[OT] The Only Wrong Thing to Say?

[Quadibloc]

In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

Meghan Markle is the wife of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, the younger son of
His Royal Highness Prince Charles and Diana, Princess of Wales, for those who
may not have heard of her.

Harry and Meghan had recently left the U.K. due to continued hounding by the
tabloid press. The speech in question was intended to condemn racism and
encourage people to take action against it.

Meghan Markle is herself black, which apparently accounts for some of the
hounding from the tabloid press.

In any case, however stirring her speech may have been, taking that particular
statement *literally* leads one to the conclusion that it is erroneous.

I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

I suppose it is remotely possible that it could turn out that George Floyd's
death was an accidental tragedy brought on by the effects of fentanyl and
COVID-19, and the police officers involved had actually done nothing wrong.
However, I don't view that as particularly likely.

I'm angry at what was done to him. But I'm also angry at the rioting and
destruction that happened afterwards. That there have been some untoward
incidents in the police response to the riots, leading to attacks on people
trying to put out fires or on reporters, isn't improving my mood either.

It's important that we don't blame black people in general, or those who came
out in peaceful protest over the death of George Floyd, for the rioting. Aside
from the victims of the rioting, though, _of course_ this destruction will lead
to more hatred and fear directed at black people.

Some people are already daring to point out, though, that there is also a
positive side to destructive riots.

Well, yes, it's true that they can contribute to a sense that...

"it can't go on like this".

But that can only lead to constructive change if people know what to do to
change things so that it _doesn't_ "go on like this".

And while some of the time the deaths of innocent black men at the hands of the
police are due to bad cops - and something can be done about that - too often,
they are genuine tragedies. Caused by the police having to be excessively
cautious due to past violent events.

Asking the police to put their lives at extreme risk is just not going to fly.

And so we need to step back and consider other approaches to finding a solution,
instead of just engaging in knee-jerk reactions. But I see no sign of that
happening.

This has me worried.

John Savard

[Major Oz]

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".
Meghan Markle is the wife of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, the younger son of
His Royal Highness Prince Charles and Diana, Princess of Wales, for those who
may not have heard of her.
Harry and Meghan had recently left the U.K. due to continued hounding by the
tabloid press. The speech in question was intended to condemn racism and
encourage people to take action against it.
Meghan Markle is herself black, which apparently accounts for some of the
hounding from the tabloid press.
In any case, however stirring her speech may have been, taking that particular
statement *literally* leads one to the conclusion that it is erroneous.
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.
I suppose it is remotely possible that it could turn out that George Floyd's
death was an accidental tragedy brought on by the effects of fentanyl and
COVID-19, and the police officers involved had actually done nothing wrong.
However, I don't view that as particularly likely.
I'm angry at what was done to him. But I'm also angry at the rioting and
destruction that happened afterwards. That there have been some untoward
incidents in the police response to the riots, leading to attacks on people
trying to put out fires or on reporters, isn't improving my mood either.
It's important that we don't blame black people in general, or those who came
out in peaceful protest over the death of George Floyd, for the rioting. Aside
from the victims of the rioting, though, _of course_ this destruction will lead
to more hatred and fear directed at black people.
Some people are already daring to point out, though, that there is also a
positive side to destructive riots.
Well, yes, it's true that they can contribute to a sense that...
"it can't go on like this".
But that can only lead to constructive change if people know what to do to
change things so that it _doesn't_ "go on like this".
And while some of the time the deaths of innocent black men at the hands of the
police are due to bad cops - and something can be done about that - too often,
they are genuine tragedies. Caused by the police having to be excessively
cautious due to past violent events.
Asking the police to put their lives at extreme risk is just not going to fly.
And so we need to step back and consider other approaches to finding a solution,
instead of just engaging in knee-jerk reactions. But I see no sign of that
happening.
This has me worried.

Good thoughts.

I'm not actually "woried"........

I'm just tired........mostly of the horrifyingly phony virtue signalling.

The bad guys will get what's coming.

The looters will get whatever they want.

Rev Al will get more face time.

The "carers" will care, as it takes no effort, the takers will continue to whine and demand more, their enablers will continue to trash ANYone that contributes, parents will continue to indulge their ungrateful larvae and...the gullible will continue to multiply.

Meanwhile, the economy is coming back up (mine up about 20% in the last three weeks).

Those who matter and work at it will do just fine.

Those who don't will continue to bitch and moan and attract headlines.

I'm going fishing..........

[J. Clarke]

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".
Meghan Markle is the wife of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, the younger son of
His Royal Highness Prince Charles and Diana, Princess of Wales, for those who
may not have heard of her.
Harry and Meghan had recently left the U.K. due to continued hounding by the
tabloid press. The speech in question was intended to condemn racism and
encourage people to take action against it.
Meghan Markle is herself black, which apparently accounts for some of the
hounding from the tabloid press.
In any case, however stirring her speech may have been, taking that particular
statement *literally* leads one to the conclusion that it is erroneous.
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

If that is what you believe then say it but be prepared to defend it.
And if you are live and in person with other people be prepared to get
your head beaten in.

Post by Quadibloc
I suppose it is remotely possible that it could turn out that George Floyd's
death was an accidental tragedy brought on by the effects of fentanyl and
COVID-19, and the police officers involved had actually done nothing wrong.
However, I don't view that as particularly likely.
I'm angry at what was done to him. But I'm also angry at the rioting and
destruction that happened afterwards. That there have been some untoward
incidents in the police response to the riots, leading to attacks on people
trying to put out fires or on reporters, isn't improving my mood either.
It's important that we don't blame black people in general, or those who came
out in peaceful protest over the death of George Floyd, for the rioting. Aside
from the victims of the rioting, though, _of course_ this destruction will lead
to more hatred and fear directed at black people.

I don't note any "hatred and fear directed at black people" among my
peer group. Personally I have a certain amount of hatred and fear
directed toward the pigs--a word I haven't used in that context in
decades.

Post by Quadibloc
Some people are already daring to point out, though, that there is also a
positive side to destructive riots.
Well, yes, it's true that they can contribute to a sense that...
"it can't go on like this".
But that can only lead to constructive change if people know what to do to
change things so that it _doesn't_ "go on like this".
And while some of the time the deaths of innocent black men at the hands of the
police are due to bad cops - and something can be done about that - too often,
they are genuine tragedies. Caused by the police having to be excessively
cautious due to past violent events.

I'm sorry, but shoot first and ask questions later is not "excessively
cautious", it's pigs off the leash.

Post by Quadibloc
Asking the police to put their lives at extreme risk is just not going to fly.

Of course it is. You don't ask them, you tell them, and ruin their
lives sufficiently when they muck it up that they wish they had taken
the bullet instead.

Doing away with the police union would be a good start. People who
strut around with guns on their hips don't need a union to protect
them from oppressors, they _are_ oppressors.

Post by Quadibloc
And so we need to step back and consider other approaches to finding a solution,
instead of just engaging in knee-jerk reactions. But I see no sign of that
happening.

The problem is that there isn't any solution other than forcing people
of different races to spend enough time together that they stop
noticing the race and start noticing the individual.

Post by Quadibloc
This has me worried.

Why? Lots of angry black people in your part of Canada are there?

Post by Quadibloc
John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

If that is what you believe then say it but be prepared to defend it.
And if you are live and in person with other people be prepared to get
your head beaten in.

Fortunately, it isn't. Even though I am not really 'woke' and I'm certainly not
'politically correct'.

I do think there are two sides of the story - that things didn't get this bad
without some reason. Not in the case of George Floyd, but in some other cases of
innocent unarmed black people being shot by police, the problem is decent cops
following their training - training that is the way it is because currently
being a cop is extremely dangerous.

So that after you get rid of the bad cops - which you should - black people's
lives are *still* going to be in excessive danger from the police.

And there is no easy way to fix that, because getting police to go like lambs to
the slaughter isn't going to happen.

So *my* solution is to bite the bullet and do it the hard way.

The goal is to make it no more likely for a random black man to be a dangerous
criminal than a random white man. In reality, in daily experience.

Discourage criminality by dealing more harshly with it... as one step.

But _most_ of the work will consist of ending the huge economic inequality
between black people and whites. Because poor people of whatever race have
always been more likely to commit crimes.

Remove the rational basis for the fear and the hate, and then dealing with the
bigots that are left will be a possible task.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

If that is what you believe then say it but be prepared to defend it.
And if you are live and in person with other people be prepared to get
your head beaten in.

Fortunately, it isn't. Even though I am not really 'woke' and I'm certainly not
'politically correct'.
I do think there are two sides of the story - that things didn't get this bad
without some reason. Not in the case of George Floyd, but in some other cases of
innocent unarmed black people being shot by police, the problem is decent cops
following their training - training that is the way it is because currently
being a cop is extremely dangerous.

The death rate in the US from all causes is 880 per 100,000. The
death rate in the US from being killed in a felonious act while being
a cop is about 25 per 100,000 cops. So a cop is far less likely to
die of being killed by a criminal than of other causes. Sorry, but
the notion that "being a cop is extremely dangerous" doesn't fly. Cop
doesn't even make the top 10 most dangerous jobs.

Post by Quadibloc
So that after you get rid of the bad cops - which you should - black people's
lives are *still* going to be in excessive danger from the police.

Why?

Post by Quadibloc
And there is no easy way to fix that, because getting police to go like lambs to
the slaughter isn't going to happen.

Of course there is. When a cop kills somebody without a really good
reason, crucify the cop. I mean literally, spear in the side, sip of
vinegar, crown of thorns, the whole nine yards.

Post by Quadibloc
So *my* solution is to bite the bullet and do it the hard way.
The goal is to make it no more likely for a random black man to be a dangerous
criminal than a random white man. In reality, in daily experience.
Discourage criminality by dealing more harshly with it... as one step.

And you have just become the problem. It seems to have escaped your
notice that "minding your own business while black" is a crime in the
US. Dealing more harshly with it is not going to help. You have to
deal harshly with the people who pretend that it is a crime and that
is the cops.

Post by Quadibloc
But _most_ of the work will consist of ending the huge economic inequality
between black people and whites. Because poor people of whatever race have
always been more likely to commit crimes.

And we have another privileged white dude who just doesn't get it.

People like you _are_ a big part of the problem, because you refuse to
accept that black people get wrongfully arrested, wrongfully tried,
wrongfully convicted and wrongfully imprisoned with great regularity.
You just _assume_ that all the black people rotting in jail are there
because they are EEEEEEVVVVVVVIIIIIILLLLL and deserve to be there.

Post by Quadibloc
Remove the rational basis for the fear and the hate, and then dealing with the
bigots that are left will be a possible task.

What "rational basis"?

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke
The death rate in the US from all causes is 880 per 100,000. The
death rate in the US from being killed in a felonious act while being
a cop is about 25 per 100,000 cops. So a cop is far less likely to
die of being killed by a criminal than of other causes. Sorry, but
the notion that "being a cop is extremely dangerous" doesn't fly. Cop
doesn't even make the top 10 most dangerous jobs.

Well, that may be true. And I certainly _don't_ agree with another comment I
came across. It was noted that far more cops are killed by criminals than black
people are killed by cops.

I don't think that's a relevant comparison. The issue is that far more law-
abiding black people are being killed by police than law-abiding white people.
Being black should not be dangerous - being a police officer, by its nature,
comes with some risk, and it's a profession people choose. Being black isn't a
choice.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
Discourage criminality by dealing more harshly with it... as one step.

And you have just become the problem. It seems to have escaped your
notice that "minding your own business while black" is a crime in the
US. Dealing more harshly with it is not going to help. You have to
deal harshly with the people who pretend that it is a crime and that
is the cops.

Evidently I haven't been clear.

There _are_ black people who commit robberies, who deal drugs, and who commit
*real* crimes. Of course, there are white people who do that stuff too.

But the public perception that a black neighborhood is not a safe place, that a
black person wandering around in a predominantly white neighborhood is up to no
good, and all these other things that lead to trouble for innocent black
people... this stuff isn't just fantasy created out of nothing by people who
started with a belief that blacks are subhuman.

Mo. Black people suffer from poverty. Poverty breeds crime, and there is a real
correlation between crime and color in the U.S. that isn't due to black people
being arrested for no reason (inflating the statistics).

Making that go away involves fixing an awful lot that's wrong. Until it goes
away, trying to make the prejudice go away won't be effective.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
Discourage criminality by dealing more harshly with it... as one step.

And you have just become the problem. It seems to have escaped your
notice that "minding your own business while black" is a crime in the
US. Dealing more harshly with it is not going to help. You have to
deal harshly with the people who pretend that it is a crime and that
is the cops.

Evidently I haven't been clear.
There _are_ black people who commit robberies, who deal drugs, and who commit
*real* crimes. Of course, there are white people who do that stuff too.
But the public perception that a black neighborhood is not a safe place, that a
black person wandering around in a predominantly white neighborhood is up to no
good, and all these other things that lead to trouble for innocent black
people... this stuff isn't just fantasy created out of nothing by people who
started with a belief that blacks are subhuman.
Mo. Black people suffer from poverty. Poverty breeds crime, and there is a real
correlation between crime and color in the U.S. that isn't due to black people
being arrested for no reason (inflating the statistics).
Making that go away involves fixing an awful lot that's wrong. Until it goes
away, trying to make the prejudice go away won't be effective.

Making prejudice go away is hard. Not hiring prejudiced people to
strut around in uniforms with guns on their hips is another story.

[Major Oz]

Post by J. Clarke
Not hiring prejudiced people to
strut around in uniforms with guns on their hips is another story.

Very possibly.

I, and the rest of humanity, would be interested in your plan for carrying this out.....the most interesting part being......who judges.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Major Oz

Post by J. Clarke
Not hiring prejudiced people to
strut around in uniforms with guns on their hips is another story.

Very possibly.
I, and the rest of humanity, would be interested in your plan for carrying this out.....the most interesting part being......who judges.

Precisely.

The best solution currently, IMHO of course, is to require
/professionalism/.

This means that the officer can believe whatever he or she wants to --
but, particularly when on-duty but also off-duty when she wanders into
someone else's apartment and shoots him because she thinks it is hers
-- but /must behave in accordance with department guidelines/.

