Politics Thread #19: The Last One
Cheers to all as we fade away with the year, but most especially to our friends from /pol/.
>Sweden changed the legal definition of rape to be much broader
May loses the Brexit vote
I want to invite you all to http://www.getchan.net/ as a replacement
Please provide a good argument for me to visit that link.
>"We need a federal law prohibiting censorship of lawful speech on major social media platforms," Nehlen asserts. "It is well-known that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube discriminate against the right-wing, as evidenced by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's recent comments. While widely heralded for those comments, they rang hollow with no suggested solution. This law is that solution. It will extend Americans' First Amendment free speech protections onto major social media platforms."
>"We are not extensively regulating or trust-busting," Nehlen explains, "because people generally like how the platforms perform in terms of functionality. This law will not interfere with features or functionality, so market forces will remain in play. The problem is their censorship of lawful speech. Hypocritically, the same companies that support net neutrality also want to censor your speech. We say no."
>For purposes of this legislation, "censorship" includes:
>Denial of platform access and normal use thereof (e.g., lockouts, suspensions, bans)
>Issuance of "verified" status based on any factor(s) unrelated to identity authentication
>"Throttling" accounts and/or content without disclosure
>Embargoing content (i.e., no "memory-holing" content without the consent of the creator)
>Manipulating "trending" algorithms without disclosure
>"Lawful speech" is based upon the standards enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, with the following limitations:
>No child pornography
>No explicit, credible threats of physical violence
>No publishing any individual's nonpublic residential address, telephone number, or email address without their consent
>Platforms may choose to prohibit otherwise-lawful pornographic video (i.e., video containing explicit sexual acts)
>Restrictions on copyrighted content are already addressed by the DMCA
>"Major social media platforms" means social media platforms that enjoy a market share above minimum threshold level. At present, it would include Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit. (Smaller platforms and message boards will not be affected.)
>The legislation would impose company fines of $500,000 per instance of wrongful censorship, and would be enforced by the FCC. Judicial remedies (both monetary and non-monetary) may also be available to aggrieved parties.
>"The bedrock of American society is freedom of speech. Social media companies have usurped this freedom, and we intend to give it back to the American people," says Nehlen.
>"This is just one more instance where Paul Ryan has shown he isn't getting the job done in Washington. The GOP's voters are being systematically censored off of the primary channels of public communication by left-wing tech giants, and Ryan – indeed, the entire GOP Congress – has sat utterly mute for years and allowed it to happen. In the absence of leadership, I willingly step into the breach."
I love this fucking timeline. So many things are starting to look way up. Though honestly I wish there was more of a willingness to engage in trust-busting outright, I'll gladly take this.
>We need a federal law prohibiting censorship of lawful speech on major social media platforms
Translation: “We want the Nazis to be able to use Twitter without being banned for being Nazis.”
Then ban them for a proper reason, like inciting racial violence.
They're Nazis, they do that by definition. It is literally part of the ethos.
They *are* being banned for a proper reason: violating the site's ToS.
If I never see another PAUL RYAN, POLICY WONK profile again it will be too soon
>Thinks businesses should be allowed to refuse service to people for being gay
>Doesn't think businesses should be allowed to refuse service to people who violate the contracts they sign when they enter into business with those companies.
"Anti-regulation" party, amirite?
So Matt Lauer, Glenn Trush, Chris Matthews and a few other major election media guys that shaped coverage are proven misogynists or fucking sex criminals like Trump, and then we have Comey.
We can criticize Hillary for a slew of reasons, but if you can't admit the deck was stacked against her, you're out of your mind.
I don't know if it necessarily follows that people who abuse their power to coerce sex out of people they have power over are also conspiring against a presidential candidate because she's a woman. Like don't get me wrong--I'm a full on feminist, and I don't question the women who brought up charges against them at all. Nor the fact that it's an indication of a lack of respect for women. But it sounds like you're trying to extrapolate that to suggest these people were conspiring against Hilary Clinton in specific, which is a pretty big leap of logic.
and so year one of donald's presidency ends with a government shutdown
It seems pretty obvious what is going on with Trump and Russia. I am honestly surprised there has only been one reported assassination attempt.
>Damn, son, does it hurt when you clutch your pearls that hard?
So militant white people should be beaten and jailed but militant black people are a joke?
Humans are humans. Angry racist humans are equally scary regardless of race.
