Seems like a good argument for having statues of Joseph Stalin, the original Uncle Joe, prominently displayed in London, Paris, and Washington D.C.
National Guard called into Minneapolis
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
- Status
I'm not able find any good sources for the claim that "it's tradition for local police to visit and shoot up Fred Hampton's grave" besides his son saying so.
Just sayin'
What about the presence of bulletholes makes you think that
A) The local police made them
B) it's tradition for the local police to make them?
You fact-checked me, and I am grateful for it. You hunted and found another part to the video along with a news source, and I am glad that you did.
I'm merely asking for you to have the same standards that you'd like me to have.
All we currently have is a claim and a picture of a defaced headstone. Arguments from ignorance like "who else?" aren't going to cut it.
Yeah, I see where you're going with that now. I had that stupid MMfA tweet confused with the ADL article in May which really got the ball rolling, and had the O-KKK timeline confused with the Malik Obama tweet because that was the origin of that particular Pepe cartoon in October. My bad.
Though, I wouldn't necessarily say the dabbing, V-sign, and the like failed because the media necessarily got internet-savvier -- don't forget they fell hook, line, and sinker for the white power milk prank and ran with it for the better part of a year, until about the time PETA started on it. Hell the media was doing most of the heavy lifting on that one, researching and citing studies about incidence of lactose intolerance by ethnic group.
Definitely no argument about Rand, though she was much more prone to losing her shit when challenged on her own arguments and the self-contradictions within, than she was any competing ideology. It just happened to be the case she couldn't cogently address any forthcoming question about the former without doing the latter. It's telling she would levy the same criticism against left-anarchism without a moment's hesitation, but not once acknowledge the same applied to her own philosophy. In any case, it was very much a matter she advocated for a socioeconomic system she ultimately knew was neither feasible nor possible.
Nozick can at least be credited for the Lockean proviso, and trying to reconcile the tragedy of the commons and question of ethical consumption within minarchy, especially as contrasted against his social Darwinist contemporaries. Arguably his least read, understood, and cited contribution to libertarian thought among libertarians.
I personally don't put much weight on who coins a term, as I do the formulation of the theories and phenomena themselves. Case in point Theodore Lowi post-dated Madison by two hundred years, but that's not going to stop me from identifying the phenomenon Madison identified in Federalist no. 10 as interest group liberalism. And indeed, that is very much what Madison had identified in contrast to political parties as commonly and incorrectly interpreted, given that in transcribed debate and surviving personal correspondence he was quite clear to make that distinction himself.
I more mean that the number of people in Northern Louisiana who would know much about a guy whose primary actions were in Chicago and think it’s worth vandalizing his grave fifty years after his death is kinda small outside of one community still upset about the civil rights era, particularly at the Panthers. Cops.
Edit- Sorry if I’m coming off as overly hostile.
Last edited:
Just the average White Supremacist I thought would actually be more likely. (And it’s possible That there’s some overlap with cops.)
No worries, you aren't coming off as hostile. What you're saying sounds reasonable.
I'd still really like to see a source, some investigation, some actual journalism, beyond his son's claims.
From what i've read he also fathered multiple children of that slave. And i didn't find historical recordings of Jefferson havin more women under him. I admit, i was wrong about that.
Not really moving any goalposts, no. You asked by which definition, and i answered, by the OT one - the difference between rape and adultery is mainly semantic there. Bible hardly credits agency to women.
But if you prefer a modern one, then he'd definitely be a rapist.
Yes, why shouldn't I? I live now, not in the XVIIIc. And i uderstand why a slaver was a slaver(profit), but explain me please, why should i emphatize with them?
I don't realy... get what you're getting at with the fish analogy, but i think people would rather look funny at someone that wants to emphatize with old timey rapist slavers, but that's me.
Could you cite some verses about rape or adultery that Jefferson violated?
Because if you were in Jefferson's situation, you probably would have done the exact same things he did.
Looking at current events, do you think cops need more empathy or less?
Eh, it’d depend a lot on the kind. Klan’s really the only organized group with a long memory at this point, and there the overlap is closer to 100%. Militia groups and alt-right are liable to think the Panthers were cool actually.
Deuteronomy 22 says a bit. Raped unegaged girls are forced into marriage. Rape engaged girls lead to the man dying and woman surviving. Adultery leads to the man and woman dying
But there was a section on treatment of slaves. Cant remember where. Exodus 21 does say women sold need to make their masters happy and they arent realeased after 6 years like a male. Which is probably Calavera's point. They property, not a real human. But probably your point. That's exactly how people treated women back then and in Jefferson's time.
In Jefferson's time? Nah. Abolitionists were pretty rampant at that time across the West. It's one of the causes of the Revolutionary war.