Those that cannot control their behavior should be removed -- but that
is true regardless of what the behavior is, if it prevents them from
behaving in accordance with deparment guidelines.

Of course, those guidelines have to be written clearly and avoid the
various prejudices floating about. Racist guidelies /are/
institutionalized racism in its clearest form.

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
But _most_ of the work will consist of ending the huge economic inequality
between black people and whites. Because poor people of whatever race have
always been more likely to commit crimes.

And we have another privileged white dude who just doesn't get it.
People like you _are_ a big part of the problem, because you refuse to
accept that black people get wrongfully arrested, wrongfully tried,
wrongfully convicted and wrongfully imprisoned with great regularity.
You just _assume_ that all the black people rotting in jail are there
because they are EEEEEEVVVVVVVIIIIIILLLLL and deserve to be there.

I am well aware that black people have been convicted of crimes they did not
commit far too often.

However, for such people to constitute more than, say, 2% of the prison
population even so would seem to me highly unlikely.

20% would be getting into hallucinatory dystopic fantasy territory.

However, black people are _also_ more likely to be jailed for crimes that would
be ignored if commited by a white person, and so some noticeable inflation could
be due to that cause.

Maybe I'm just a naive optimist to believe that the system works the way it's
supposed to the vast majority of the time nowadays - even though it is still
failing to work that way to an extent that is sufficient to be completely
unacceptable.

For one thing, if most of the black men in American prisons were innocent men,
wrongly imprisoned... American prisons would be much quieter places.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
But _most_ of the work will consist of ending the huge economic inequality
between black people and whites. Because poor people of whatever race have
always been more likely to commit crimes.

And we have another privileged white dude who just doesn't get it.
People like you _are_ a big part of the problem, because you refuse to
accept that black people get wrongfully arrested, wrongfully tried,
wrongfully convicted and wrongfully imprisoned with great regularity.
You just _assume_ that all the black people rotting in jail are there
because they are EEEEEEVVVVVVVIIIIIILLLLL and deserve to be there.

I am well aware that black people have been convicted of crimes they did not
commit far too often.

There's also the matter of being convicted of a "crime" for which a
white person would not have even been tried.

Post by Quadibloc
However, for such people to constitute more than, say, 2% of the prison
population even so would seem to me highly unlikely.

And so you remain part of the problem. You refuse to admit that the
police, the legal system, and the courts are all broken.

Post by Quadibloc
20% would be getting into hallucinatory dystopic fantasy territory.

Unless it's real.

Post by Quadibloc
However, black people are _also_ more likely to be jailed for crimes that would
be ignored if commited by a white person, and so some noticeable inflation could
be due to that cause.

Bingo. Driving a nice car while black for example. Leads to being
stopped, leads to getting the drug dog, the drug dog "alerts" when his
handler tells him to, bingo, drug offender.

Post by Quadibloc
Maybe I'm just a naive optimist to believe that the system works the way it's
supposed to the vast majority of the time nowadays - even though it is still
failing to work that way to an extent that is sufficient to be completely
unacceptable.

You _are_ a naive optimist. This is well known to everyone who has
had dealings with you.

Post by Quadibloc
For one thing, if most of the black men in American prisons were innocent men,
wrongly imprisoned... American prisons would be much quieter places.

You have personal experience of the noise level in American prisons do
you?

[David Johnston]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

If that is what you believe then say it but be prepared to defend it.
And if you are live and in person with other people be prepared to get
your head beaten in.

Fortunately, it isn't. Even though I am not really 'woke' and I'm certainly not
'politically correct'.
I do think there are two sides of the story - that things didn't get this bad
without some reason. Not in the case of George Floyd, but in some other cases of
innocent unarmed black people being shot by police, the problem is decent cops
following their training - training that is the way it is because currently
being a cop is extremely dangerous.
So that after you get rid of the bad cops - which you should - black people's
lives are *still* going to be in excessive danger from the police.
And there is no easy way to fix that, because getting police to go like lambs to
the slaughter isn't going to happen.
So *my* solution is to bite the bullet and do it the hard way.
The goal is to make it no more likely for a random black man to be a dangerous
criminal than a random white man. In reality, in daily experience.
Discourage criminality by dealing more harshly with it... as one step.

A step which, needless to say, has never and will never work. Making
punishments for criminality generally more harsh has never had a
significant impact on how likely people are to commit crimes because
pretty much nobody commits a crime intending to get caught

[Chrysi Cat]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

If that is what you believe then say it but be prepared to defend it.
And if you are live and in person with other people be prepared to get
your head beaten in.

Fortunately, it isn't. Even though I am not really 'woke' and I'm certainly not
'politically correct'.
I do think there are two sides of the story - that things didn't get this bad
without some reason. Not in the case of George Floyd, but in some other cases of
innocent unarmed black people being shot by police, the problem is decent cops
following their training - training that is the way it is because currently
being a cop is extremely dangerous.
So that after you get rid of the bad cops - which you should - black people's
lives are *still* going to be in excessive danger from the police.
And there is no easy way to fix that, because getting police to go like lambs to
the slaughter isn't going to happen.
So *my* solution is to bite the bullet and do it the hard way.
The goal is to make it no more likely for a random black man to be a dangerous
criminal than a random white man. In reality, in daily experience.
Discourage criminality by dealing more harshly with it... as one step.

A step which, needless to say, has never and will never work.  Making
punishments for criminality generally more harsh has never had a
significant impact on how likely people are to commit crimes because
pretty much nobody commits a crime intending to get caught

If anything, it can INCREASE THE SEVERITY of those crimes that ARE
committed.

Remember, there's the story of the Chinese emperor who came to power
because he'd have lost his head for being late to report to HIS emperor
anyway, so he figured he might as well get his money's worth and lose it
for rebellion instead--and then his side won.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

If that is what you believe then say it but be prepared to defend it.
And if you are live and in person with other people be prepared to get
your head beaten in.

Fortunately, it isn't. Even though I am not really 'woke' and I'm certainly not
'politically correct'.
I do think there are two sides of the story - that things didn't get this bad
without some reason. Not in the case of George Floyd, but in some other cases of
innocent unarmed black people being shot by police, the problem is decent cops
following their training - training that is the way it is because currently
being a cop is extremely dangerous.
So that after you get rid of the bad cops - which you should - black people's
lives are *still* going to be in excessive danger from the police.
And there is no easy way to fix that, because getting police to go like lambs to
the slaughter isn't going to happen.
So *my* solution is to bite the bullet and do it the hard way.
The goal is to make it no more likely for a random black man to be a dangerous
criminal than a random white man. In reality, in daily experience.
Discourage criminality by dealing more harshly with it... as one step.

A step which, needless to say, has never and will never work.  Making
punishments for criminality generally more harsh has never had a
significant impact on how likely people are to commit crimes because
pretty much nobody commits a crime intending to get caught

If anything, it can INCREASE THE SEVERITY of those crimes that ARE
committed.
Remember, there's the story of the Chinese emperor who came to power
because he'd have lost his head for being late to report to HIS emperor
anyway, so he figured he might as well get his money's worth and lose it
for rebellion instead--and then his side won.

Yep. If you're gonna hang anyway you may as well shoot the bastard.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 16:00:03 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

If that is what you believe then say it but be prepared to defend it.
And if you are live and in person with other people be prepared to get
your head beaten in.

Fortunately, it isn't. Even though I am not really 'woke' and I'm certainly not
'politically correct'.
I do think there are two sides of the story - that things didn't get this bad
without some reason. Not in the case of George Floyd, but in some other cases of
innocent unarmed black people being shot by police, the problem is decent cops
following their training - training that is the way it is because currently
being a cop is extremely dangerous.
So that after you get rid of the bad cops - which you should - black people's
lives are *still* going to be in excessive danger from the police.
And there is no easy way to fix that, because getting police to go like lambs to
the slaughter isn't going to happen.
So *my* solution is to bite the bullet and do it the hard way.
The goal is to make it no more likely for a random black man to be a dangerous
criminal than a random white man. In reality, in daily experience.
Discourage criminality by dealing more harshly with it... as one step.

A step which, needless to say, has never and will never work.  Making
punishments for criminality generally more harsh has never had a
significant impact on how likely people are to commit crimes because
pretty much nobody commits a crime intending to get caught

If anything, it can INCREASE THE SEVERITY of those crimes that ARE
committed.
Remember, there's the story of the Chinese emperor who came to power
because he'd have lost his head for being late to report to HIS emperor
anyway, so he figured he might as well get his money's worth and lose it
for rebellion instead--and then his side won.

Yep. If you're gonna hang anyway you may as well shoot the bastard.

The classic formulation is, "Might as well be hung for a sheep as a
lamb."

[Thomas Koenig]

Post by Quadibloc
So that after you get rid of the bad cops - which you should - black people's
lives are *still* going to be in excessive danger from the police.

From what I read of the statistics, black people's lives are in
much more danger from other black people than from the police.
Or do I have the numbers wrong?

Post by Quadibloc
And there is no easy way to fix that, because getting police to go like lambs to
the slaughter isn't going to happen.

"Defund the police" is going to solve that problem, nicely.
Nobody goes in anymore.

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 12:36:32 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Thomas Koenig

Post by Quadibloc
So that after you get rid of the bad cops - which you should - black people's
lives are *still* going to be in excessive danger from the police.

From what I read of the statistics, black people's lives are in
much more danger from other black people than from the police.
Or do I have the numbers wrong?

Post by Quadibloc
And there is no easy way to fix that, because getting police to go like lambs to
the slaughter isn't going to happen.

"Defund the police" is going to solve that problem, nicely.
Nobody goes in anymore.

Not go in with military hardware, certainly, as defunding /those/ is
definitely on the table. Maybe they can sell it back ...

And part of the reason it may work is that the only other solution is
to cut other programs. Program that actually help people.

It's been clear for some time that everybody -- perps, cops, victims,
civilians -- are /much/ safer, even in middle-class white
neighborhoods, if the police only show up long after the perps have
fled -- provided they know it.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Thomas Koenig

Post by Quadibloc
So that after you get rid of the bad cops - which you should - black people's
lives are *still* going to be in excessive danger from the police.

From what I read of the statistics, black people's lives are in
much more danger from other black people than from the police.
Or do I have the numbers wrong?

No, you don't.

But to go from there to the conclusion that this is the *fault* of black people,
as some right-wingers do, is legitimately open to criticism.

Wait, wouldn't a liberal require logical contortions to maintain that this
situation is all white people's fault?

Well, let's just take a look at things.

Fact number one: *most* black people aren't criminals. So if their lives are in
danger from _other_ black people, it isn't _their_ fault personally.

Fact number two: black people are poorer than white people. Slavery,
segregation, white people burning down the neighborhoods built by some black
people who actually managed to work and save a little... those things are the
main cause.

So that _some_ blacks turn to crime because of White-created poverty, and
_other_ blacks have their lives in danger from them because they have to live
next to those criminals because of White-created poverty... indeed _is_ the
white man's fault.

Of course many black people could do a better job of playing the lousy hand
they've been dealt. But the habit of thinking long-term, of working hard in
school, and so on has been bled out of their community by decades during which
they could not keep what they earned for one reason or another.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
This has me worried.

Why? Lots of angry black people in your part of Canada are there?

A lot of people are making fun of our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, for
hesitating for 21 seconds in order to answer a question while avoiding any
direct criticism of U. S. President Donald J. Trump.

I just don't agree with them at all.

Canada depends utterly for its survival as a free nation on the U. S. nuclear
umbrella.

Many Canadian businesses benefit from the ability to sell products to U. S.
customers.

Donald J. Trump has proven himself to be capricious and vengeful, petulant and
narcissistic. So extreme caution is entirely reasonable for the sake of Canada's
vital interests.

I don't want anything bad to happen to the United States. I want it to have a
healthy economy, a strong defense, and a President who is a statesman of whom
all Americans can be proud. That will be good news for Canada too.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
This has me worried.

Why? Lots of angry black people in your part of Canada are there?

A lot of people are making fun of our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, for
hesitating for 21 seconds in order to answer a question while avoiding any
direct criticism of U. S. President Donald J. Trump.
I just don't agree with them at all.
Canada depends utterly for its survival as a free nation on the U. S. nuclear
umbrella.

You do? You're saying that you have some agressive neighbor who has
an army on your border that is just champing at the bit to roll tanks
into your country? So who is that neighbor? And why haven't they
invaded, say, Botswana, if they're so hot to invade some place?

Post by Quadibloc
Many Canadian businesses benefit from the ability to sell products to U. S.
customers.

Tough shit.

Post by Quadibloc
Donald J. Trump has proven himself to be capricious and vengeful, petulant and
narcissistic. So extreme caution is entirely reasonable for the sake of Canada's
vital interests.
I don't want anything bad to happen to the United States. I want it to have a
healthy economy, a strong defense, and a President who is a statesman of whom
all Americans can be proud. That will be good news for Canada too.

Dream on. I think the last time all that happened at the same time
some guy named Roosevelt was in the Oval Office.

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
Canada depends utterly for its survival as a free nation on the U. S. nuclear
umbrella.

You do? You're saying that you have some agressive neighbor who has
an army on your border that is just champing at the bit to roll tanks
into your country? So who is that neighbor? And why haven't they
invaded, say, Botswana, if they're so hot to invade some place?

Hey, there's Georgia and the Ukraine.

If you're not aware that Russia and China in various ways go around intimidating
democratic nations, and would be able to do it better if the U.S. wasn't in the
way, you haven't been reading the newspaper.

The leaders of both those countries are cut from the same cloth as that guy with
the funny moustache who was causing trouble when FDR was in the Oval Office.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
Canada depends utterly for its survival as a free nation on the U. S. nuclear
umbrella.

You do? You're saying that you have some agressive neighbor who has
an army on your border that is just champing at the bit to roll tanks
into your country? So who is that neighbor? And why haven't they
invaded, say, Botswana, if they're so hot to invade some place?

Hey, there's Georgia and the Ukraine.

Geez, and they say that _Americans_ have no clue about geography.

So, open up Google Earth, take a screenshot of the border between
Canada and Georgia or Canada and Ukraine, post it somewhere, and
provide us the link.