>So militant white people should be beaten and jailed but militant black people are a joke?
>So militant white people should be beaten and jailed but militant black people are completely non-existent except to senile White boomers who should we pray die tomorrow?
Yep, got it in one.
She was the only intelligent and honest person in that interview. She was trying to pin down and get something resembling human speech out of a vacillating and deceitful obscurant that is mealy-mouthed, logorrheic and unclear on purpose so he can seem wise and so his little insect fans can deduct what they want from his spiels.
So you're saying Jordan Peterson is a lizard person who eats the heads of children?
…yeah, that wasn’t a serious question, and neither is “so you’re saying…?”. If you have to otherword someone during an argument, you have already lost.
>…yeah, that wasn’t a serious question, and neither is “so you’re saying…?”. If you have to otherword someone during an argument, you have already lost.
Well, how the fuck do you expect someone extract meaning from a non-argument like "Damn, son, does it hurt when you clutch your pearls that hard?".
>If you have to otherword someone during an argument
It's because they are worse writers than Dan Brown and their fans, collectively, have less culture, genetic value and personality in them than a Big Bang Theory box set.
>Well, how the fuck do you expect someone extract meaning from a non-argument like "Damn, son, does it hurt when you clutch your pearls that hard?"
You look at the underlying premise of the insult. The "clutching your pearls" idiom means the pearl-clutcher in question acts mortified by some mundane or otherwise common idea—e.g., the idea of Black people owning guns or organizing into a group of two or more people. My insult, then, was an implication that the expressed fear of militant Black people is unfounded and based near-entirely in a racist mindset that sees Black people as inherently criminal and naturally dangerous.
They're going all-out to gin up war with Iran today, aren't they. Bolton's only been in two weeks and Pompeo what, a few days?
This is what happens when you have Rapture-believing nutjobs in the same administration as a guy who has openly asked why we do not use nukes.
History repeats itself, right? Can we get the Ides of March without the fall of a republic?
Someone made a worldwide "animal waste pollution" map. As in, measurement of the amount of defecation that releases toxic waste gases.
India is officially #1 in public defecation.
>it's the NORTHERN part of India
Perhaps Aryans were not the master race...
Aryans were a tribe that conquered northern India several thousand years ago and brought their "indo-european" language to the region.
Franken's questioning of Jeff Sessions led to his recusal and Mueller's investigation, and now Klobuchar set up Trump when she got Barr to admit suborning perjury is felony obstruction of justice.
Not sure if other countries do this, but I think at this point it's clear that the United States ought to get hotfixed such that failing to pass a yearly budget just results in funding for stuff that isn't designated temparary getting its budget from last year copied over, maybe adjusted for inflation, instead of defaulting to everything going into shutdown mode.
Some guy did a real-life remove kebab in New Zealand.
aussie pride internet wide
Australian guy went to New Zealand and shot up some muslims. I suppose discussing it in the politics thread would be more apt.
And now NZ and AU are blaming websites, and are banning a lot of them.
Saged, cause technically the above post is right.
It was never broken. But, it only works within the same board.
Hey brainiac, did you try bumping the thread?
Oh, yea, bump limits have since changed, so you can still use this thread. Oh well.
it hadn't even reached 50 you mong
I haven't reached 50 yet either but I sure as hell feels like I did.
With age comes wisdom, and wisdom give you power.
I'm a little older, none the wiser,
trying to forget the past
the memories may fade, but the mistakes I made
will always seem to last.
>With age comes wisdom
It honestly should. Yet we are self-destructing faster than ever.
Reality is surreal.
Replace them with Britannia if you want something more realistic.
(SEN = Special Education Needs or something)
It's hard to make any judgement with this little information, but:
1) Sex != Gender. Is changing the noted sex the right solution to gender dysphoria? Would this cause issues for vaccination/medical emergencies/penis inspection day?
2) Liking trains and cars is a pretty low bar for gender dysphoria. If there is more evidence (there probably is) then this is different but otherwise that's fucked to judge binary gender from such a trivial counter-stereotype. Are all bronies categorically gender dysphoric?
3) Is the mother in denial and not mentioning legitimate evidence?
Wow, the United States sure is in a difficult diplomatic spot right now!
Good thing President Trump, by his own admission the greatest negotiator we have, knows that visiting Iran to meet its leaders in person and drive a hard deal face-to-face like only he knows how is the surest way to quickly bring a end to this conflict.
