble intentions but once they get a bit larger then it becomes a vehicle for others to utilise and there are questions about the funding behind the group.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36777582

Personally before all this BLM thing started up a decade ago I used to house share. My wife and I and our young kids shared with another black single mum and her sister and their children. It was a big house and made things cheaper. Like my wife they were black Portuguese with roots from Angola and Cape Verde. When talking to her it was apparent that she felt white people owed black people. She would say that for hundreds of years her people were treated as slaves and animals and it wasn't good enough to just give them equality.

I think we were talking about "positive" discrimination but that was the gist of things. Her stance was; Yes black people should get positive discrimination, they should get the job first, they should get the houses first, white people owed them. My wife agreed with her to a degree but is not so hell bent on this being the payback, revenge etc. Just that she thinks that white people owe her people.

Now I am not suggesting this is the view of all black communities in all countries but there certainly does often seem to be some of this in a lot of what I see in this country and abroad. People of influence like to piggyback these sort of issues and drive an agenda. Black musicians are well on top of it and are very vocal and not surprisingly they sell loads of records and get the gig at the superbowl on the back of their popularity. A lot of people like to stoke these fires because of what they can get out of it. The initial intent was fine but clever people use the cause to direct the argument to benefit themselves.

Sorry I'll stop because that went on longer than I meant. I just wish all people could just stand back, stop hating and let us all have proper equality and not always demand more rights than someone else. In a lot of cases these fights for equality are not fights for equality, they are fights for preferment and I hate positive discrimination because it means there will never be equality.

http://www.unz.com/article/race-and-crime-in-america/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/u...e-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=3

 

Major terrorist attack in Nice. A large truck ploughed into huge crowds celebrating Bastille day and then the driver got out and started shooting. So far reports say about 60 dead and hundreds injured.

READ BEFORE CLICKING LINK
I have put a link up but should Warn you that there are pictures of casualties in this article:

http://pamelageller.com/2016/07/pan...wd-at-promenade-on-bastille-day-gunfire.html/

 

Imps, we're talking about it in the off topic thread...

 

Yep, I immediately thought when I posted that people might not see it as politics so I posted over there minus the article link.

 

That's a strawman. No one is arguing that every shooting of a black person by a white person is a racist shooting.

No, see this is where it goes off the rail. Black Lives Matter does not imply that white lives don't matter. Just that black lives not mattering as an issue that needs greater awareness whereas people are already aware that white lives matter.

Now, I'm not saying you have to agree with the view that blacks are being discriminated against. But it's lazy to dismiss people as not caring about Y because they are raising interest about X. It's like OXFAM-- do people go around asking "Hey, what about wealthy people from wealthy countries who have plenty to eat? Don't they matter?" Or Society for the Blind-- "What about people who can see, aren't they important?"

Where things have gotten confused is this view that it is inherently racist to mention race at all. If we were back in the 1800's where blacks were slaves, it would not be racist to say "Blacks shouldn't be slaves." It would be I think, the natural response of the non-racist person. No one would be all "What about whites? Whites shouldn't be slaves either. This whole issue is 'racist' so I'm gonna ignore it."

I would expect any non-racist, reasonable person to be able to see through the fact that some loony shooting a bunch of cops at BLM event doesn't represent BLM, or the feelings of black people as a whole. Just like I don't think all white people are racist because some idiot ranchers seized a Federal building with rifles.

If you can't do that, then it's on you. You're the problem (not you personally, impsaint.) . Not BLM.

But Caldwell is pulling the ol' "I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'" thing. "I'm not saying it's okay to be racist, but if a bunch of black people are going to be all unreasonable and racist, then hey... ****'s going to happen. Don't blame me, that's on blacks and BLM sympathizers." He's asking blacks to meet a higher standard.

It's reasonable, but not relevant. Because it has nothing to do with how people are actually treated by police. Otherwise blacks would be perfectly within their rights to say that 13% of CEO's should be black, or 13% of black people should go to universities or it's racist. But then Caldwell would be howling over affirmative action and racial quotas.

The fact that a higher percentage of violent crimes are undertaken by black Americans does not mean that policemen are treating black people equally, anymore than the fact that a higher percentage of hockey players being white means that blacks are being discriminated against.

It's rather un-racist and really reasonable to say that a few simple numbers doesn't make things equal. Again, I'm not saying the police are racist, just saying that Caldwell dismisses the claim a little too easily.

This is completely reasonable point, and one I tend to agree with. Also the issue of class where poor people are more likely to commit crimes. And also the whole notion of impact from residual racism where because of past discrimination, things have gotten to a certain point that is reflected in the crime statistics and it's not today's police that are racist but rather yesterday's society.

If his message were more similar to yours like "Hey, tempers are running hot here. Let's all calm down and not get sucked into a whole race battle here." then I'd have no problem with it. If you were to say, "Listen, I think all of these shootings are a problem but I think it's a problem ANY TIME people get shot over an air gun, or a busted taillight, so I will commit to holding police to a higher standard and that will help blacks... and whites.. and everyone." Fine.