Post by Quadibloc
If you're not aware that Russia and China in various ways go around intimidating
democratic nations, and would be able to do it better if the U.S. wasn't in the
way, you haven't been reading the newspaper.

You weren't talking about "intimidating", you were talking about
"survival as a free nation". So who, specifically, do you believe is
going to end your "survival" and how?

You really don't seem to have a clue about the magnitude of effort
needed to conduct an overseas invasion and conquest. You seem to have
bought into the "Red Dawn" bullshit that a few paratroopers are going
to suffice.

Post by Quadibloc
The leaders of both those countries are cut from the same cloth as that guy with
the funny moustache who was causing trouble when FDR was in the Oval Office.

And who have they invaded that does not share a border with them?

[Chrysi Cat]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
Canada depends utterly for its survival as a free nation on the U. S. nuclear
umbrella.

You do? You're saying that you have some agressive neighbor who has
an army on your border that is just champing at the bit to roll tanks
into your country? So who is that neighbor? And why haven't they
invaded, say, Botswana, if they're so hot to invade some place?

Hey, there's Georgia and the Ukraine.

Geez, and they say that _Americans_ have no clue about geography.
So, open up Google Earth, take a screenshot of the border between
Canada and Georgia or Canada and Ukraine, post it somewhere, and
provide us the link.

Admittedly, no border between Canada and THEM. PLENTY of border between
Canada and Russia--especially thanks to law of the sea--although it
means an amphibious invasion.

His point is that Russia is that neighbour and you better /believe/
they've already been invading their other neighbours.

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
If you're not aware that Russia and China in various ways go around intimidating
democratic nations, and would be able to do it better if the U.S. wasn't in the
way, you haven't been reading the newspaper.

You weren't talking about "intimidating", you were talking about
"survival as a free nation". So who, specifically, do you believe is
going to end your "survival" and how?
You really don't seem to have a clue about the magnitude of effort
needed to conduct an overseas invasion and conquest. You seem to have
bought into the "Red Dawn" bullshit that a few paratroopers are going
to suffice.

Post by Quadibloc
The leaders of both those countries are cut from the same cloth as that guy with
the funny moustache who was causing trouble when FDR was in the Oval Office.

And who have they invaded that does not share a border with them?

See above for "does Canada share a border with Russia?".

Living under the US nuke umbrella may well be the major reason Canada
was safe, especially during each Cold War (modern and however many you
want to split 1945-91 into).

It's now the major _threat_ to Canadian safety because Trump likely
wants it under the Stars and Stripes, though admittedly less desperately
than he want Kalaallit Nunaat that way. Though elsethread I have
admitted that I see less danger of Toronto or Vancouver catching an
American nuke than I do Portland or San Francisco, let alone Beijing or
Shenzen.

[Major Oz]

Post by Chrysi Cat
Living under the US nuke umbrella may well be the major reason Canada
was safe, especially during each Cold War (modern and however many you
want to split 1945-91 into).
It's now the major _threat_ to Canadian safety because Trump likely
wants it under the Stars and Stripes.....

I doubt it.....but, for some time now, the prairie provinces have been reported to want it......for much the same reason "the colonies" broke from the Britts.

Post by Chrysi Cat
I see less danger of Toronto or Vancouver catching an
American nuke than I do Portland or San Francisco, let alone Beijing or
Shenzen.

But poor Winnipeg is at high risk.....not so much today as during the height of the cold war.

Minot and Grand Forks had 350 MM missiles. Also had the ONLY treaty allowed anti-missile battery.

Scenario(s)...

1. Bad guy's counterforce warheads attempt to wipe out MM.....some miss and hit Winnipeg.

2. US anti-missile rockets intercept incomming......right over Winnipeg

3. We launch our MM missiles, and the first stage burns out and lands on....Winnipeg.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
Canada depends utterly for its survival as a free nation on the U. S. nuclear
umbrella.

You do? You're saying that you have some agressive neighbor who has
an army on your border that is just champing at the bit to roll tanks
into your country? So who is that neighbor? And why haven't they
invaded, say, Botswana, if they're so hot to invade some place?

Hey, there's Georgia and the Ukraine.

Geez, and they say that _Americans_ have no clue about geography.
So, open up Google Earth, take a screenshot of the border between
Canada and Georgia or Canada and Ukraine, post it somewhere, and
provide us the link.

Admittedly, no border between Canada and THEM. PLENTY of border between
Canada and Russia--especially thanks to law of the sea--although it
means an amphibious invasion.
His point is that Russia is that neighbour and you better /believe/
they've already been invading their other neighbours.

When Russia has enough naval power for that to be a credible threat
get back to us.

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
If you're not aware that Russia and China in various ways go around intimidating
democratic nations, and would be able to do it better if the U.S. wasn't in the
way, you haven't been reading the newspaper.

You weren't talking about "intimidating", you were talking about
"survival as a free nation". So who, specifically, do you believe is
going to end your "survival" and how?
You really don't seem to have a clue about the magnitude of effort
needed to conduct an overseas invasion and conquest. You seem to have
bought into the "Red Dawn" bullshit that a few paratroopers are going
to suffice.

Post by Quadibloc
The leaders of both those countries are cut from the same cloth as that guy with
the funny moustache who was causing trouble when FDR was in the Oval Office.

And who have they invaded that does not share a border with them?

See above for "does Canada share a border with Russia?".

I see it. By that logic Tonga shares a border with Russia, so why
hasn't Russia, that is so red hot determined to conquer everything in
sight in your view of the world, gone charging across that border to
conquer Tonga?

Post by Chrysi Cat
Living under the US nuke umbrella may well be the major reason Canada
was safe, especially during each Cold War (modern and however many you
want to split 1945-91 into).

The major reason that Canada was safe is the same reason that Germany
didn't invade them. Because invading across an ocean is _hard_. The
US made a tough go of it and the Russians have never had much success
in a naval war. Remember when Japan kicked their butt? And I don't
mean in WWII?

Post by Chrysi Cat
It's now the major _threat_ to Canadian safety because Trump likely
wants it under the Stars and Stripes, though admittedly less desperately
than he want Kalaallit Nunaat that way.

You really, really need mental help. When has Trump indicated that
conquering Canada was even something he thought about in idle
daydreams?

Post by Chrysi Cat
Though elsethread I have
admitted that I see less danger of Toronto or Vancouver catching an
American nuke than I do Portland or San Francisco, let alone Beijing or
Shenzen.

Portland or San Francisco "catching an American nuke"?

I'm sorry, but you have taken leave of your senses. This is the kind
of thing that people mean when they say "Trump Derangement Syndrome".

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke
You really don't seem to have a clue about the magnitude of effort
needed to conduct an overseas invasion and conquest. You seem to have
bought into the "Red Dawn" bullshit that a few paratroopers are going
to suffice.

How about surrender your country without a fight, or we drop an H-bomb on each
and every one of your major cities?

I don't know why, just because the start of the Cold War was decades ago, some
people are forgetting just what nukes are.

Dictatorships are threatened by the very existence of free people anywhere,
because free people will denounce their crimes. China proves that by its recent
behavior towards Hong Kong, like kidnapping the owner of a Hong Kong chain of
bookstores.

John Savard

[Major Oz]

....heh,heh,heh....

The looters are assembling...

[J. Clarke]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
You really don't seem to have a clue about the magnitude of effort
needed to conduct an overseas invasion and conquest. You seem to have
bought into the "Red Dawn" bullshit that a few paratroopers are going
to suffice.

How about surrender your country without a fight, or we drop an H-bomb on each
and every one of your major cities?

How about what does Canada have that is so wonderful that in order to
get it somebody would turn all your major cities into radioactive
wastelands? Obviously it's not your population or your industry, so
what is it?

Post by Quadibloc
I don't know why, just because the start of the Cold War was decades ago, some
people are forgetting just what nukes are.

I don't know why, just because the Cold War has been over for more
than 30 years now, poeple like you still think that the Russians are
going to go conquer everything in sight.

You just don't understand that war is expensive as Hell no matter how
you cut it and the only people who start wars deliberately are FUCKING
IDIOTS.

Post by Quadibloc
Dictatorships are threatened by the very existence of free people anywhere,
because free people will denounce their crimes.

Uh huh, right. Hint--the dictator DOES NOT GIVE A HOOT IN HELL what
some Canadian hiding in a bunker somewhere thinks.

Post by Quadibloc
China proves that by its recent
behavior towards Hong Kong, like kidnapping the owner of a Hong Kong chain of
bookstores.

It seems to have escaped your notice that Hong Kong is A CITY IN
CHINA. It is not separated from China by an ocean and populated by
people who have no ties whatsoever to China.

You're acting like a country that takes X action against one of its
own cities has demonstrated by that action that it is bent on
conquering another nation halfway around the world.

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke
It seems to have escaped your notice that Hong Kong is A CITY IN
CHINA. It is not separated from China by an ocean and populated by
people who have no ties whatsoever to China.
You're acting like a country that takes X action against one of its
own cities has demonstrated by that action that it is bent on
conquering another nation halfway around the world.

The PRC's actions, even against Hong Kong, demonstrate how it loathes freedom.
Its threats against Taiwan demonstrate how it loathes freedom. Thet Hong Kong is
under Chinese administration, and Taiwan is part of the historic nation of
China, are not excuses for such evil conduct.

And, in any case, since China is currently holding two Canadians hostage, it is
harassing Japanese ships in the South China Sea, it is pressuring Australia, and
it is responsible for the existence of North Korea by intervening in the Korean
War, to assume its evil intend ends at its... slightly extended... borders is
unsafe.

Tyranny anywhere endangers free men everywhere. We learned this lesson at great
cost from World War II, and we must never forget it.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
It seems to have escaped your notice that Hong Kong is A CITY IN
CHINA. It is not separated from China by an ocean and populated by
people who have no ties whatsoever to China.
You're acting like a country that takes X action against one of its
own cities has demonstrated by that action that it is bent on
conquering another nation halfway around the world.

The PRC's actions, even against Hong Kong, demonstrate how it loathes freedom.
Its threats against Taiwan demonstrate how it loathes freedom. Thet Hong Kong is
under Chinese administration, and Taiwan is part of the historic nation of
China, are not excuses for such evil conduct.

So fucking WHAT? Nobody said anything about "excusing evil conduct".
You are all in a tizzy because you think that for some reason the
Chinese are just champing at the bit to invade Canada. WHY THE HELL
WOULD THEY WANT TO DO THAT?

Post by Quadibloc
And, in any case, since China is currently holding two Canadians hostage, it is
harassing Japanese ships in the South China Sea, it is pressuring Australia, and
it is responsible for the existence of North Korea by intervening in the Korean
War, to assume its evil intend ends at its... slightly extended... borders is
unsafe.

Now lets's see, the South China Sea is, well, the name says it all.
Korea has a clearly delineated walk-across butt nekkid (if it isn't
winter) border with China. As for China and Japan, they have a
history. None of this means that they have the slightest interest in
invading Canada. And Australia is a lot closer to China than it is to
anywhere that could be described as "Western Civilization".

Post by Quadibloc
Tyranny anywhere endangers free men everywhere. We learned this lesson at great
cost from World War II, and we must never forget it.

So being "free men" is so fragile that Canada would be threatened if
there was tyranny in Vanuatu?

Quadi, you really, really need to develop some sense of proportion.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
It seems to have escaped your notice that Hong Kong is A CITY IN
CHINA. It is not separated from China by an ocean and populated by
people who have no ties whatsoever to China.
You're acting like a country that takes X action against one of its
own cities has demonstrated by that action that it is bent on
conquering another nation halfway around the world.

The PRC's actions, even against Hong Kong, demonstrate how it loathes freedom.
Its threats against Taiwan demonstrate how it loathes freedom. Thet Hong Kong is
under Chinese administration, and Taiwan is part of the historic nation of
China, are not excuses for such evil conduct.
And, in any case, since China is currently holding two Canadians hostage, it is
harassing Japanese ships in the South China Sea, it is pressuring Australia, and
it is responsible for the existence of North Korea by intervening in the Korean
War, to assume its evil intend ends at its... slightly extended... borders is
unsafe.
Tyranny anywhere endangers free men everywhere. We learned this lesson at great
cost from World War II, and we must never forget it.

How much of that are you involved in? What are you
doing about tyranny besides... this?

I don't disagree; tyranny expands. It's one of the
things that tyrannized people like about it. It appeals
to patriotism. That does have to be resisted.
But not by exterminating them.

[Chrysi Cat]

On 6/7/2020 6:41 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
<snip>

Post by Robert Carnegie
How much of that are you involved in? What are you
doing about tyranny besides... this?

What can ANY of us do? Even the very youngest of us is too old to enlist
in the military and most of us live in countries that are every bit as
authoritarian as Francoist Spain if not more so. Quadi admittedly is in
probably the freest English-speaking country bar NZ, but he also
wouldn't be permitted to stand for election until 2023.

As for me, I'm a babyfur, so one or the other side of that turns off
just about every voter who isn't one themself. And while I'm not a pedo,
my best friend for nearly two decades got busted for THAT. So I'm
entirely incapable of being elected to anything whether I try to keep
those skeletons in the closet or let them sit in front of the house for
all to see.

I'm also so dependent upon non-recreational drugs with low
half-lives--AND of course pre-op trans so I'd be in the men's jail
anyway--as to make it…less than safe to go protest because if I get
arrested my health will degrade ANOTHER 5 degrees or so even if I don't
catch the viral plague from the close quarters.

"THIS", for myself and likely for Quadi, is the extent of what we think
we CAN do especially with all the money around us being in others'
names. Got suggestions for more productive forms of worrying?

Post by Robert Carnegie
I don't disagree; tyranny expands. It's one of the
things that tyrannized people like about it. It appeals
to patriotism. That does have to be resisted.
But not by exterminating them.

Where was he talking about exterminating the Red Chinese THIS time? It
looked more like he was suggesting a Hong Kong Revolution, though
admittedly that doesn't work unless somehow the rebels seize and keep
Kowloon (for the same reason that the islands had to be handed back to
China in the first place).