Oh yeah, it's gonna be hilarious to see how this will turn out. It sort of feels like the early 00s again.
Might be a rerun for you, but not for the new generations. No spoilers!
Is getting into a conflict with Iran some sort of tactic to distract from problems at home? An attempt to ensure re-election through some sort of not changing horses mid-stream rhetoric?
Everyone wants control over the Middle East (including Russia, China, or anyone strong at the moment), and no one wants an actual WORLD (see: planes and bombs over the ocean) war. It's about control over the region and destabilization, nothing else.
Why is this in the politics thread?
Because she is doing speeches in the european parliament.
Who is she?
And is the middle image the same person or just a porn star that also has pigtails?
Greta Thunberg. In case you've been living under a rock: she's a teen with aspergers making autistic rants about climate change.
>And is the middle image the same person or just a porn star that also has pigtails?
It's almost certainly not her. I think the joke is /pol/anon feels that she is an angry virgin.
Yep, prompting a lot of world leaders to essentially bully a teenager. Shit's surreal. That's why movements shouldn't use a single person as an 'inspiration', regardless of what corporate media will try to encorage.
>I think the joke is /pol/anon feels that she is an angry virgin.
No, the joke is that if she had a stable relationship or someone to give her love (or even just a man to put her in her place), then she'd be a happier person and perhaps a more productive member of society, and not just the current decade equivalent of LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE.
But that might not work in her case because last time I checked she was legit autistic and her parents are taking advantage of the fact, and fueling the media attention for their own benefits.
>prompting a lot of world leaders to essentially bully a teenager
They are basically telling a dumb kid to go back to school and learn how the world works, and the fact that this is considered bullying tells you a lot about how viable victim stardomship is.
>or even just a man to put her in her place
Yes, really. The sexual revolution was a mistake.
>perhaps a more productive member of society
Attempting to secure a future for the next century of human and animal life is one of the most productive things a human can do.
Going about it poorly? You can debate that. Being unproductive? No.
>They are basically telling a dumb kid to go back to school and learn how the world works
...instead of acknowledging a legitimate problem and working with climate experts to mitigate it in a realistic way.
Place your bets: Trump and Pence have coronavirus, or media speculation.
Judging them as individuals, I'd wager yes.
Wasn't the President downplaying it when things were starting to spread? It would be almost fitting if it got him.
Little chance though, even if he's personally at higher risk than younger folk he's got all the resources around him to save his life.
I mean he pretty much freaking stood with a whole crowd of other people in the room while speaking about this virus, so he might have done a whole lot of other crazy unsafe stuff. He's a risky rich-ass after all.
I am conflicted: should I be grateful or concerned by the incompetent response to this pandemic?
>many leaders giving harmful instructions to their own supporters, critical thinkers most likely have enough information to stay safe. Might actually have a positive effect on propaganda resistance
>reported decrease in global CO2 emissions
>social distancing measures could reduce the spread of other diseases
>population control without creating an ethical dilemma
Case study: Spanish Flu
During World War I, countries heavily under-reported to maintain morale. Spain was neutral and reported their numbers reasonably, so it falsely appeared as if Spain was being hit far worse by the flu than any other country.
Since it predominantly kills old people, once the virus is gone, the average age of people in the affected countries will be much lower.
Less old folk means lesser burden on social spending due to less pensions to be paid out. This will increase the state budget. The large sums of inheritance taxes to be paid will increase it further.
Most of those old people are indigenous population, so this will lead to immigrants becoming an ever bigger part (in percentage) of the populace, in particular because they breed faster. This will lead to the state having to spend more on them. On the other hand the indigenous populace will also gain some cash boost due to the inheritances, and perhaps this may lead to more children being born.
Since politicians are nearly all very old and thus heavily endangered by the virus, we may see a large shift in political structures (many politicians such as Merkel or Trump were already found spending a lot of time around people who tested positive). Especially if the failed responses to the virus will empower more radical parties.
The social distancing also means that digital conferences will be at least tested in practice, for fields such as schools and governments. This may lead to these becoming more and more prevalent in the future.
So whatever happens, the future will be at least interesting, and the world will finally change in a direction.
My favourite part is that so far in 2020 we had famines, floods, locusts, a pandemic, and it's not even April yet.
