Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

starbucks hates black people:

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

Except one form of this violence is protected and carried out by the state and the other is not.

They're also not Africans. They're African Americans. Not the same thing.

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

I see you've met Mr. Strawman and Mr. Non Sequitor.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

Those are his two best friends, don't you know?

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

My brain read your 'don't you know' in a midwestern accent and I started cracking up.

I need to go to bed.

Also, I think I need a temp ban from this subforum since I keep getting sucked in here when I'm procrastinating on doing work...

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Genocide is defined as the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group.

Again:

The state non-deliberately killed 4.3% the amount of blacks, that blacks purposely killed.

That number also only represents about 25% of the total killings by police of all of races.



in 80% of all these cases, the individual was reported to as armed:




If anyone is performing genocide in this country it is blacks. The black on black murder rate has always been ~90%, since like forever. Police are NOT perform genocide on blacks. Blacks just happen to get shot while they are armed and committing crimes. If the democrats didn't work so hard to destroy the black family structure, stop promoting out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and stop keeping them as slaves -- giving them enough free **** so they can get by and continue to vote democrat, both the police killing rate and black on black murder rate would decrease. But we don't want to actually solve a problem, we want to point the finger at the "evil" state -- but ONLY when the state is doing something you disapprove, otherwise you'll continue to champion the state to do things like rob from producers, limit freedoms, basically make everyone's lives shitty so everyone is equally poor.




I'm quoting the ******* flyer here:



It clearly refers to Black-Africans.

Not White-Africans, not African-Americans. BLACK (a skin color) AFRICANS (a continent/place).

So yeah, not the same ******* thing. We are talking about black people from African countries while in America.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

A Strawman would first require an argument. The rest I learned from Kayne:



but way to go ignoring my actual position and addressing it head on... what do you call that?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

x_25

I am more concerned about the fact that the travel ban included green card and visa holders who were outside the country at the time. As well as some people who had visas to those countries but were not citizens and people with duel citizenships who had been living in other countries (canada and britain).

Also, how did they decided on these 7 countries? The executive order mentions 9/11 and the terrorissts involed several times, but none of them were from the 7 countries involved, and there have been no deaths in the US from any terrorists in those 7 countries since at least 1975 (I don't have data further back than that).

The reason it is being called a Muslim ban is because that was trumps campaign and one of the people who helped write the order has been quoted as saying that Trump asked him how to do a Muslim ban legally.

The bigges issue with the EO that I have though, is that it is poorly written, poorly exicuted, those that needed to be informed on how to execute and handle it were not, and it was basically just sprung on everyone. I don't know if all those are due to incompitance or design.

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

Um. I don't think you can actually commit a genocide against yourself. Again, there's a difference between violence committed by members of the public and that committed by the state.

The police's bias plays out in this scenario and there's little to no accountability for their actions. The opposite is true for african americans that commit murder. I have no clue what that flyer is from, but I'm sure that you can keep digging ad infinitum for random **** that idiots on both sides of the aisle are pushing if you want to use outliers to fuel your sense of outrage. There's no end to it, but it's low hanging fruit. Makes for great sensationalism without really saying anything of importance.

Re: not wanting to solve a problem.

There's plenty of evidence that there was a bipartisan effort to screw african americans, from the policies of the FHA to the war on drug...and everything in between. Southern states have a pretty solid history of rights violations, many of which aren't in the infinitely distant past.

We're far more of a corporate welfare state than anything else. God forbid corporations pay taxes to reinvest in the public sector they benefit from. Oh I'm sorry, I misspelled 'rob from producers'. Both sides limit freedom, the way someone sees it just depends on their bias.

Your position was to claim that person X said something and make a logical leap that therefore person X was implicitly or explicitly taking a stand that was neither stated nor implied. The second part of the statement is a strawman. You're attacking a position that doesn't exist.

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

The 7 countries were chosen from a list that Obama signed into law in 2015. I believe they were pork in a budget bill of some sort.

But yes they are arbitrary and it is a stupid list. It should also not exclude people who already have green cards or visas and such. As all those people have been vetted extremely well.

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

Agreed. I did enjoy folks defending the decision by claiming it was Obama's list and therefore it was somehow his fault...

I think part of the issue is that people that haven't had to get an American visa or immigrated here have no idea how hard it is to begin with.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

Just try to immigrate to any of the "model" countries everyone likes to point to as complete successes. Even if you're American, immigrating to any Scandinavian country and obtaining gainful employment without a major company as a sponsor or a spouse with citizenship is a fairly monumental task.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

are you okay with gun show loopholes? Are you actually concerned about this, or did NBC tell you to be?