Of course, this whole thing could have been avoided if the UK had
realised that the Chinese considered the Sino-British Joint Declaration
to be "one last Unequal Treaty". That meant that, to Beijing it was
imperative that it be entirely abrogated as soon as possible, and that
NONE of its tenets could be considered binding or good. Therefore EITHER:
a) The British needed to evacuate HK better in 1997, and make it clear
that "One country, Two systems" was going to be ended at the earliest
convenience of Beijing so the residents had better want to become
communist if they stayed, or
b) somehow there needed to be a military guarantee of HK democracy up to
2047. Failing both, this was ALWAYS going to happen as soon as the
world's eyes were averted.

At this point, I would prefer it be considered an act of war for China
to refuse to let every HK citizen evacuate NOW, and I also feel that
it's the UK's responsibility to grant UK citizenship to every HK citizen
who actively forswears the Red Chinese government. We do, however, have
to write off the idea of maintaining HK democracy, and there's a good
chance we have to consider how to evacuate the Taiwanese because there
WILL be an invasion across the Straits before there's a vaccine for the
novel coronavirus.

And there is no possible order of battle that could allow the Westerners
to repulse a Red Chinese invasion of Taiwan in the modern era. Arguably,
there wasn't in 1949.

(The entire world SHOULD probably abandon the One-China policy at this
time and support Taiwanese independence AS a nation-state with no claims
on the Mainland. On the one hand, even Taiwan declaring that would be
considered an act of war by Beijing, but on the other hand, Taiwan
already KNOWS it will be invaded before 2021 and MAYBE they can get a
couple open allies even as Russia carefully refuses to consider them a
state? Maybe refugees from a fallen state will be treated better than
ones who "finally lost a rebellion" too.)

[Major Oz]

Post by Chrysi Cat
<snip>

Post by Robert Carnegie
How much of that are you involved in? What are you
doing about tyranny besides... this?

What can ANY of us do? Even the very youngest of us is too old to enlist
in the military and most of us live in countries that are every bit as
authoritarian as Francoist Spain if not more so. Quadi admittedly is in
probably the freest English-speaking country bar NZ, but he also
wouldn't be permitted to stand for election until 2023.
As for me, I'm a babyfur, so one or the other side of that turns off
just about every voter who isn't one themself. And while I'm not a pedo,
my best friend for nearly two decades got busted for THAT. So I'm
entirely incapable of being elected to anything whether I try to keep
those skeletons in the closet or let them sit in front of the house for
all to see.
I'm also so dependent upon non-recreational drugs with low
half-lives--AND of course pre-op trans so I'd be in the men's jail
anyway--as to make it…less than safe to go protest because if I get
arrested my health will degrade ANOTHER 5 degrees or so even if I don't
catch the viral plague from the close quarters.
"THIS", for myself and likely for Quadi, is the extent of what we think
we CAN do especially with all the money around us being in others'
names. Got suggestions for more productive forms of worrying?

Post by Robert Carnegie
I don't disagree; tyranny expands. It's one of the
things that tyrannized people like about it. It appeals
to patriotism. That does have to be resisted.
But not by exterminating them.

Where was he talking about exterminating the Red Chinese THIS time? It
looked more like he was suggesting a Hong Kong Revolution, though
admittedly that doesn't work unless somehow the rebels seize and keep
Kowloon (for the same reason that the islands had to be handed back to
China in the first place).
Of course, this whole thing could have been avoided if the UK had
realised that the Chinese considered the Sino-British Joint Declaration
to be "one last Unequal Treaty". That meant that, to Beijing it was
imperative that it be entirely abrogated as soon as possible, and that
a) The British needed to evacuate HK better in 1997, and make it clear
that "One country, Two systems" was going to be ended at the earliest
convenience of Beijing so the residents had better want to become
communist if they stayed, or
b) somehow there needed to be a military guarantee of HK democracy up to
2047. Failing both, this was ALWAYS going to happen as soon as the
world's eyes were averted.
At this point, I would prefer it be considered an act of war for China
to refuse to let every HK citizen evacuate NOW, and I also feel that
it's the UK's responsibility to grant UK citizenship to every HK citizen
who actively forswears the Red Chinese government. We do, however, have
to write off the idea of maintaining HK democracy, and there's a good
chance we have to consider how to evacuate the Taiwanese because there
WILL be an invasion across the Straits before there's a vaccine for the
novel coronavirus.
And there is no possible order of battle that could allow the Westerners
to repulse a Red Chinese invasion of Taiwan in the modern era. Arguably,
there wasn't in 1949.
(The entire world SHOULD probably abandon the One-China policy at this
time and support Taiwanese independence AS a nation-state with no claims
on the Mainland. On the one hand, even Taiwan declaring that would be
considered an act of war by Beijing, but on the other hand, Taiwan
already KNOWS it will be invaded before 2021 and MAYBE they can get a
couple open allies even as Russia carefully refuses to consider them a
state? Maybe refugees from a fallen state will be treated better than
ones who "finally lost a rebellion" too.)

H. Norman wrote his War College thesis on scenarios and reactions if one mid eastern oil nation invaded another one.

He was told to develop it further for submission to the "WTF do we do" department in the DoD.

....good thing....

I would LOVE to be privy to the Taiwan / HK / SCS options hidden away.....

[J. Clarke]

Post by Chrysi Cat
<snip>

Post by Robert Carnegie
How much of that are you involved in? What are you
doing about tyranny besides... this?

What can ANY of us do? Even the very youngest of us is too old to enlist
in the military and most of us live in countries that are every bit as
authoritarian as Francoist Spain if not more so. Quadi admittedly is in
probably the freest English-speaking country bar NZ, but he also
wouldn't be permitted to stand for election until 2023.
As for me, I'm a babyfur, so one or the other side of that turns off
just about every voter who isn't one themself. And while I'm not a pedo,
my best friend for nearly two decades got busted for THAT. So I'm
entirely incapable of being elected to anything whether I try to keep
those skeletons in the closet or let them sit in front of the house for
all to see.
I'm also so dependent upon non-recreational drugs with low
half-lives--AND of course pre-op trans so I'd be in the men's jail
anyway--as to make it…less than safe to go protest because if I get
arrested my health will degrade ANOTHER 5 degrees or so even if I don't
catch the viral plague from the close quarters.
"THIS", for myself and likely for Quadi, is the extent of what we think
we CAN do especially with all the money around us being in others'
names. Got suggestions for more productive forms of worrying?

Post by Robert Carnegie
I don't disagree; tyranny expands. It's one of the
things that tyrannized people like about it. It appeals
to patriotism. That does have to be resisted.
But not by exterminating them.

Where was he talking about exterminating the Red Chinese THIS time? It
looked more like he was suggesting a Hong Kong Revolution, though
admittedly that doesn't work unless somehow the rebels seize and keep
Kowloon (for the same reason that the islands had to be handed back to
China in the first place).
Of course, this whole thing could have been avoided if the UK had
realised that the Chinese considered the Sino-British Joint Declaration
to be "one last Unequal Treaty". That meant that, to Beijing it was
imperative that it be entirely abrogated as soon as possible, and that
a) The British needed to evacuate HK better in 1997, and make it clear
that "One country, Two systems" was going to be ended at the earliest
convenience of Beijing so the residents had better want to become
communist if they stayed, or
b) somehow there needed to be a military guarantee of HK democracy up to
2047. Failing both, this was ALWAYS going to happen as soon as the
world's eyes were averted.
At this point, I would prefer it be considered an act of war for China
to refuse to let every HK citizen evacuate NOW, and I also feel that
it's the UK's responsibility to grant UK citizenship to every HK citizen
who actively forswears the Red Chinese government. We do, however, have
to write off the idea of maintaining HK democracy,

The thing about considering it an act of war is that somebody has to
be prepared for a nuclear exchange that the Chinese will win just
because of the sheer mass of their population--they could trade losses
1 for 1 with both the US and Russia and still come out with a bigger
population than both put together had going in, and since they're less
dependent on industry they're less likely to collapse when they lose a
lot of it.

Post by Chrysi Cat
and there's a good
chance we have to consider how to evacuate the Taiwanese because there
WILL be an invasion across the Straits before there's a vaccine for the
novel coronavirus.

Right, sure there will. There is going to be a vaccine this year or
eaarly next year. There are already several in test. So the Chinese
better get their butts in gear if they are going to pull this one off.

Post by Chrysi Cat
And there is no possible order of battle that could allow the Westerners
to repulse a Red Chinese invasion of Taiwan in the modern era. Arguably,
there wasn't in 1949.

How would the Chinese have even gotten there in 1949? 70 miles is a
long way to swim toting a rifle. People don't seem to grasp that
invasion over water is a very different proposition from invasion over
land. There's a reason Hitler did not succeed in invading England.

As for now, they have 70 miles of ocean to cross. 70 miles of ocean
is an awful long way to go when you're sharing it with hostile
nucleaer fast attack submarine.

As for aircraft, in the modern battlespace China provides a wonderful
array of targets. People say "they have 3500 aircraft", but most of
those were obsolescent at the end of the Vietnam war. 4 carrier
battle groups can put together as much effective modern combat air
power as the entire Chinese air force.

Post by Chrysi Cat
(The entire world SHOULD probably abandon the One-China policy at this
time and support Taiwanese independence AS a nation-state with no claims
on the Mainland. On the one hand, even Taiwan declaring that would be
considered an act of war by Beijing, but on the other hand, Taiwan
already KNOWS it will be invaded before 2021 and MAYBE they can get a
couple open allies even as Russia carefully refuses to consider them a
state? Maybe refugees from a fallen state will be treated better than
ones who "finally lost a rebellion" too.)

Yeah, they KNOW they are going to be invaded in the next 6 months.
Sure they do.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Robert Carnegie
I don't disagree; tyranny expands. It's one of the
things that tyrannized people like about it. It appeals
to patriotism. That does have to be resisted.
But not by exterminating them.

Oh, dear, no. A pre-emptive nuclear strike back when China didn't have nuclear
submarines and Yeltsin was running Russia is something that was a missed
opportunity, but that's not exterminating the Chinese people, that's destroying
Chinese missiles, hopefully with few if any civilian casualties.

After regime change in China, then an agreement is reached with Yeltsin, now
that Russia no longer legitimately needs nuclear weapons to defend against
China, to de-nuclearise Russia in exchange for massive aid, and then the world
would have been peaceful forever. Someone like Vladimir Putin would have no
opportunity to menace world peace, if he tried to make trouble, he would just
bring ruin and destruction down on Russia as Hitler did on Germany.

And with no Red China, India wouldn't need nuclear weapons, and so Pakistan
wouldn't be tempted to build them either. And we would be in a far safer world.

But Bill Clinton frittered away that opportunity, so the world is again at
constant risk of annihilation in nuclear war.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Robert Carnegie
I don't disagree; tyranny expands. It's one of the
things that tyrannized people like about it. It appeals
to patriotism. That does have to be resisted.
But not by exterminating them.

Oh, dear, no. A pre-emptive nuclear strike back when China didn't have nuclear
submarines and Yeltsin was running Russia is something that was a missed
opportunity, but that's not exterminating the Chinese people, that's destroying
Chinese missiles, hopefully with few if any civilian casualties.

"Pre-Emptive"? You do know that that would mostly have just solved
their population problem for them, and pissed them off _real_ good, do
you not?

Post by Quadibloc
After regime change in China, then an agreement is reached with Yeltsin, now
that Russia no longer legitimately needs nuclear weapons to defend against
China, to de-nuclearise Russia in exchange for massive aid, and then the world
would have been peaceful forever. Someone like Vladimir Putin would have no
opportunity to menace world peace, if he tried to make trouble, he would just
bring ruin and destruction down on Russia as Hitler did on Germany.

Dream on. The same gang of thieves from Harvard Business School would
have fleeced Russia and pissed _them_ off. If both Russia and China
are pissed in our direction, this is a Very Bad Thing.

Post by Quadibloc
And with no Red China, India wouldn't need nuclear weapons, and so Pakistan
wouldn't be tempted to build them either. And we would be in a far safer world.

What, you think India has nuclear weapons because they _need_ them?
Invading India would not be an easy task and what is there in India
that anybody _wants_ badly enough to justify an invasion?

Post by Quadibloc
But Bill Clinton frittered away that opportunity, so the world is again at
constant risk of annihilation in nuclear war.

And will be until some deity appears and alters the laws of physics so
that nuclear weapons no longer work.

But the notion that every nation on Earth is just champing at the bit
to start a nuclear war is, well, you really should get some help.

Not even North Korea has actually done anything but bluster.

[Chrysi Cat]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Robert Carnegie
I don't disagree; tyranny expands. It's one of the
things that tyrannized people like about it. It appeals
to patriotism. That does have to be resisted.
But not by exterminating them.

Oh, dear, no. A pre-emptive nuclear strike back when China didn't have nuclear
submarines and Yeltsin was running Russia is something that was a missed
opportunity, but that's not exterminating the Chinese people, that's destroying
Chinese missiles, hopefully with few if any civilian casualties.

"Pre-Emptive"? You do know that that would mostly have just solved
their population problem for them, and pissed them off _real_ good, do
you not?

Post by Quadibloc
After regime change in China, then an agreement is reached with Yeltsin, now
that Russia no longer legitimately needs nuclear weapons to defend against
China, to de-nuclearise Russia in exchange for massive aid, and then the world
would have been peaceful forever. Someone like Vladimir Putin would have no
opportunity to menace world peace, if he tried to make trouble, he would just
bring ruin and destruction down on Russia as Hitler did on Germany.

Dream on. The same gang of thieves from Harvard Business School would
have fleeced Russia and pissed _them_ off. If both Russia and China
are pissed in our direction, this is a Very Bad Thing.

And yet the BEST case is that that's exactly what we have in the current
era [the other option, though you tend to disbelieve it, is that China
is while we're now allies of Russia. Which considering China and Russia
DESPISE each other is a good way to get on the side opposing China in
WWIII, and you know already that I don't think it's possible for Red
China to lose a war in which she chooses to fight for at least the
remainder of my lifetime. And I refuse to accept, even if you can
maintain peace with China, that alliance with Russia is a good thing
until they stop trying to take LGBT relations back to the XVIII
century--not even the XIX].