I would be concerned. Even a competent response would still have people staying inside enough for emissions to go down and other diseases to also be affected by social distancing. Overall population isn't a pressing issue, at least as long as we stick with modern food production per acre. That only leaves propoganda resistance, and there's other ways to cultivate that.
If there was a way to specifically protect construction workers, this would be a nice time to overhaul our public transportation systems, since interruptions for upgrades and other service would be less of an issue with greatly reduced traffic.
Anyway, I have a hard time beleiving that the people trying to get everyone back to work as quickly as possible really can't make up excuses better than the ones we've been hearing. Like... Really? Anyone got something more beleivable than "people will just kill themselves" or "saving lives just isn't as important as the liberty and justice of face to face interaction"? Because so far the attempts to convince me that this lockdown needs to be limited have only managed to make me think we're even more able to withstand extending it than I previously expected.
The lockdown is because people are stupid and the social distancing guidelines are largely ignored; they have to be enforced to slow down the spread of the virus.
>"saving lives just isn't as important as money"?
fixed that for you.
It stresses me out whenever I have to go outside and that does seem noticable, that people other than me don't seem to even know the concept of distance and spacing
The situation is a bit better with IT people though, we've been socially distancing for years. People suck!
So, no only are prisoners, epsecially nonviolent prisoners, not being released during to the virus in the US despite that easily being a death sentance for many of them, but it doesn't seem unlikely that pritate prisons might simply respond to the deaths by demanding more prisoners get sent in as the disease progresses.
Given that there's also likely to be a lack of hospital space, would it make sense to have private prisons converted to emergency hospitals to both get more hospital space and as a (politically easier?) way to get private prisons to stop demanding prisoners for a bit by giving them something else to get paid for?
Relevant: Ex-con talks about epidemics and prison.
Coronavirus in Prison. What You Need to Know
>Always relevant to an imagedboard politics thread
Trump is trying to blame the World Health Organisation for everything wrong with the coronavirus in America.
I just hope you are all able to show his low-interest voters a compilation of all his contradictions and lack of empathy in this crisis.
Not breaking the news early to please China's government? Surely, nothing to do with the state of things.
Are you implying the current administration was not guilty of downplaying the severity of the disease before now? In his meeting with the press the president was clearly buck-passing.
Now he's telling his subjects to drink bleach.
Did he? I've only seen the news report, but what I recall is that he said that they should look into using disinfectants inside the body too.
Which is not that stupid, honestly. Drink strong spirits with 70% alcohol content and that's about it.
He's old and senile, said we should look into injecting disinfectant into people at a press conference after it was talked about how disinfectant and sunlight kills viruses.
The various press conferences have gotten pretty fucking ridiculous, seems to be falling apart and doesn't have the disease like the drip of a UK prime minister did to blame it on.
>Do you have a source with full context?
not the same anon, but I took the liberty of spending 10 seconds finding it for you. First, here's the politifact tl;dr analysis:
> During a coronavirus press briefing, President Trump floated the idea of using disinfectants and sunlight to treat COVID-19 patients.
> Trump has since walked back those remarks, and several websites and social media posts have taken them out of context.
> The briefing transcript shows that Trump did not say people should inject themselves with bleach or alcohol to treat the coronavirus. He was asking officials on the White House coronavirus task force whether they could be used in potential cures.
Here is the context from the transcript (supplied by politifact):
>"A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?"
>"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful."
My interpretation of that:
>He didn't directly suggest people do it, but since sanitizer and UV over-exposure are accessible and he is, to many, a trusted authority, this is harmful behavior that should be discouraged.
>Exaggeration from media circus and the cancer that is social media came up with 'bleach' which actually damages their criticism of his dangerous lack of responsibility.
So it's basically just the social media and liberal news sites over-reacting on what he said, taking out of context parodies of it, and presenting it as straight up presidential quotes. In other words, the same way they treated him ever since he got elected.
I hope he gets re-elected just so he can trigger these whiny faggots for more years.
Don't be pathetic, maybe next year one of your presidential choices could actually be decent instead of two variations on garbage.
>maybe next year one of your presidential choices could actually be decent
Now who is being pathetic, thinking that that would be possible in the US.
America doesn't need an outside influence to be a bunch of tribal retards.
Actually true. But let California leave, and the tension will decrease.
>complains about whiny faggots while being a whiny faggot about those evil libs
>I hope he gets re-elected just so he can trigger these whiny faggots for more years.