In Jefferson's exact situation? Probably. You're told their not real humans so why would you think otherwise. I dont see how that forgives him. There was plenty of people who thought slavery was terrible during his life time. He kept slavers in power because he didnt want to upset them. Because their feelings is more important than a slave. He, along with a bunch of other presidents, caused the Civil War, because offending white people is just the worst
Really, would you really? Exposing racist cops being one of your driving passions I guess? Or is it coming up with excuses to defend cops from claims of racism?
The truth, is actually what I'm after. The truth is what I value, no matter how inconvenient it may be.
What do you value?
Again, whose definition of rape? You're superimposing your own. Can slaves even be raped, according to the Bible?
Yes, there can be differences between coining a term and discovering something: James Parkinson characterised Parkinson's Disease, but he didn't coin the term (he called it "shaking palsy").
I think it's that point of characterisation that matters. If we're talking an ideology, even if all the various principles to uphold an ideology already exist in various forms, it still requires someone to do the critical, creative act of development by pulling them all together into a coherent whole. That's still Rothbard, really.
I sort of hate the term anyway, because I think anarchists are in the right to note that the sort of private ownership system envisaged in anarchocapitalism is inevitably hierarchical in such a way that individual freedom would be notional rather than actual for a large proportion of the population. In fact, one of the funniest things I saw someone do as an intellectual exercise was reconstruct the entire system of the UK under extreme libertarian / anarchocapitalist principles, right up to the monarchy. All it basically requires is for the "owner" to institute rules through their right of ownership, and the principle that if the citizenry want to exercise their free will to not co-operate, they can of course voluntarily emigrate.
Since all the JK Rowling and OKKK talk seems to have trailed off and I have little to say about early anarchist and communist thinkers and how their writings decades ago are related to the working use of the terms today, may as well try to light a new fire under this thread.
So, just to be clear, the argument for #BlackLivesMatter having the racial lens it does is because black folks are disproportionately harmed by the criminal justice system, right? They're 6.7x as likely to be incarcerated, 4.4x as likely to be killed by police, about 3x as likely to have their vehicle searched in a traffic stop, 19% more likely to be convicted if charged with a felony, 6x more likely to be arrested for misdemeanor possession of marijuana, get 10% longer prison sentences after controlling for all other factors, were 7x as likely to be "stopped and frisked" in New York, and are 12x as likely to be wrongfully convicted of a crime. That cover most of the bases?
Except that lens isn't acceptable and useful solely because of the disproportionate treatment, but because of who that treatment is against. I could point out another demographic group where those numbers are 14x, 96.5% of all victims, 5x, 165%, 10x, 63%, 11.5x, and almost all of them compared to the "majority" group in that demographic, respectively. But if I were to try hashtagging about how that group's lives matter, it...wouldn't go well.
Hell, some of the people currently vocally supporting #BlackLivesMatter would probably tell me this other group *deserves* it, others would actively ignore it, and the general goal would be that this particular lens (despite seemingly more accurately hitting who is most negatively effected by the criminal justice system) should not be used, because it's...inconvenient, even if seemingly accurate by any measurement of the actual performance of the justice system and not merely what's politically en vogue. I'd also be called multiple kinds of bigot.
Wanna guess what demographic I'm talking about?
So, just to be clear, the argument for #BlackLivesMatter having the racial lens it does is because black folks are disproportionately harmed by the criminal justice system, right? They're 6.7x as likely to be incarcerated, 4.4x as likely to be killed by police, about 3x as likely to have their vehicle searched in a traffic stop, 19% more likely to be convicted if charged with a felony, 6x more likely to be arrested for misdemeanor possession of marijuana, get 10% longer prison sentences after controlling for all other factors, were 7x as likely to be "stopped and frisked" in New York, and are 12x as likely to be wrongfully convicted of a crime. That cover most of the bases?
Except that lens isn't acceptable and useful solely because of the disproportionate treatment, but because of who that treatment is against. I could point out another demographic group where those numbers are 14x, 96.5% of all victims, 5x, 165%, 10x, 63%, 11.5x, and almost all of them compared to the "majority" group in that demographic, respectively. But if I were to try hashtagging about how that group's lives matter, it...wouldn't go well.
Hell, some of the people currently vocally supporting #BlackLivesMatter would probably tell me this other group *deserves* it, others would actively ignore it, and the general goal would be that this particular lens (despite seemingly more accurately hitting who is most negatively effected by the criminal justice system) should not be used, because it's...inconvenient, even if seemingly accurate by any measurement of the actual performance of the justice system and not merely what's politically en vogue. I'd also be called multiple kinds of bigot.
Wanna guess what demographic I'm talking about?
It's inconvenient when it's suddenly an issue when it can draw attention from another issue finally getting some of the attention it deserves. It wasn't any less important before BLM got going again. It's not going to be less important should BLM die down and people stop caring again.
- Status