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
And with no Red China, India wouldn't need nuclear weapons, and so Pakistan
wouldn't be tempted to build them either. And we would be in a far safer world.

What, you think India has nuclear weapons because they _need_ them?
Invading India would not be an easy task and what is there in India
that anybody _wants_ badly enough to justify an invasion?

We, being sane, don't agree there's anything that anyone would want. I
would be surprised if less than a majority of INDIANS don't think that
"Mother Ganga" by herself was worth invading to gain control of. They
certainly see themself as needing nukes, not as it being dick-waving for
no reason.

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
But Bill Clinton frittered away that opportunity, so the world is again at
constant risk of annihilation in nuclear war.

And will be until some deity appears and alters the laws of physics so
that nuclear weapons no longer work.
But the notion that every nation on Earth is just champing at the bit
to start a nuclear war is, well, you really should get some help.
Not even North Korea has actually done anything but bluster.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Robert Carnegie
I don't disagree; tyranny expands. It's one of the
things that tyrannized people like about it. It appeals
to patriotism. That does have to be resisted.
But not by exterminating them.

Oh, dear, no. A pre-emptive nuclear strike back when China didn't have nuclear
submarines and Yeltsin was running Russia is something that was a missed
opportunity, but that's not exterminating the Chinese people, that's destroying
Chinese missiles, hopefully with few if any civilian casualties.

a preemptive nuclear attack is not a good plan for anybody
and they aren't precision weapons so you aren't going to take out missiles without hurting a hell of a lot of people

Post by Quadibloc
After regime change in China, then an agreement is reached with Yeltsin, now
that Russia no longer legitimately needs nuclear weapons to defend against
China,

you think Russia is going to disarm after they've seen that the USA is willing to launch a preemptive nuclear attack?
You think the rest of the world is going to accept a nuclear launch as the opening gambit of a country which isn't clearly about to start a war?

Post by Quadibloc
to de-nuclearise Russia in exchange for massive aid, and then the world
would have been peaceful forever. Someone like Vladimir Putin would have no
opportunity to menace world peace, if he tried to make trouble, he would just
bring ruin and destruction down on Russia as Hitler did on Germany.

Please let us know what of the wars in the last 30 years have included nuclear weapons.
The USA launching a preemptive nuclear attack is not an act which will settle the world down.

Post by Quadibloc
And with no Red China, India wouldn't need nuclear weapons, and so Pakistan
wouldn't be tempted to build them either.

India did not solely build nuclear weapons to defend against China

Post by Quadibloc
And we would be in a far safer world.
But Bill Clinton frittered away that opportunity, so the world is again at
constant risk of annihilation in nuclear war.

Just piss off

[Quadibloc]

Post by Robert Carnegie
How much of that are you involved in? What are you
doing about tyranny besides... this?

Reminding people that Russia and China are EEVIL seems like a good first step.

Once this becomes the popular consensus, broadly supported by the electorate,
and hence the major political parties, those who have the power to do something
will do what little even *they* can.

Russia and China have nukes, so we can't liberate them. All we can do is remain
ever-vigilant so that the free people of the world don't fall to them bit by
bit. As we did during the Cold War for two reasons:

a) the lessons of World War II were still fresh in our minds, and

b) as McCarthyism proved, as America's business elites saw Russia's ambitions
for world revolution as a threat - of making labor unions get uppity - it was
easier politically to take the correct road of resisting Communism than it had
been in the case of Hitler and Mussolini, who a number of industrialists were
even so foolish as to admire.

America luckily had far-sighted leaders like Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F.
Kennedy who recognized the menace of Communism, but rejected the cancer of
McCarthyism.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Robert Carnegie
How much of that are you involved in? What are you
doing about tyranny besides... this?

Reminding people that Russia and China are EEVIL seems like a good first step.

Right now we have enough trouble with our own police who are EEVIL.

Post by Quadibloc
Once this becomes the popular consensus, broadly supported by the electorate,
and hence the major political parties, those who have the power to do something
will do what little even *they* can.

Earth to Quadi--nobody _likes_ the Chinese or Russians. But the
Chinese do a fine job of being cheap labor.

Post by Quadibloc
Russia and China have nukes, so we can't liberate them. All we can do is remain
ever-vigilant so that the free people of the world don't fall to them bit by

Do they _want_ to be "liberated"? How has "liberating" Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Vietnam worked out? To "liberate" someone first they
have to _want_ it, and the US going into China or Russia would not be
viewed by the locals as "liberation", it would be viewed as "yet
another foreign invader".

Imagine Afghanistan only you're outnumberd 3-1 by tech-savvy people
with a martial arts tradition older than your whole civilization.
That's what "liberating" China would be like.

Post by Quadibloc
a) the lessons of World War II were still fresh in our minds, and
b) as McCarthyism proved, as America's business elites saw Russia's ambitions
for world revolution as a threat - of making labor unions get uppity - it was
easier politically to take the correct road of resisting Communism than it had
been in the case of Hitler and Mussolini, who a number of industrialists were
even so foolish as to admire.
America luckily had far-sighted leaders like Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F.
Kennedy who recognized the menace of Communism, but rejected the cancer of
McCarthyism.
John Savard

[David Johnston]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
This has me worried.

Why? Lots of angry black people in your part of Canada are there?

A lot of people are making fun of our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, for
hesitating for 21 seconds in order to answer a question while avoiding any
direct criticism of U. S. President Donald J. Trump.
I just don't agree with them at all.
Canada depends utterly for its survival as a free nation on the U. S. nuclear
umbrella.

You do? You're saying that you have some agressive neighbor who has
an army on your border that is just champing at the bit to roll tanks
into your country?

Well we certainly do have an aggressive neighbour that invades many
places.

So who is that neighbor? And why haven't they

Post by J. Clarke
invaded, say, Botswana, if they're so hot to invade some place?

Post by Quadibloc
Many Canadian businesses benefit from the ability to sell products to U. S.
customers.

Tough shit.

You asked him why he was worried. You shouldn't have asked the question
if you didn't want the answer.

[David Johnston]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
This has me worried.

Why? Lots of angry black people in your part of Canada are there?

A lot of people are making fun of our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, for
hesitating for 21 seconds in order to answer a question while avoiding any
direct criticism of U. S. President Donald J. Trump.
I just don't agree with them at all.
Canada depends utterly for its survival as a free nation on the U. S. nuclear
umbrella.

You know if the United States takes itself out of the game Canada would
be quite capable of building it's own nuclear deterrent. The reasons it
doesn't involve the expense involved and the fact that the Americans
wouldn't have a sense of humour about it.

[Quadibloc]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Quadibloc
Canada depends utterly for its survival as a free nation on the U. S. nuclear
umbrella.

You know if the United States takes itself out of the game Canada would
be quite capable of building it's own nuclear deterrent. The reasons it
doesn't involve the expense involved and the fact that the Americans
wouldn't have a sense of humour about it.

This is true, but Canada wants to set a good example for other countries to
abide by the non-proliferation treaty. If the United States took itself out of
the game, though, we wouldn't necessarily have the *time* to construct a nuclear
deterrent.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by David Johnston

Post by Quadibloc
Canada depends utterly for its survival as a free nation on the U. S. nuclear
umbrella.

You know if the United States takes itself out of the game Canada would
be quite capable of building it's own nuclear deterrent. The reasons it
doesn't involve the expense involved and the fact that the Americans
wouldn't have a sense of humour about it.

This is true, but Canada wants to set a good example for other countries to
abide by the non-proliferation treaty. If the United States took itself out of
the game, though, we wouldn't necessarily have the *time* to construct a nuclear
deterrent.

Why not? How fast do you think a Chinese soldier can swim, anyway?

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
This is true, but Canada wants to set a good example for other countries to
abide by the non-proliferation treaty. If the United States took itself out of
the game, though, we wouldn't necessarily have the *time* to construct a nuclear
deterrent.

Why not? How fast do you think a Chinese soldier can swim, anyway?

Russian and Chinese ICBMs can fly pretty fast, so it's not necessary for me to
accept at face value the news reports from China about how fast their former
leader, Mao Tse-Tung, was able to swim...

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
This is true, but Canada wants to set a good example for other countries to
abide by the non-proliferation treaty. If the United States took itself out of
the game, though, we wouldn't necessarily have the *time* to construct a nuclear
deterrent.

Why not? How fast do you think a Chinese soldier can swim, anyway?

Russian and Chinese ICBMs can fly pretty fast, so it's not necessary for me to
accept at face value the news reports from China about how fast their former
leader, Mao Tse-Tung, was able to swim...

So why would either of them use ICBMs on Canada? Hint--blowing
something up isn't conquest. If they are going to conquer you and
take away your freedom they have to put boots on the ground. And if
they are Chinese boots they are going to have to swim across the
Pacific in them first.

Your fear of Russian or Chinese invasion is, quite frankly, a paranoid
fantasy. If either of them actually looks like they're putting
together the sealift to pull such a thing off, then you might be
justified in worrying about it. But they aren't, and their minds
don't really work that way. Canada may be in danger of Russian or
Chinese invasion once one or the other of them controls all of Asia,
Europe, and Africa and has "run out of worlds to conquer". When that
happens, get back to us.

As for them nuking you, quite frankly there is not a damned thing in
Canada that is worth the price of a warhead.

[David Johnston]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by David Johnston

Post by Quadibloc
Canada depends utterly for its survival as a free nation on the U. S. nuclear
umbrella.

You know if the United States takes itself out of the game Canada would
be quite capable of building it's own nuclear deterrent. The reasons it
doesn't involve the expense involved and the fact that the Americans
wouldn't have a sense of humour about it.

This is true, but Canada wants to set a good example for other countries to
abide by the non-proliferation treaty. If the United States took itself out of
the game, though, we wouldn't necessarily have the *time* to construct a nuclear
deterrent.

Oh I'm pretty sure it would take a while for anyone to get around to
messing with Canada in any serious way. The only real military threat
to Canada is the United States after all.

[Mike Spencer]

Post by David Johnston
Oh I'm pretty sure it would take a while for anyone to get around to
messing with Canada in any serious way. The only real military
threat to Canada is the United States after all.

Y'all have read Richard Rohmer's 1974 novel _Exxoneration_?

(This *is* r.a.s.w after all.)

[Alan Baker]

Post by Mike Spencer

Post by David Johnston
Oh I'm pretty sure it would take a while for anyone to get around to
messing with Canada in any serious way. The only real military
threat to Canada is the United States after all.

Y'all have read Richard Rohmer's 1974 novel _Exxoneration_?
(This *is* r.a.s.w after all.)

I think I started to read it once...

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 12:24:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc
Asking the police to put their lives at extreme risk is just not going to fly.

Of course it is. You don't ask them, you tell them, and ruin
their lives sufficiently when they muck it up that they wish
they had taken the bullet instead.

So your solution to the current crisis is to guarantee that all
police are violently mentally ill becuase no one in their right mind
would ever take the job?

You'er 100% as stupid as you ever were.

Were it not for the fact that (despite what's inside your head) you
live in the same world as me, I'd sincerely wish you got what you
(believe you) want. You'd certainly deserve it.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

[Quadibloc]

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 12:24:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc
Asking the police to put their lives at extreme risk is just not going to fly.

Of course it is. You don't ask them, you tell them, and ruin
their lives sufficiently when they muck it up that they wish
they had taken the bullet instead.

So your solution to the current crisis is to guarantee that all
police are violently mentally ill becuase no one in their right mind
would ever take the job?

Although I agree with your... sentiment... I was not certain that his words had
the meaning you refer to, which they initially *appeared* to have to me.

Nothing wrong with telling police to do their jobs properly.

My point was that some accidental deaths can tragically result, not from bad
cops, but because police have had to become extremely cautious due to past
incidents where police were unexpectedly shot by suspects who took advantage of
the slightest lapse in precautions.

He was indeed in disagreement with that point, but it seemed to me that he
partly missed my point, and also believed the risks to which I referred did not
exist - which is why I could not, as you do, come to a firm conclusion that he
was demanding that police risk their lives to an unreasonable extent.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha

On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 12:24:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc
Asking the police to put their lives at extreme risk is just not going to fly.

Of course it is. You don't ask them, you tell them, and ruin
their lives sufficiently when they muck it up that they wish
they had taken the bullet instead.

So your solution to the current crisis is to guarantee that all
police are violently mentally ill becuase no one in their right mind
would ever take the job?

Although I agree with your... sentiment... I was not certain that his words had
the meaning you refer to, which they initially *appeared* to have to me.
Nothing wrong with telling police to do their jobs properly.
My point was that some accidental deaths can tragically result, not from bad
cops, but because police have had to become extremely cautious due to past
incidents where police were unexpectedly shot by suspects who took advantage of
the slightest lapse in precautions.
He was indeed in disagreement with that point, but it seemed to me that he
partly missed my point, and also believed the risks to which I referred did not
exist - which is why I could not, as you do, come to a firm conclusion that he
was demanding that police risk their lives to an unreasonable extent.

A cop is more likely to die of a heart attack, cancer, or in an
automobile accident than of being shot by a black person. Their fear
of blacks is irrational and no doubt part of their culture. Any cop
who is caught telling other cops stuff like "more cops are killed by
black people than black people by cops" needs to be gently corrected
the first time, and fired the second.

[Quadibloc]

Some further developments.

Early in the rioting, I read an article that decried the use of the term 'violence' in reference to the riots. Because there was only property damage being done by the rioters, while some police reacting to the riots were physically attacking innocent people - so _only_ the police were engaging in violenc so far.

Well, somewhat later I heard a report that someone trying to stab a police officer with a knife was shot by police, so that perfect record ended.

Now I see this video on YouTube:

David Dorn, a 77-year-old retired police officer, was killed by rioters. The maker of the video, being black, has the luxury of telling it like it is.

Well, I don't feel inclined to make excuses for rioters either, _even_ when they're just causing property damage and not killing people.

However, our government, our police, our criminal justice system, they are all going to be trying to find the killers of Mr. Dorn. It may be hard to investigate a murder when the tracks are covered by a riot, but there has never been a systematic history in our society of ignoring the deaths of those who are defending the innocent from aggression.

Most black people aren't police officers.