If it were about entertainment, I'd rather Biden. He triggers the Democrats AND Republicans.
But you are completely trivializing the fact that a high authority figure is unironically presenting pseudoscience at a press conference. Media sensationalization is a secondary problem that has been just as prevalent with the Bush and Obama years. Them being antagonistic unprofessional cunts is a completely different problem to your choice of national representative. You have two separate cultural problems here.
Hot take, but le green frog is smug defiance. An army of said frogs following a single leader is an artistic mistake. Even for a joke.
>posting an ad for the /r/the_donald walled-cult bunker
what did you mean by this?
>thedonald.win calling another site a 'safe space'
Post something outside of their agenda and see how long your account lasts. It's literally an alt-right 'safe space'.
I can't stand Twitter at the moment.
Because of that American thing with racist police officer killing a black guy suddenly there's countless people trying to justify looting from random businesses.
That's so fucking stupid, it would be more logical if they were saying to go throw petrol bombs at police stations instead.
At this point this is just full-on anarchism. I can understand why middle class folk are fleeing from urban areas in the USA.
Funny tho, 100 years ago if a black guy killed a white man, it was the white folk who gathered up and started killing blacks. But even then, they didn't start rioting and firebombing the city, it was just some good old fashioned lynching - not destroying every store or breaking every window on sight.
Growing up in something resembling a shithole, I can explain this in a non-racist way:
You have to be raised by loving parentS, who would teach you self control, and the value of patience. If you are raised by 1 parent, the chances of you growing up into a thug rise greatly. If you have no parents, it is almost guaranteed. I guarantee you those looters mostly come from broken homes.
>[lynchers were] not destroying every store or breaking every window on sight.
Yeah but that's a seriously weak comparison, socially and economically speaking. I'm pretty sure nowhere near as many white people 100 years ago would be as economically motivated to loot. That said, civilians looted after the 1906 SanFran earthquake, so soldiers were sent in to shoot looters. Then the solders started looting. They didn't have a history of disadvantage, they had far more control over their lives and society. Plus, they or their friends owned the stores so why break them.
If a town back then was mostly populated by black people and their black police force started killing unarmed white civilians dozens of times every year, I really doubt they would be tolerated.
The looting and store destruction is, AFAICT, partly a mixture of anger and rebellion at 'the system', but more importantly, opportunists taking advantage of the chaos. Add in the fact that many people are facing further economic hardship than usual this year.
People are trying to justify it which I believe is (90%) stupid and probably a coping mechanism.
>If a town back then was mostly populated by black people and their black police force started killing unarmed white civilians dozens of times every year, I really doubt they would be tolerated.
Yeah, but if that happened back then, they'd call the state police or national guard to clean up the local police force - instead of starting a nationwide riot.
The disadvantage and lack of control over society you speak of, is a result of certain black folk choosing to live as dumb ass 'hood niggas who don't trust da racist wyte ppl. The ones who choose to lead a decent life do not get into such situations in the first place - and they don't dress like or talk in a way that they could be mistaken with a common criminal, which is what lead to the guy getting killed this time around.
And yeah, the looting this time around is anarchists fanning the flames.
>who don't trust da racist wyte ppl
Such as the police. I wonder what might lead them to not trust the police...
But that's not what I'm talking about at all. I meant when nearly your entire race in a country is eventually freed from slavery with little-to-no reparations, plus ongoing segregation (by law and/or by racial prejudice) for another few decades bringing with it reduced access to education and 'skilled' working opportunities, that doesn't just evaporate within a lifetime. Being raised in disadvantaged circumstances generally puts you at a disadvantage (for example, less/no formal education, or less time with parents who work more to earn you those opportunities). And who the fuck wants to hire a person raised in a shithole over someone already well-integrated into your society? So the disadvantage echos to their kids.
In some areas of the country there has been more success with active efforts in reintegration and so your point is valid there, for sure, but it certainly doesn't apply to other areas they did jack shit and wonder why most of these damn black people are hopeless failures who don't just get a good job instead of resorting to crime.
That's like saying 'World War II happened because the Germans chose to invade countries instead of acting peaceful like the rest who were doing fine'. It's more complex and contextual than 'fucking Germans are aggressive dumbasses', many of the causes of their aggression directly resulted from the WWI aftermath that ended decades earlier.
>I wonder what might lead them to not trust the police...