All of those are good points. None of them are raised in that piece. The fact that he glosses over these somewhat obvious argument as well as others, in favor of much more sketchy ones that hinge on race is why I think the article is racist. He's the one that is actually playing the race card here.

 

That is not what I am saying. I have said for a long time that if people demand something for one group then it never works. To fight for equality you have to fight for equality and not focus on what one demographic gets and another doesn't. that just sets 2 camps against each other and give those that do discriminate something to pick up on and stoke fires.

They can talk about what is happening to Black people but they must stop focusing their argument solely on black people. There are white poor communities, there is white poverty, there is white domestic violence, killing, drug abuse. They must try and fight for a collective unity. Treat us all as equals, we are all together in this.

I am not saying that I don't agree that black people are discriminated against. I am merely questioning the way that they zone in on themselves vs others. Racism will only ever be beaten by a collective non racist movement and not by a minority. It has to be a collective fight or the fight just becomes "hey look at us not them." This is an argument I always have with my wife. Her being a black and foreign and a woman. Equality does not mean quotas. It means equal opportunity.

This will not happen overnight but at least in the UK white and black children have gone to the same schools for years. We did not have the segregation issue you had in the US. Yes there was racism and there still is some. However there is a lot of "soft" racism that isn't really racism at all. It is old people that use a language that people used back then. They still say handicapped. My dad doesn't say black he says "coloured" because his generation were pushed along that avenue. They call Italians Wops. They call Irish Paddys or Micks. They call Scots Jocks and they call the Welsh Taffies. These are just friendly names and while today's youth and liberal set might be shocked and disgusted they are not vindictive or vicious in their intention. It is just what they say affectionately and they are friends with these people.

My Dad is Irish and most people call him Mick. That isn't his name. I call my eldest son Paddy. That sort of is his name but still. My sons call each other nig***. They sound ridiculous when they are repeating rap songs (non expletive versions) when they say nig*** because only one of them has any real sign of mixed race and the eldest "Irish" Paddy is as fair as can be with bright blonde hair until the sun comes out for 5 minutes and he gets an insta glow tan.

A lot of the names and words my Dad says (he is 68) will have conitations from his father in the war. Silly dicriminations against Germans and Italians and Japanese etc. They get passed down in terms of words but there is no hatred or feeling there on my Dad's part. There may be on his Dad's part but while they use the same names they don't have the same intention behind those words.

My wife will jokingly call her family members or friends Estupida Preta or Estupido Preto (Stupid Black.) I jokingly say to her Estupido Preta. She jokingly says back Estupido Branco (Stupid white.) There is no meaning behind it. Harmless joke. I say the same to her family that know me. Everybody calls each other silly names yet we choose as society to be offended by some words even if the intent is not there.

I notice today my 4 year old daughter do the "eenie meeni minie Mo" and she said "catch a BABY by its toe". Now I am only 41 but when I was a kid it wasn't baby it was Nig***. There was no meaning behind it. Black kids said it too. It was just words. I read Enid Blyton books with Gollie Woggie and Nig***. Thought nothing of it back then and I had golliwogs as a kid as well as remembering the logo on Robertsons Jam which was a golliwog which there was no problem with.

When did someone decide these were problems? And did someone deciding they were problems actually create the problem because nowadays non racist people of a certain age are looked down on for the language and expressions that they have always used whether the intent is there or not.

They aren't racist just because they say something. You are only racist by what you are meaning when you say it and what you are intending it to say. Liberals can be disgusted all they like and take things at purely face value but the reality is that being racist is something deep down and not just something passed off as easily as words are. It is simply that some language is not PC and we self censor things that in our younger years seemed quite normal with no meaning behind it.

We would say "off to the Paki shop" back then but it wasn't being racist. Same as saying off to the Irish pub. These days though the meaning is not looked into. Can't say that anymore so we don't. We weren't bothered who ran the shop or against them in any racial way. It was just saying which shop we were going to. Just something I do not get. I notice different colour skins and accents etc but it doesn't mean that has any bearing on how I treat someone or think of them.

Many people seem to think I go for black women. Some racist friends (whether casual racists or really meaning things) call me a nig*** lover. Reality is I don't care about skin colour. I do discriminate in a way because I like dark hair and dark eyes and wadda ya know. Most black women fall into that category. I like a lot of white women that qualify as well. My wife is actually only the second black woman I have ever had more than friendship with. I have had more than friendship with many more white girls (with dark hair and eyes.) I am not discriminatory unless they are blondes and blue eyed like me

I should add that above I talk of friends that are racists. It is true. I don't discriminate against them either. They believe what they want to as long as they aren't going around being nasty with it. Lots of people harbour "undesirable" thoughts. I don't care if friends are religious or not and have strange beliefs. Each to their own. If I chalked everyone off because they held a belief that wasn't agreeable with the modern world then I would have no friends at all.

At no point does he say what they are fighting for is wrong. He merely questions the way they are doing it, the attitude they are doing it with and the way it might work against their argument. I don't see anything wrong with the article.