But all black people are at risk of what happened to George Floyd. Yes. Calling
attention to the death of George Floyd suits the agenda of Black Lives Matter:
making America a place where black people can get on with their lives just like
white people.

Calling attention to the death of David Dorn... can just provide aid, comfort,
and encouragement to those who want to see black people in general, not just
thugs and rioters, subject to harsher repression. That doesn't mean that David
Dorn deserves to be forgotten.

Don't call people hypocrites because they don't want to add fuel to the fire.

John Savard

[Major Oz]

Post by Quadibloc
Some further developments.
Early in the rioting, I read an article that decried the use of the term 'violence' in reference to the riots. Because there was only property damage being done by the rioters, while some police reacting to the riots were physically attacking innocent people - so _only_ the police were engaging in violenc so far.
Well, somewhat later I heard a report that someone trying to stab a police officer with a knife was shot by police, so that perfect record ended.
http://youtu.be/4rZETAGFiF8
David Dorn, a 77-year-old retired police officer, was killed by rioters. The maker of the video, being black, has the luxury of telling it like it is.

One of the most racist facts of our society.

Post by Quadibloc
Well, I don't feel inclined to make excuses for rioters either, _even_ when they're just causing property damage and not killing people.
However, our government, our police, our criminal justice system, they are all going to be trying to find the killers of Mr. Dorn. It may be hard to investigate a murder when the tracks are covered by a riot, but there has never been a systematic history in our society of ignoring the deaths of those who are defending the innocent from aggression.
Most black people aren't police officers.

Relevance ?? ....neither are most white people.

Post by Quadibloc
But all black people are at risk of what happened to George Floyd.

Horrifyingly idiotic statement.

Post by Quadibloc
Calling attention to the death of David Dorn... can.....

...do anything the media chooses to do.

Post by Quadibloc
Don't call people hypocrites because they don't want to add fuel to the fire.

Agreed

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...

George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.

However, I am shocked at that ratio of cops who are killed by blacks.
“Owens also questioned the narrative of police brutality. “A police
officer is 18 and a half times more likely to be killed by a black
person than the other way around,” says Owens.”

https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/04/candace-owens-george-floyd-is-not-my-martyr/

Lynn

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.

What crime do you think he committed?

[Alan Baker]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.

What crime do you think he committed?

Isn't it amazing how Lynn will happily judge a dead man guilty while he
would undoubtedly argue with anyone who said the police officer who
killed him had committed any crime by doing so?

[Major Oz]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.

What crime do you think he committed?

Outlined in the referenced article.

Reading is fun......and informative.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Major Oz

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.

What crime do you think he committed?

Outlined in the referenced article.
Reading is fun......and informative.

Tell me:

Is killing a man a crime?

[Quadibloc]

Post by Alan Baker
Is killing a man a crime?

Usually.

However, soldiers fighting in a war - and police officers too, for that matter -
sometimes in the course of their duties do kill people - and in those cases it
isn't a crime. So you're asking the wrong question, and therefore making
yourself an easy target.

Now that the claim has been made that George Floyd was on fentanyl, it's going
to be possible for people to spin the incident in such a way as to claim that
the peaceful protests were a wrong-headed fuss about nothing.

I don't have any time for that kind of nonsense - but the riots, looting, and
arson are, quite naturally, going to become the issue for white America, with
George Floyd ending up relegated to the status of a footnote. I see that as an
inevitable consequence - and it indicates self-interest on the part of white
America, not racism.

However, stories coming out of the police response to the riots - reporters
arrested, innocent people putting out fires attacked, peaceful protesters
kettled and then falsely arrested for breaking curfew - show that there are a
lot more bad cops around.

I don't want to blame those who are peacefully protesting for the riots. To some
extent, they may be due to a limited number of miscreants using peaceful protest
as acover, people not representative of the black community. But that they may
also be due in part to a rage and an anger that is widely felt within the black
community isn't something that I can dismiss either.

Rage and anger is justified, but the rioting is going to set things back in the
short term - and black Americans shouldn't have to wait until the long term for
justice at this late date.

John Savard

[Major Oz]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Major Oz

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.

What crime do you think he committed?

Outlined in the referenced article.
Reading is fun......and informative.

Is killing a man a crime?

.....depends on circumstances......

[Alan Baker]

Post by Major Oz

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Major Oz

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.

What crime do you think he committed?

Outlined in the referenced article.
Reading is fun......and informative.

Is killing a man a crime?

.....depends on circumstances......

The circumstances were that a man knelt on the neck of another man in
handcuffs and with at least two other men who could have assisted him in
restraining the deceased...

...until the restrained person was unresponsive...


...and even for nearly two minutes when he was told that the deceased
had no pulse.

[Major Oz]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Major Oz

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Major Oz

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.

What crime do you think he committed?

Outlined in the referenced article.
Reading is fun......and informative.

Is killing a man a crime?

.....depends on circumstances......

The circumstances were that a man knelt on the neck of another man in
handcuffs and with at least two other men who could have assisted him in
restraining the deceased...
...until the restrained person was unresponsive...
...and even for nearly two minutes when he was told that the deceased
had no pulse.

We are all aware of that.

If that is what you refer to.........the answer is, obviously: yes.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Major Oz

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Major Oz

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Major Oz

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.

What crime do you think he committed?

Outlined in the referenced article.
Reading is fun......and informative.

Is killing a man a crime?

.....depends on circumstances......

The circumstances were that a man knelt on the neck of another man in
handcuffs and with at least two other men who could have assisted him in
restraining the deceased...
...until the restrained person was unresponsive...
...and even for nearly two minutes when he was told that the deceased
had no pulse.

We are all aware of that.
If that is what you refer to.........the answer is, obviously: yes.

That's what happened.

Which is why the officer has now been charged with second degree murder.

[Chrysi Cat]

Post by Major Oz

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.

What crime do you think he committed?

Outlined in the referenced article.
Reading is fun......and informative.

He passed a single counterfeit 20 dollar bill and came meekly to the
car, although he then made himself dead weight rather than entering it.

I'd ask in what world that even remotely deserves death, but then I'm
already aware that in your world it would be illegal for me to call
myself anything other than my deadname and that ideally I'd be
discriminated against until I married a woman and fathered a couple of
children or proved I was genetically incapable of same.

[Major Oz]

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Major Oz

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.

What crime do you think he committed?

Outlined in the referenced article.
Reading is fun......and informative.

He passed a single counterfeit 20 dollar bill and came meekly to the
car, although he then made himself dead weight rather than entering it.
I'd ask in what world that even remotely deserves death, but then I'm
already aware that in your world it would be illegal for me to call
myself anything other than my deadname and that ideally I'd be
discriminated against until I married a woman and fathered a couple of
children or proved I was genetically incapable of same.

....eh ?

[Chrysi Cat]

Post by Major Oz

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Major Oz

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.

What crime do you think he committed?

Outlined in the referenced article.
Reading is fun......and informative.

He passed a single counterfeit 20 dollar bill and came meekly to the
car, although he then made himself dead weight rather than entering it.
I'd ask in what world that even remotely deserves death, but then I'm
already aware that in your world it would be illegal for me to call
myself anything other than my deadname and that ideally I'd be
discriminated against until I married a woman and fathered a couple of
children or proved I was genetically incapable of same.

....eh ?

You're seriously going to try to claim at this point that there's anyone
left in your party not trying to pass "your gender is what sex you were
born as. It is immutable" laws?

[Major Oz]

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Major Oz

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Major Oz

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.

What crime do you think he committed?

Outlined in the referenced article.
Reading is fun......and informative.

He passed a single counterfeit 20 dollar bill and came meekly to the
car, although he then made himself dead weight rather than entering it.
I'd ask in what world that even remotely deserves death, but then I'm
already aware that in your world it would be illegal for me to call
myself anything other than my deadname and that ideally I'd be
discriminated against until I married a woman and fathered a couple of
children or proved I was genetically incapable of same.

....eh ?

You're seriously going to try to claim at this point that there's anyone
left in your party not trying to pass "your gender is what sex you were
born as. It is immutable" laws?

My party ??

I have no clue what "party" you think I belong to.

But, if, on the off chance that you refer to Republicans......none of them but the batshit kkkrazy religious wackos feeeeel that way.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Major Oz

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Major Oz

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Major Oz

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.

What crime do you think he committed?

Outlined in the referenced article.
Reading is fun......and informative.

He passed a single counterfeit 20 dollar bill and came meekly to the
car, although he then made himself dead weight rather than entering it.
I'd ask in what world that even remotely deserves death, but then I'm
already aware that in your world it would be illegal for me to call
myself anything other than my deadname and that ideally I'd be
discriminated against until I married a woman and fathered a couple of
children or proved I was genetically incapable of same.

....eh ?

You're seriously going to try to claim at this point that there's anyone
left in your party not trying to pass "your gender is what sex you were
born as. It is immutable" laws?

My party ??
I have no clue what "party" you think I belong to.
But, if, on the off chance that you refer to Republicans......none of them but the batshit kkkrazy religious wackos feeeeel that way.

You mean like the one currently running the US Senate?

[Major Oz]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Major Oz

Post by Chrysi Cat
You're seriously going to try to claim at this point that there's anyone
left in your party not trying to pass "your gender is what sex you were
born as. It is immutable" laws?

My party ??
I have no clue what "party" you think I belong to.
But, if, on the off chance that you refer to Republicans......none of them but the batshit kkkrazy religious wackos feeeeel that way.

You mean like the one currently running the US Senate?

I have no knowledge of his specific POV on that issue.

(not saying there isn't one.......just that I haven't seen it. If anyone has, I would appreciate a link)

[J. Clarke]

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 14:06:04 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Major Oz

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Major Oz

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Major Oz

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.

What crime do you think he committed?

Outlined in the referenced article.
Reading is fun......and informative.

He passed a single counterfeit 20 dollar bill and came meekly to the
car, although he then made himself dead weight rather than entering it.
I'd ask in what world that even remotely deserves death, but then I'm
already aware that in your world it would be illegal for me to call
myself anything other than my deadname and that ideally I'd be
discriminated against until I married a woman and fathered a couple of
children or proved I was genetically incapable of same.

....eh ?

You're seriously going to try to claim at this point that there's anyone
left in your party not trying to pass "your gender is what sex you were
born as. It is immutable" laws?

My party ??
I have no clue what "party" you think I belong to.
But, if, on the off chance that you refer to Republicans......none of them but the batshit kkkrazy religious wackos feeeeel that way.

You mean like the one currently running the US Senate?

Do you have any quotations or relevant legislative history to support
the statement that he is trying to pass "your gender is what sex you
were born as. It is immutable" laws?

[Paul S Person]

Post by Major Oz

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Major Oz

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Major Oz

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.

What crime do you think he committed?

Outlined in the referenced article.
Reading is fun......and informative.

He passed a single counterfeit 20 dollar bill and came meekly to the
car, although he then made himself dead weight rather than entering it.
I'd ask in what world that even remotely deserves death, but then I'm
already aware that in your world it would be illegal for me to call
myself anything other than my deadname and that ideally I'd be
discriminated against until I married a woman and fathered a couple of
children or proved I was genetically incapable of same.

....eh ?

You're seriously going to try to claim at this point that there's anyone
left in your party not trying to pass "your gender is what sex you were
born as. It is immutable" laws?

My party ??
I have no clue what "party" you think I belong to.
But, if, on the off chance that you refer to Republicans......none of them but the batshit kkkrazy religious wackos feeeeel that way.

You mean, of course, the Base. Trump's Base, to be more precise.

And let's see what their Party Platform has when the convention ends!

[J. Clarke]

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Major Oz

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Major Oz

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.

What crime do you think he committed?

Outlined in the referenced article.
Reading is fun......and informative.

He passed a single counterfeit 20 dollar bill and came meekly to the
car, although he then made himself dead weight rather than entering it.
I'd ask in what world that even remotely deserves death, but then I'm
already aware that in your world it would be illegal for me to call
myself anything other than my deadname and that ideally I'd be
discriminated against until I married a woman and fathered a couple of
children or proved I was genetically incapable of same.

....eh ?

You're seriously going to try to claim at this point that there's anyone
left in your party not trying to pass "your gender is what sex you were
born as. It is immutable" laws?

This may come as a shock do you but if you want someone to cut your
dick off and tell you you're a woman, NOBODY GIVES A DAMN but YOU.

The real issue comes when you want to drag your dick into a women's
bathroom on the basis of "see, I'm a woman in a man's body".

Personally I think that the simplest solution to the transgender issue
is to change the labeling on bathrooms from "Men" and "Women" to
"Dicked" and "Dickless".

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 16:58:25 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.
However, I am shocked at that ratio of cops who are killed by blacks.
“Owens also questioned the narrative of police brutality. “A police
officer is 18 and a half times more likely to be killed by a black
person than the other way around,” says Owens.”
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/04/candace-owens-george-floyd-is-not-my-martyr/

Bull-fucking-SHIT.

In 2019, police killed 1098 people. Of those 24 percent or 263 of
them were black. In 2019, 147 police died in line of duty. That
include deaths from work-related cancer, automobile crashes, heart
attacks while on duty, and all other causes, not just being killed by
an assailant.

So the notion that a cop is 18-1/2 times more likely to be killed by a
black person than the other way around is a GOD DAMNED LIE.

[Alan Baker]

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 16:58:25 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.
However, I am shocked at that ratio of cops who are killed by blacks.
“Owens also questioned the narrative of police brutality. “A police
officer is 18 and a half times more likely to be killed by a black
person than the other way around,” says Owens.”
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/04/candace-owens-george-floyd-is-not-my-martyr/

Bull-fucking-SHIT.
In 2019, police killed 1098 people. Of those 24 percent or 263 of
them were black. In 2019, 147 police died in line of duty. That
include deaths from work-related cancer, automobile crashes, heart
attacks while on duty, and all other causes, not just being killed by
an assailant.
So the notion that a cop is 18-1/2 times more likely to be killed by a
black person than the other way around is a GOD DAMNED LIE.

Considering the source, does that surprise you?