The reason why the police treats them like garbage is because a large portion of them act like garbage. They make up 10% of the populace but commit 90% of the crime. Look up any crime statistic that lists race for proof.
>and they don't dress like or talk in a way that they could be mistaken with a common criminal, which is what lead to the guy getting killed this time around
What the fuck does that even mean?
If police are arresting people based on their general clothing or vernacular, there is a serious fucking problem with those police.
In my country, police treat you by how you break the law. You'll get tackled for resisting but no-one will touch your neck, let alone with their knees.
First primary source I found (FBI.gov, Crime in the U.S., 2016), are you satisfied with it?
Now distribute those percentages by proportion of the populace. According to the 2010 census, 12.4% of the populace of the USA is black. If 27% of the arrests made are blacks, then a black person is twice as likely on average to commit a crime, or 4 times as likely to commit murder or robbery, according to the statistics.
Maybe that's why the cops have less tolerance against them, I dunno.
Are you trying to be a stereotype by casually dismissing whatever this anon is arguing in a sarcastic and indirect manner, anon?
So the whole "make up 10% of the populace but commit 90% of the crime. Look up any crime statistic that lists race for proof" assertion was complete horseshit, but I agree that there is a significant over-representation of crime committed by black peoples.
I don't think that justifies treating civilians with violent prejudice.
Now distribute those percentages by proportion of the populace. According to the census that year, 48.9% of the populace of the USA is male. If 73% of the arrests made are males, then a male person is three times as likely on average to commit a crime, over six times more likely to commit robbery, seven times as likely to commit murder or non-negligent manslaughter, and thirty-five times more likely to commit rape according to the statistics.
I don't think that makes it ok for policemen to treat men like garbage. Treat us with more caution? That's reasonable. Not like garbage though.
I'm sorry I did not look up the exact numbers. How many decimals of accuracy do you require for the numbers to be not horseshit? Should I also factor in percentage of ethnicities in every region? Should I also factor in ethnicities and crime levels per capita or per urban region vs rural ones?
>Treat us with more caution? That's reasonable. Not like garbage though.
If you are a person who commits robbery, murder, manslaughter or rape, then you ARE garbage. And the police have to deal with that shit all day long, and often have to deal with people who are bigger and stronger than they are, plus stoned or drunk on top of that. So responding violently is a survival reflex, not racism. It doesn't help that any of them could get fired at any time if accused of racism. They have to deal with greatly increased risk of losing their livelihood to losing their lives every day because of this.
That does not excuse the death of the black guy, that was clearly unnecessary brutality. But they should just let the cop get tried and put into jail for it, instead of launching nationwide riots and lootings. People are murdering on the street for no reason and looting stores that had nothing to do with the entire thing. It's the police who have to deal with that shit; which in turn will just generate more police brutality.
>How many decimals of accuracy do you require for the numbers to be not horseshit?
It's based on percentage difference, not decimal precision:
>Imperial countries like America - 10% or nearest 10%
>Metric countries - 5%
The difference between your claimed 90% and admitted 27% is so far above these thresholds that it qualifies as 'bullshit', as its current definition in formal writing is that a bullshitter, unlike a liar, "doesn't care if what they say is true or false, but rather only cares whether their listener is persuaded."
I'm being a cunt about it, sure, but confidently claiming a statistic that was off by over 60% is not alright.
>If you are a person who commits robbery, murder, manslaughter or rape, then you ARE garbage.
Yes, they are.
If you're arresting someone strongly suspected of those types of crimes, you can treat them with less dignity. Arresting people for non-violent crimes usually doesn't warrant the same treatment.
>So responding violently is a survival reflex, not racism.
To a degree, yes it is a survival reflex. Especially so if they are arresting someone acting violent or armed and suggesting they might use that weapon. That makes complete sense even if it's not ideal.
To the degree that a submissive person needs their head, neck or back touched, no. That's the part that I see as the problem, it's normalized for some police to go beyond reasonable force.
>fired at any time
Fired if they fuck someone up or commit negligent manslaughter. I can get arrested or fired at any time too but (generally) only when I do something bad enough to earn it.
I completely agree with you here.
I don't think the behavior which leads to these deaths is acceptable, but the response by the rioters and looters is just as messed up. In my mind, they're just as bad as the 'bad cops'.
 On Bullshit (2005), by Harry Frankfurt. p. 61.