Look at the list of seven "countries of concern" and take a wild guess how they came up with it. But, the previous administration had came up with the list.

no. facts don't support this. Using #Muslimban is easier to get angry about and spread fake news about.

does it include as many spelling/grammar errors as this post?

How is it poorly written? How is it poor executed? How do you know those that needed to be informed in order to execute were not?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

So you deny the holocaust?

the difference is the violence committed by the state is statically insignificant in comparison.

Police bias plays out in what scenario? Oh i forgot, ignore the statics again, take focus away from the fact that police only kill blacks at a rate of 25% even though they have an offending rate 8 times greater than whites?

the flyer is from the black panthers, it's pretty clear if you read it. You took all the humor out of something silly I posted.

Show me the receipts. You want to know one way black people could stop being harmed by the war on drugs? get out of the drug business.

Are you saying giving jobs to people doesn't somehow benefit the employed? And if corporations paid more in taxes, blacks will somehow be saved? The only color businesses know is green -- they dont see race.

x_25

What do guns have to do with this? I have notnyet done enough research to have a stance on the gun show loophole. I do beleive that people have the right to own them, but that there should be some sort of competency test and or taining involved. When most people owened them for hunting and what not and were trained on how to use them from a young age that would not have been as nessiasary, but that is a different topic.


Fair point. Though I would think Saudi, Egypt and the UAE should be on there as well. Just because the previous administation came up with it does not excuse the fact it is an ill conceved list.



There is video of the guy saying trump asked him how to do a muslim ban legally. And Trump spent his a good chunk of his campain going on about instituting a muslim ban.



Cell phones are a poor form factor for typing and text.layout. Also, don't get me started on spelling in English, it is a mess of a language.

Have you read it? It is vauge. The head of homland security didn't know about it until it was being signed. None of the CBP people knew about it or were told how to impliment it before it was signed, and then were told to impliment it that eving.

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

That's pretty much exactly what I said. How'd you figure?

No, it implies a different power dynamic.



The scenario where they can kill a person with their back turned and claim it was in self defense and get to keep their job. And the scenario in which there has been widespread evidence of racism within departments.



Oh, that explains it. Hard to tell with you sometimes!

Possession doesn't imply dealing.

Is this a good enough receipt: The Racist Housing Policy That Made Your Neighborhood - The Atlantic



Nope, that's not what I said. It depends on the nature of the jobs and the benefits that come with them.
I'm sure coal miners would have been taken care of if the companies weren't forced to provide benefits for the health effects the workers suffered. But I guess, it was the workers choice to work there, right?
And businesses see color. They see black and red

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Since you claimed that genocide cannot be done against your own kind and i was like when in history were there actually genocides. Hilter immediately came to mind, and then I remembered he himself was a Jew.

what does a different power dynamic have anything to do with anything?

The problem here is when/if they do go to court, a jury of their peers let them walk... what does this have to do with anything? How does that make it genocide?

define widespread. If cops performing genocide on blacks were actually true, it would be easily provable. it's not, and the evidence doesn't add up. how does "widespread evidence" of racism prove genocide when cops are killing more whites than black despite whites not causing as much crime (ie., as many interactions)?

so don't possess drugs.


recipe for hate.

the nature of ALL jobs is to work and get paid. if you are getting paid, is that not a benefit?

yes, actually, they chose to work there. It was either work in shitty conditions, but get paid money in order to live, or not work, stay put, and die. There were other choices to be made.


semantics.

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

He wasn't an 'out' jew. That example proves just about nothing. It's like saying that women can uphold the patriarchy. That doesn't mean they're responsible for it. And no, I'm not saying Hitler wasn't responsible for the holocaust.

Nothing apparently, because it's not like there's a distinction between criminals and cops.

I never said it makes it genocide. Read up. I said I don't see a genocide. I think that statement is hyperbolic. Why do you keep attacking a point of view that I never espoused?

Hard to justify something I never claimed existed, i.e. genocide.

Does this fit a criteria of 'widespread':https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/u...rce-finds.html
Folks love bringing up chicago for some reason.

Don't get sick.

Depends.

Exploitation of workers is a thing. Ensuring that poor conditions are adequately employed by an employer isn't unreasonable. The fact that other choices could have existed has nothing to do with anything.

Aka, this thread in a nutshell!