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 16:58:25 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.
However, I am shocked at that ratio of cops who are killed by blacks.
“Owens also questioned the narrative of police brutality. “A police
officer is 18 and a half times more likely to be killed by a black
person than the other way around,” says Owens.”
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/04/candace-owens-george-floyd-is-not-my-martyr/

Bull-fucking-SHIT.
In 2019, police killed 1098 people. Of those 24 percent or 263 of
them were black. In 2019, 147 police died in line of duty. That
include deaths from work-related cancer, automobile crashes, heart
attacks while on duty, and all other causes, not just being killed by
an assailant.
So the notion that a cop is 18-1/2 times more likely to be killed by a
black person than the other way around is a GOD DAMNED LIE.

Where are you getting your stats from ? I do see this for police
officer deaths:
https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2019

I have no idea where Candace Owens is getting her stats from either.

Lynn

[Alan Baker]

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 16:58:25 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death.  He should not have been committing
a crime either.  He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.
However, I am shocked at that ratio of cops who are killed by blacks.
“Owens also questioned the narrative of police brutality. “A police
officer is 18 and a half times more likely to be killed by a black
person than the other way around,” says Owens.”
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/04/candace-owens-george-floyd-is-not-my-martyr/

Bull-fucking-SHIT.
In 2019, police killed 1098 people.  Of those 24 percent or 263 of
them were black.  In 2019, 147 police died in line of duty.  That
include deaths from work-related cancer, automobile crashes, heart
attacks while on duty, and all other causes, not just being killed by
an assailant.
So the notion that a cop is 18-1/2 times more likely to be killed by a
black person than the other way around is a GOD DAMNED LIE.

Where are you getting your stats from ?  I do see this for police
   https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2019
I have no idea where Candace Owens is getting her stats from either.
Lynn

And you didn't care to check...

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 17:44:12 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 16:58:25 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.
However, I am shocked at that ratio of cops who are killed by blacks.
“Owens also questioned the narrative of police brutality. “A police
officer is 18 and a half times more likely to be killed by a black
person than the other way around,” says Owens.”
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/04/candace-owens-george-floyd-is-not-my-martyr/

Bull-fucking-SHIT.
In 2019, police killed 1098 people. Of those 24 percent or 263 of
them were black. In 2019, 147 police died in line of duty. That
include deaths from work-related cancer, automobile crashes, heart
attacks while on duty, and all other causes, not just being killed by
an assailant.
So the notion that a cop is 18-1/2 times more likely to be killed by a
black person than the other way around is a GOD DAMNED LIE.

Where are you getting your stats from ? I do see this for police
https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2019
I have no idea where Candace Owens is getting her stats from either.

For killings by police see <https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/>

[Robert Woodward]

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 16:58:25 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.
However, I am shocked at that ratio of cops who are killed by blacks.
“Owens also questioned the narrative of police brutality. “A police
officer is 18 and a half times more likely to be killed by a black
person than the other way around,” says Owens.”
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/04/candace-owens-george-floyd-is-not-my-mar
tyr/

Bull-fucking-SHIT.
In 2019, police killed 1098 people. Of those 24 percent or 263 of
them were black. In 2019, 147 police died in line of duty. That
include deaths from work-related cancer, automobile crashes, heart
attacks while on duty, and all other causes, not just being killed by
an assailant.
So the notion that a cop is 18-1/2 times more likely to be killed by a
black person than the other way around is a GOD DAMNED LIE.

Ahem, there are far fewer police in the USA than African-Americans.
Since the probability of an event occurring to one person of a group is
the number of events divided by the number of people in that group; the
number claimed by Owens is not necessarily wrong (it probably is, since
I believe that there are more than 100K police in the USA)

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 05 Jun 2020 22:03:55 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 16:58:25 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for example, would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.
However, I am shocked at that ratio of cops who are killed by blacks.
“Owens also questioned the narrative of police brutality. “A police
officer is 18 and a half times more likely to be killed by a black
person than the other way around,” says Owens.”
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/04/candace-owens-george-floyd-is-not-my-mar
tyr/

Bull-fucking-SHIT.
In 2019, police killed 1098 people. Of those 24 percent or 263 of
them were black. In 2019, 147 police died in line of duty. That
include deaths from work-related cancer, automobile crashes, heart
attacks while on duty, and all other causes, not just being killed by
an assailant.
So the notion that a cop is 18-1/2 times more likely to be killed by a
black person than the other way around is a GOD DAMNED LIE.

Ahem, there are far fewer police in the USA than African-Americans.
Since the probability of an event occurring to one person of a group is
the number of events divided by the number of people in that group; the
number claimed by Owens is not necessarily wrong (it probably is, since
I believe that there are more than 100K police in the USA)

Right, apologize for the lying bitch.

I've seen the source for her numbers--I can't find it now but I've
seen it, and it was not talking about "per 100,000". I doubt that she
has read the source, she's likely just parroting some party line.

Understand, I'm a conservative. And I _hate_ it when morons like her
and Rush Limbaugh make the rest of us look bad by lying.

I'm sorry, but "black people are out to kill cops" is lame. It
shouldn't fly.

[Major Oz]

Post by J. Clarke
I'm sorry, but "black people are out to kill cops" is lame. It
shouldn't fly.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pigs-in-a-blanket-chant-at-minnesota-fair-riles-police/

[Alan Baker]

Post by Major Oz

Post by J. Clarke
I'm sorry, but "black people are out to kill cops" is lame. It
shouldn't fly.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pigs-in-a-blanket-chant-at-minnesota-fair-riles-police/

And that refutes what was said...

...how exactly?

What people SAY does not correlate with what people DO, does it?

[Major Oz]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Major Oz

Post by J. Clarke
I'm sorry, but "black people are out to kill cops" is lame. It
shouldn't fly.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pigs-in-a-blanket-chant-at-minnesota-fair-riles-police/

And that refutes what was said...
...how exactly?
What people SAY does not correlate with what people DO, does it?

Tell us what you think "...out to kill cops" means.

If you spin it well enough.....I may agree.

....and a suggestion....

Try to apply, in your mind.....

"What people SAY does not correlate with what people DO, does it?"

.....to POTUS

And evaluate each independently.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Major Oz

Post by Alan Baker

Post by Major Oz

Post by J. Clarke
I'm sorry, but "black people are out to kill cops" is lame. It
shouldn't fly.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pigs-in-a-blanket-chant-at-minnesota-fair-riles-police/

And that refutes what was said...
...how exactly?
What people SAY does not correlate with what people DO, does it?

Tell us what you think "...out to kill cops" means.

I think it's self-evident.

But I also thing that people chanting something ignorant doesn't
actually mean that they're "out to kill cops".

Post by Major Oz
If you spin it well enough.....I may agree.
....and a suggestion....
Try to apply, in your mind.....
"What people SAY does not correlate with what people DO, does it?"
.....to POTUS
And evaluate each independently.

But what he does AND what he says is terrible.

[Robert Woodward]

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 05 Jun 2020 22:03:55 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 16:58:25 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected
to
the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for
example,
would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.
However, I am shocked at that ratio of cops who are killed by blacks.
“Owens also questioned the narrative of police brutality. “A police
officer is 18 and a half times more likely to be killed by a black
person than the other way around,” says Owens.”
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/04/candace-owens-george-floyd-is-not-my-
mar
tyr/

Bull-fucking-SHIT.
In 2019, police killed 1098 people. Of those 24 percent or 263 of
them were black. In 2019, 147 police died in line of duty. That
include deaths from work-related cancer, automobile crashes, heart
attacks while on duty, and all other causes, not just being killed by
an assailant.
So the notion that a cop is 18-1/2 times more likely to be killed by a
black person than the other way around is a GOD DAMNED LIE.

Ahem, there are far fewer police in the USA than African-Americans.
Since the probability of an event occurring to one person of a group is
the number of events divided by the number of people in that group; the
number claimed by Owens is not necessarily wrong (it probably is, since
I believe that there are more than 100K police in the USA)

Right, apologize for the lying bitch.

You were confusing percentages with total numbers and I disapprove of
that.

Post by J. Clarke
I've seen the source for her numbers--I can't find it now but I've
seen it, and it was not talking about "per 100,000". I doubt that she
has read the source, she's likely just parroting some party line.

100K was just a BOE number. To compare probabilities (and that is what
"more likely" is about), you first divide 263 by the number of
African-Americans (I will round to 41 million), multiply that by 18.5,
and the result by 100K. The result is 11.9. IMHO, twelve (whether or not
it is correct for any year in the last decade) is too small a number to
be statistically reliable (somebody walking into a coffee shop and
shooting 4 officers isn't going to happen on a regular basis).

[J. Clarke]

On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 22:06:00 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 05 Jun 2020 22:03:55 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 16:58:25 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected
to
the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to
say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for
example,
would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.
However, I am shocked at that ratio of cops who are killed by blacks.
“Owens also questioned the narrative of police brutality. “A police
officer is 18 and a half times more likely to be killed by a black
person than the other way around,” says Owens.”
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/04/candace-owens-george-floyd-is-not-my-
mar
tyr/

Bull-fucking-SHIT.
In 2019, police killed 1098 people. Of those 24 percent or 263 of
them were black. In 2019, 147 police died in line of duty. That
include deaths from work-related cancer, automobile crashes, heart
attacks while on duty, and all other causes, not just being killed by
an assailant.
So the notion that a cop is 18-1/2 times more likely to be killed by a
black person than the other way around is a GOD DAMNED LIE.

Ahem, there are far fewer police in the USA than African-Americans.
Since the probability of an event occurring to one person of a group is
the number of events divided by the number of people in that group; the
number claimed by Owens is not necessarily wrong (it probably is, since
I believe that there are more than 100K police in the USA)

Right, apologize for the lying bitch.

You were confusing percentages with total numbers and I disapprove of
that.

Post by J. Clarke
I've seen the source for her numbers--I can't find it now but I've
seen it, and it was not talking about "per 100,000". I doubt that she
has read the source, she's likely just parroting some party line.

100K was just a BOE number. To compare probabilities (and that is what
"more likely" is about), you first divide 263 by the number of
African-Americans (I will round to 41 million), multiply that by 18.5,
and the result by 100K. The result is 11.9. IMHO, twelve (whether or not
it is correct for any year in the last decade) is too small a number to
be statistically reliable (somebody walking into a coffee shop and
shooting 4 officers isn't going to happen on a regular basis).

Here's the methodology used.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/how-conservatives-use-made-up-nonsense-to-justify-police-killings

And the statement remains a GOD DAMNED LIE.

[Major Oz]

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 22:06:00 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 05 Jun 2020 22:03:55 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 16:58:25 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected
to
the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to
say is
nothing".

...

Post by Quadibloc
I would think that, say, "George Floyd got what he deserved", for
example,
would
definitely be the wrong thing to say. As just one obvious example.

...
George Floyd did not deserve death. He should not have been committing
a crime either. He was a known criminal and high at the time which did
not help his situation.
However, I am shocked at that ratio of cops who are killed by blacks.
“Owens also questioned the narrative of police brutality. “A police
officer is 18 and a half times more likely to be killed by a black
person than the other way around,” says Owens.”
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/04/candace-owens-george-floyd-is-not-my-
mar
tyr/

Bull-fucking-SHIT.
In 2019, police killed 1098 people. Of those 24 percent or 263 of
them were black. In 2019, 147 police died in line of duty. That
include deaths from work-related cancer, automobile crashes, heart
attacks while on duty, and all other causes, not just being killed by
an assailant.
So the notion that a cop is 18-1/2 times more likely to be killed by a
black person than the other way around is a GOD DAMNED LIE.

Ahem, there are far fewer police in the USA than African-Americans.
Since the probability of an event occurring to one person of a group is
the number of events divided by the number of people in that group; the
number claimed by Owens is not necessarily wrong (it probably is, since
I believe that there are more than 100K police in the USA)

Right, apologize for the lying bitch.

You were confusing percentages with total numbers and I disapprove of
that.

Post by J. Clarke
I've seen the source for her numbers--I can't find it now but I've
seen it, and it was not talking about "per 100,000". I doubt that she
has read the source, she's likely just parroting some party line.

100K was just a BOE number. To compare probabilities (and that is what
"more likely" is about), you first divide 263 by the number of
African-Americans (I will round to 41 million), multiply that by 18.5,
and the result by 100K. The result is 11.9. IMHO, twelve (whether or not
it is correct for any year in the last decade) is too small a number to
be statistically reliable (somebody walking into a coffee shop and
shooting 4 officers isn't going to happen on a regular basis).

Here's the methodology used.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/how-conservatives-use-made-up-nonsense-to-justify-police-killings

Each time you quote something from the leftist echo chamber, we all get a better understanding why your pronouncements are as they are.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Major Oz

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 22:06:00 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward
100K was just a BOE number. To compare probabilities (and that is what
"more likely" is about), you first divide 263 by the number of
African-Americans (I will round to 41 million), multiply that by 18.5,
and the result by 100K. The result is 11.9. IMHO, twelve (whether or not
it is correct for any year in the last decade) is too small a number to
be statistically reliable (somebody walking into a coffee shop and
shooting 4 officers isn't going to happen on a regular basis).

Here's the methodology used.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/how-conservatives-use-made-up-nonsense-to-justify-police-killings

Each time you quote something from the leftist echo chamber, we all get a better understanding why your pronouncements are as they are.

You declare that a spokesman for the Park police is completely trustworthy despite them later stepping back from their statement
That video from an event showing gas and police firing isn't believable
that rubber bullets and canisters labelled as a type of tear gas found at the scene aren't believable

and now you dismiss an article which quotes the source of a figure, examines it and shows errors in the calculation and how the calculation is inappropriate because of the source?

WTF is your problem?

[Alan Baker]

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Major Oz

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 22:06:00 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward
100K was just a BOE number. To compare probabilities (and that is what
"more likely" is about), you first divide 263 by the number of
African-Americans (I will round to 41 million), multiply that by 18.5,
and the result by 100K. The result is 11.9. IMHO, twelve (whether or not
it is correct for any year in the last decade) is too small a number to
be statistically reliable (somebody walking into a coffee shop and
shooting 4 officers isn't going to happen on a regular basis).

Here's the methodology used.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/how-conservatives-use-made-up-nonsense-to-justify-police-killings

Each time you quote something from the leftist echo chamber, we all get a better understanding why your pronouncements are as they are.