I think some people just want to jump on anyone that dares challenge anything that might be a good cause. It seems to be a very popular thing these days. It doesn't blame black people. It just details that it risks highlighting a divide and also risking increasing that divide. Far from a united anti-racism movement it is a black movement championing a black issue as if they own that issue. It just makes people say Hey what about us, they do it to us too and then it becomes a politicised child's squabble over "we have it worse, no we do, no we do blah blah."

It is relevant. We are dealing with the here and now not the ideal future. If black crime rates are higher then that is fact. Try to improve it and ask for equal opportunities. Don't say give us more than the others to make it equal because that then just means more discrimination. equality is equality. That does not mean preferment to falsely equalise something. It means give everybody of all colours, creeds etc the same life chances. By all means spend more money in areas that are behind to try and catch them up but do not try and falsely equalise things, give people the tools to help them bring about that equality. Education and hopes.

One problem I see is US black music seems to portray this hardship as being something that black people are stuck with. listen to the words, wacth the films. You are stuck with this forever. You have no chance. There is a huge difference to UK Black music where it is all about partying and enjoying yourself not violence and struggles. That doesn't mean that the British black community is not suffering the same. Just that in its music it is optimistic.

Where American black music is all about "life is ****, look how bad I had it" UK black music is "Got no money but hey, gonna enjoy life anyway."

Maybe this culture difference between the UK and US makes all the difference? That we have much more optimistic influences that inspire youngsters more than in the US?

Either way "we" are the only ones that can fight discrimination and not different minorities all claiming their own words from their past oppressors language that only they can use meaning they maintain their differences. (thinking the N**** word which had all but disappeared until rappers brought it back to our shores.)

In many cases I think black rich people try to maintain the divide and sometimes try and increase it because they earn from it. It suits them to push "black identity" to push the "we are suffering" agenda because it sells records, it sells products and it keeps them in business. Problem is they can then go back to their ivory towers while those they have influenced are the ones that push on with their fight. How true is that fight? I think certain media artists are deliberately stoking the fire for their own gain in many cases.

The end game? Fight racism yes. Where it exists fight it together as fighting any kind of discrimination including positive discrimination. Fight Police brutality against anyone. Fight the NRA for sure. but on all fronts fight it as people and not a minority looking out for itself.

 

Because it is a false dichotomy. All of these are false dichotomies and strawmen.

One can simultaneously believe that the black community has issues that they need to take responsibility for and fix, while at the same time also believing that there problems with discrimination against blacks.

One can believe that even if black policemen are involved in a shooting of an unarmed black person, it's STILL a problem that a black man got shot by police.

One can believe that no matter what music people listen to, they still shouldn't be getting shot by police. Or that Kanye West being a gigantic douchebag and Suge Knight being a murderer does nothing to justify Michael Slager shooting Walter in the back over a traffic stop.

One can believe-- as I do-- that the self-proclaimed leaders of BLM seem to be rather sketchy, ill-informed, and quite likely racist, while still also believe that black lives matter. They've done a lot of lame things. It would be totally right to call them on it.

And that's the problem. Caldwell doesn't bother. And that's because he is intellectually dishonest. He thinks anything that addresses black issues must INHERENTLY be racist. And therefore he can play it as loose with the facts or ignore things entirely as he wants because it's not really that important. Black people want things for black people. Racist. Done.

It's also a double standard. Caldwell feels perfectly qualified to speak about reverse racism against white, despite the fact that David Duke is a white racist. or that Dylann Roof shot up a black church. Why doesn't he have to clean up all of white people's crap before he can talk about racism?

So again, by being so quick to accuse everyone and everything of being racist against whites, he's actually the one pulling out the race card and playing the victim.

 

I don't think he is saying that. He is saying "hey you're not the only victims."

I can only assume you have read other stuff by Caldwell because I don't get that from that article. I don't think from that article he thinks that it is racist because it addresses black issues. I think he is merely pointing out what might happen not trying to say "hey this will be your fault."

HE is not saying your cause is unfounded, just that there are some shady assumptions here and some of this isn't racism against black people it is just crime.

Hey ho. I don't think we are poles apart. We just have a different interpretation of what someone is saying.

 

He's not acknowledging they are victims at all.

Unlike you, he doesn't say "Hey the cops were wrong, just not due to racism."

It's "Too bad that kid had an air gun. **** happens." The person who called 911 said twice he was pretty sure the gun was fake. Also that the kid was a juvenile.

He neglects to mention the Walter Scott case where the cop actually has been indicted.

Or how Zimmerman is a racist who escalated that situation by ignoring the police who told him not to engage. It doesn't really matter if at the end it was self-defense. He didn't have to be in that position at all.

Or that Alton Sterling was pinned against the ground when the cops stopped him.

Or that the police violated protocol by not standing back and asking Castile to step out of the car.

And by ignoring that stuff, throwing red herrings like how many crimes blacks commit, grossly mischaractering Obama's stance, etc. he's getting white people killed too.

 

ALM - All Lives Matter

 

Sun came up this morning. Probably did in France too. Maybe the only good thing to happen all day, but it'll do. Beautiful morning, good to be alive.

 

What she says about employing nannies is kind of true; but I'd be checking the nanny's record out - male or not. There are such things as female *****philes, Andrea.