You declare that a spokesman for the Park police is completely trustworthy despite them later stepping back from their statement
That video from an event showing gas and police firing isn't believable
that rubber bullets and canisters labelled as a type of tear gas found at the scene aren't believable
and now you dismiss an article which quotes the source of a figure, examines it and shows errors in the calculation and how the calculation is inappropriate because of the source?
WTF is your problem?

He exists in a mental bubble where 'Murica is PERFECT...

...and cannot bear to examine anything that even suggests otherwise.

[Gary R. Schmidt]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Major Oz

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 22:06:00 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward
100K was just a BOE number. To compare probabilities (and that is what
"more likely" is about), you first divide 263 by the number of
African-Americans (I will round to 41 million), multiply that by 18.5,
and the result by 100K. The result is 11.9. IMHO, twelve (whether or not
it is correct for any year in the last decade) is too small a number to
be statistically reliable (somebody walking into a coffee shop and
shooting 4 officers isn't going to happen on a regular basis).

Here's the methodology used.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/how-conservatives-use-made-up-nonsense-to-justify-police-killings

Each time you quote something from the leftist echo chamber, we all
get a better understanding why your pronouncements are as they are.

You declare that a spokesman for the Park police is completely
trustworthy despite them later stepping back from their statement
That video from an event showing gas and police firing isn't believable
that rubber bullets and canisters labelled as a type of tear gas found
at the scene aren't believable
and now you dismiss an article which quotes the source of a figure,
examines it and shows errors in the calculation and how the
calculation is inappropriate because of the source?
WTF is your problem?

He exists in a mental bubble where 'Murica is PERFECT...
...and cannot bear to examine anything that even suggests otherwise.

Oh, it's much, much more pathetic than that...

He calls himself "major" - militarily speaking that is short for "major
pain in the arse," or neck, if you can't handle simple English. :-)

Some of them really, really try hard at it. My uncle always said that
if they hanged all the Majors[1], military efficiency would go up by at
least 15%, and I once had the distinct pleasure of having one removed
from a training course I was giving[2] that he was not cleared to attend.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

1 - ObSF: "Hanged all the lawyers."

2 - I am not, and have never been military, but I was teaching a mob of
military intelligence and security types some things about a computer
system, this bloke was not on my list, and he blustered. At lunch I was
told he was a known problem, and I didn't buy a beer for myself that
whole week. :-)

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 23:50:46 +1000, "Gary R. Schmidt"

Post by Gary R. Schmidt

Post by Alan Baker

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Major Oz

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 22:06:00 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward
100K was just a BOE number. To compare probabilities (and that is what
"more likely" is about), you first divide 263 by the number of
African-Americans (I will round to 41 million), multiply that by 18.5,
and the result by 100K. The result is 11.9. IMHO, twelve (whether or not
it is correct for any year in the last decade) is too small a number to
be statistically reliable (somebody walking into a coffee shop and
shooting 4 officers isn't going to happen on a regular basis).

Here's the methodology used.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/how-conservatives-use-made-up-nonsense-to-justify-police-killings

Each time you quote something from the leftist echo chamber, we all
get a better understanding why your pronouncements are as they are.

You declare that a spokesman for the Park police is completely
trustworthy despite them later stepping back from their statement
That video from an event showing gas and police firing isn't believable
that rubber bullets and canisters labelled as a type of tear gas found
at the scene aren't believable
and now you dismiss an article which quotes the source of a figure,
examines it and shows errors in the calculation and how the
calculation is inappropriate because of the source?
WTF is your problem?

He exists in a mental bubble where 'Murica is PERFECT...
...and cannot bear to examine anything that even suggests otherwise.

Oh, it's much, much more pathetic than that...
He calls himself "major" - militarily speaking that is short for "major
pain in the arse," or neck, if you can't handle simple English. :-)
Some of them really, really try hard at it. My uncle always said that
if they hanged all the Majors[1], military efficiency would go up by at
least 15%, and I once had the distinct pleasure of having one removed
from a training course I was giving[2] that he was not cleared to attend.
Cheers,
Gary B-)
1 - ObSF: "Hanged all the lawyers."
2 - I am not, and have never been military, but I was teaching a mob of
military intelligence and security types some things about a computer
system, this bloke was not on my list, and he blustered. At lunch I was
told he was a known problem, and I didn't buy a beer for myself that
whole week. :-)

The thing I don't understand is how conservatism got turned into
authoritarianism. In large part Nixon got elected because of the
irrational reaction of the Democrats to the protests in the mid- to
late-'60s, especially the ones surrounding the Democratic Convention,
in which Dan Rather got beaten up by a cop on the convention floor and
Walter Cronkite proclaimed the situation to be a "police state".
Things calmed down a bit after Nixon got in and a lot more when he
declared victory and threw South Vietnam to the wolves.

Conservatism used to be about reducing the power of government, you
can't reduce the power of government and at the same time make it more
authoritarian.

It is going to be interesting to see what the Democrats propose
tomorrow. I suspect it will be too little.

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 03:13:10 -0700, Alan Baker

Post by Alan Baker

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Major Oz

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 22:06:00 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward
100K was just a BOE number. To compare probabilities (and that is what
"more likely" is about), you first divide 263 by the number of
African-Americans (I will round to 41 million), multiply that by 18.5,
and the result by 100K. The result is 11.9. IMHO, twelve (whether or not
it is correct for any year in the last decade) is too small a number to
be statistically reliable (somebody walking into a coffee shop and
shooting 4 officers isn't going to happen on a regular basis).

Here's the methodology used.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/how-conservatives-use-made-up-nonsense-to-justify-police-killings

Each time you quote something from the leftist echo chamber, we all get a better understanding why your pronouncements are as they are.

You declare that a spokesman for the Park police is completely trustworthy despite them later stepping back from their statement
That video from an event showing gas and police firing isn't believable
that rubber bullets and canisters labelled as a type of tear gas found at the scene aren't believable
and now you dismiss an article which quotes the source of a figure, examines it and shows errors in the calculation and how the calculation is inappropriate because of the source?
WTF is your problem?

He exists in a mental bubble where 'Murica is PERFECT...
...and cannot bear to examine anything that even suggests otherwise.

Gullibility ...

which he mistakes for skepticism

[Robert Woodward]

In article <***@4ax.com>,
J. Clarke <***@gmail.com> wrote:

(Re: a dispute concerning a number cited elsewhere)

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 22:06:00 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward
100K was just a BOE number. To compare probabilities (and that is what
"more likely" is about), you first divide 263 by the number of
African-Americans (I will round to 41 million), multiply that by 18.5,
and the result by 100K. The result is 11.9. IMHO, twelve (whether or not
it is correct for any year in the last decade) is too small a number to
be statistically reliable (somebody walking into a coffee shop and
shooting 4 officers isn't going to happen on a regular basis).

Here's the methodology used.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/how-conservatives-use-made-up-nonsense-to-justify-police-killings
And the statement remains a GOD DAMNED LIE.

Let's see now; first the author demonstrates that the numbers used to
calculate the statistic in question are wrong (but the magnitudes didn't
change - thus the claim that an individual police officer is more likely
to be murdered (by an African-American, though it applies to the regular
population as a whole as well) than an individual African-American would
be killed by a police officer still holds. He then attacks the whole
idea of percentages and just focuses on the totals.

That ignores the minor fact that the police are well aware of the danger
they face when interacting with people and have thus adapted several
procedures to reduce that danger. Calling those procedures "Police
Brutality" obscures the risks that eliminating those procedures could
entail. For example, the police could stop working or crime rates (such
as murder) increase significantly (even if police continue working).

[Alan Baker]

Post by Robert Woodward
(Re: a dispute concerning a number cited elsewhere)

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 22:06:00 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward
100K was just a BOE number. To compare probabilities (and that is what
"more likely" is about), you first divide 263 by the number of
African-Americans (I will round to 41 million), multiply that by 18.5,
and the result by 100K. The result is 11.9. IMHO, twelve (whether or not
it is correct for any year in the last decade) is too small a number to
be statistically reliable (somebody walking into a coffee shop and
shooting 4 officers isn't going to happen on a regular basis).

Here's the methodology used.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/how-conservatives-use-made-up-nonsense-to-justify-police-killings
And the statement remains a GOD DAMNED LIE.

Let's see now; first the author demonstrates that the numbers used to
calculate the statistic in question are wrong (but the magnitudes didn't
change - thus the claim that an individual police officer is more likely
to be murdered (by an African-American, though it applies to the regular
population as a whole as well) than an individual African-American would
be killed by a police officer still holds.

But that's an utterly bullshit metric.

Sorry, but it is.

See if you can figure out why all on your own.

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 07 Jun 2020 21:56:37 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward
(Re: a dispute concerning a number cited elsewhere)

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 22:06:00 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward
100K was just a BOE number. To compare probabilities (and that is what
"more likely" is about), you first divide 263 by the number of
African-Americans (I will round to 41 million), multiply that by 18.5,
and the result by 100K. The result is 11.9. IMHO, twelve (whether or not
it is correct for any year in the last decade) is too small a number to
be statistically reliable (somebody walking into a coffee shop and
shooting 4 officers isn't going to happen on a regular basis).

Here's the methodology used.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/how-conservatives-use-made-up-nonsense-to-justify-police-killings
And the statement remains a GOD DAMNED LIE.

Let's see now; first the author demonstrates that the numbers used to
calculate the statistic in question are wrong (but the magnitudes didn't
change - thus the claim that an individual police officer is more likely
to be murdered (by an African-American, though it applies to the regular
population as a whole as well) than an individual African-American would
be killed by a police officer still holds. He then attacks the whole
idea of percentages and just focuses on the totals.
That ignores the minor fact that the police are well aware of the danger
they face when interacting with people and have thus adapted several
procedures to reduce that danger. Calling those procedures "Police
Brutality" obscures the risks that eliminating those procedures could
entail. For example, the police could stop working or crime rates (such
as murder) increase significantly (even if police continue working).

The problem with all of this is that a police officer is more likely
to die of _work_relate_ cancer, a heart attack, or an automobile
accident than to be killed by a suspect of _any_ color. So the notion
that that is such highly probable threat that it justifies killing any
black person on general principle just plain does not pass the giggle
test. Unless you're a cop.

And he's more likely to die of non-work-related causes than _any_ of
those.

[Alan Baker]

Post by Robert Woodward
(Re: a dispute concerning a number cited elsewhere)

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 22:06:00 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward
100K was just a BOE number. To compare probabilities (and that is what
"more likely" is about), you first divide 263 by the number of
African-Americans (I will round to 41 million), multiply that by 18.5,
and the result by 100K. The result is 11.9. IMHO, twelve (whether or not
it is correct for any year in the last decade) is too small a number to
be statistically reliable (somebody walking into a coffee shop and
shooting 4 officers isn't going to happen on a regular basis).

Here's the methodology used.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/how-conservatives-use-made-up-nonsense-to-justify-police-killings
And the statement remains a GOD DAMNED LIE.

Let's see now; first the author demonstrates that the numbers used to
calculate the statistic in question are wrong (but the magnitudes didn't
change - thus the claim that an individual police officer is more likely
to be murdered (by an African-American, though it applies to the regular
population as a whole as well) than an individual African-American would
be killed by a police officer still holds. He then attacks the whole
idea of percentages and just focuses on the totals.

Putting some perspective out there for you. The latest year for which I
can find statistics for both is 2015. In 2015:

167 police officers died "in the line of duty". That figure includes
those who died from 9/11 related cancer, heart attacks, automobile
accidents, etc. Taking all such causes out, leaves 110 how MIGHT have
been killed by a person... ...of all colours.

110.

<https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2015>

In 2015, 104 UNARMED black people were killed by police.

That is 5 times the rate at which white people were killed.

<https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/unarmed>

[Quadibloc]

Post by Lynn McGuire
However, I am shocked at that ratio of cops who are killed by blacks.
“Owens also questioned the narrative of police brutality. “A police
officer is 18 and a half times more likely to be killed by a black
person than the other way around,” says Owens.”

I don't approve of black criminals killing the police.

But in this *particular* context, I have to say that this is a red herring.

Being a police officer is a choice, and naturally comes with _some_ risk.

Being black is not a choice. So the proper comparison is between law-abiding
white people being killed by police and law-abiding white people being killed by
police.

That is *not* to say that black criminals killing cops aren't relevant.
Ultimately, they're to blame for all the cases where an innocent black man is
killed, not by a bad cop, but by a good cop due to a tragic accident. There are
cases - far too many - in that category as well.

That's why I don't think this problem has a simple solution; getting rid of the
bad cops needs to be done, and will help, but it won't solve the problem.

John Savard

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Quadibloc
In a recent speech concerning the events in the United States connected to the
death of George Floyd, Meghan Markle had said: "The only wrong thing to say is
nothing".
Meghan Markle is the wife of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, the younger son of
His Royal Highness Prince Charles and Diana, Princess of Wales, for those who
may not have heard of her.
Harry and Meghan had recently left the U.K. due to continued hounding by the
tabloid press. The speech in question was intended to condemn racism and
encourage people to take action against it.
Meghan Markle is herself black, which apparently accounts for some of the
hounding from the tabloid press.
In any case, however stirring her speech may have been, taking that particular
statement *literally* leads one to the conclusion that it is erroneous.

Which is why nobody with any idea about humans would take that literally
Which is why your analysis of everything beyond the basics is bullshit

[Quadibloc]

Post by h***@gmail.com
Which is why nobody with any idea about humans would take that literally
Which is why your analysis of everything beyond the basics is bullshit

It's true that it's obvious enough what she meant in her graduation address was
that people shouldn't remain idle and apathetic about the death of George Floyd,
but should speak out against it. And not be shy that they're not eloquent
enough.

None the less, the literal sense of her words is _apparent_ and visible.

It is true that even when giving a prepared speech, instead of just engaging in
casual conversation, people have to oversimplify at times for brevity.

Still, I reacted to the implicit assumption that everyone thinks the same way,
so that if they speak, what they say will be in the right direction. In that
case, Donald Trump wouldn't exist.

John Savard