By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
numberwang said:

People underestimate the explosion of violence in 2020 (and presumably 2021) because of the "mostly peaceful protests" meme as CNN has put it. Police were eating donuts while anarchists & BLM were given control of inner cities to attack the working and middle class.

The number of murders in the United States jumped by nearly 30% in 2020 compared with the previous year in the largest single-year increase ever recorded in the country, according to official FBI statistics released Monday.

The data shows 21,570 homicides in the U.S. in 2020, which is a staggering 4,901 more than in 2019. The tally makes clear — in concrete terms — just how violent last year was.

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/27/1040904770/fbi-data-murder-increase-2020?t=1637647137190

Can you show me where this extra 30% homicides were linked to BLM protests? Because I know another major life altering event that happened in 2020 and 2021 which I would bet can also explain an increase in crime. 



...

Around the Network
numberwang said:
RolStoppable said:

Indeed, I could assume what you meant based on your warped views, but still... I wanted to leave you with the option to save face. The history of Austria is that there's a precedent for a mandated jab that lasted for over three decades. The result was that the illness in question was eradicated, so a mandated jab is not harmful, but the exact opposite. The reason why the anti-COVID-19 jab is planned to be mandated from February 2022 onwards is because Austria slipped into this situation due to the government banking on the population to do the right thing voluntarily. This, however, was very ill-advised considering the strong presence of the far-right in this country. Not only did the traditional far-right political party rally hard against common sense since the start of the pandemic, but another two new parties who are all about the single issue of anti-vax gained traction, one of which got into the regional parliament of Upper Austria. It's no surprise that Upper Austria with its highest concentration of stupid people is now due for the strictest measures to regain control of a situation that has spun out of control. Austrian's population at large isn't opposed to the government taking action, rather it's the opposite because the seemingly oblivious bunch of government politicians is finally starting to do their job after ignoring the analyses of experts for months.

The prerequisite to be against vaccination is the belief that vaccination is more harmful than the illness it works against, a belief that is neither based on science nor facts.

What exactly do you mean in the context of Austria when you say that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

I don't go around and call anyone I disagree with far-right. I say that you are far-right based on your irrational behavior and argumentation that is basically the textbook definition of a far-right mindset. I don't expect to change your mind either, because a defining trait of the far-right is that they are so far gone that they can't be reasoned with anymore. This really shows in the discussion about Austria where you seriously believe that a mandated jab is something negative when it's realistically the only way to put a country with far too many stupid people in it back on the right track. Without the mandated jab, Austria would be bound to lock down again in 2022 because the voluntary vaccination rate is far below the necessary threshold.

As for the USA portion of the discussion, you live in a country where you personally would rather trust teenagers with assault rifles than the police to protect its citizens.

Do you have a list of scientific papers that you have published? Any advanced degree in statistic?

All cause-mortality (the only reliable and relevant indicator) has increased in most countries in 2021 compared to 2020 "despite" the miracle jabs. The US is a good example with the summer wave 2021 being much more lethal compared to summer 2020 and it looks like the upcoming winter wave 21 could be worse than winter 20. What changed in 2021? With >80% of the risk group fully vaxxed there should be nearly no Covid left as a lethal disease but the opposite is happening right now.

Last four weeks have delayed reporting so the decline at the end is not real.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

Despite the fact the jabs are effectives, new Covid variants are also more effective at infecting people resulting in the minority of unvaxxed carrying the death toll and infection rate at the same level the whole US was pre vaccine.

Last edited by EpicRandy - on 23 November 2021

Valdney said:

@Dulfite


This is a rather insightful post. I had never looked at it from that angle. There are really no solutions to anything, only trade offs. 

Now, let me ask you this about the senate : don’t you think that enacting the 17th was a bad trade off? 

I actually do wish Senators were still appointed by Governors, rather than elected by people. The Senate is all about achieving the best of the best, and Americans are too excitable to reliably vote for literally the best people for it. But I wouldn't stop there, if I could.

I wish the only election we, as people, voted in was local representation. Then those local representatives get together to vote for who should go to the state house, then those state house members vote who goes to the state senate (if your state is bicameral). Then those state senators elect state-held positions like Lt. Gov and Governor. Then the governor appoints for the for the federal House, but he/she has to appoint based on a district's political leaning, (so in my State both KC and STL would still have liberal representatives, for example, under a Republican governor within the system I described above). Then the Federal House group for each state would get together to nominate and vote on who should fill (whether re-election of the current Senator or election of one of those representatives, those are the only options) any open Senate seats for their state. If they elect one of their group to be the new Senator, then the Governor has to appoint a new representative federally.

Which makes me need to clear something up. Each level higher up can only appoint from the level below them, so no outsiders:

Local voted by people.

State House chosen by local leaders from among them.

State Senate chosen by State House from among their group. 

And so on...

Then the Senate votes for who will be in all federal positions (President/Vice President, Secretaries of whatever, Ambassadors, etc).

We do it this way with the goal of getting the best, smartest person available who works with other people well and can represent us well. Then we avoid people electing bad leaders based on stupid things like speeches, good burns, the color of their skin, their gender, or any other non relevant detail and instead have leaders elected by their peers for their abilities of the mind and nothing else.



thismeintiel said:

Oh, don't justify it, just minimize the millions in damages the riots caused.  As well as the people who lost their lives during them.  And yes, let's just let rioters do whatever they want.  Who cares if those people actually had insurance.  Or how long it takes to get government aid, which we all pay for, including those with their houses and businesses destroyed.  Or how long and expensive civil will be.  This is not to mention the emotional and physical strain it must put on those people watching everything in their lives burn to the ground.  Who cares because we may hurt the ittle rioter scum.  Like I said, no empathy for decent citizens.  Just excuses and looking the other way for criminals.

Yea, it is about statistics.  And white people are far more likely to be shot by police officers than blacks.  Interesting since blacks make up around 50% of the violent crime.  Of course, that doesn't even take into account how many of ones that we actually get worked up about end up being justified shootings.  But, do people follow up on that.  Nope, just slap all the faces of unrepentant criminals on shirts and deify them like they are all equal.  Personally, that really dishonors the ones that weren't justified.

As far as Nick Sandman goes, that was complete bias.  It's why they were so quick to cover the story.  It feed into their narrative.  It's why they started covering the Texas school shooter...until they found out he was black.  Just the smallest amount of research and interviewing would have proven the reporting wasn't true on Sandman.  And did they give the corrections the same coverage as the initial story?  Nope.  But, that's the point.  You cover the Hell out of the initial story.  Bring on countless talking heads to talk about how horrible it and Nick was.  Wait for social media or maybe Fox News, to show the other side, which turned out to be the real story, then cover it real quick and be done.  It's no different to when newspapers run front page news for a few days, then on page 36 one day, they offer the correction.  No one reads that, and that's the point, because the initial story is in the zeitgeist.  It is completely on purpose and done with bias. 

And they settled for millions cause they knew they fucked up and may have had to pay out a larger sum.  He actually has 4 more cases going right now.  All 4 of which the judge denied their dismissal, so it will go forward.  That boy will not have to work a day in his life.  I hope the same happens with Kyle.

I imagine any dollar amount is too large, right?  You're hyperbole suggests that there was widespread destruction of livelihoods, but the reality was that damage over the summer only represented 0.0005% of the US's GDP, and most of it was looting and vandalism.  $1 billion is not a lot of money in 2021 dollars.  This might be seem cruel and heartless to the people who did get mixed up in all of this, but we as a society can foot the bill and repair.

Our energy would be put to MUCH better used solving the societal breakdown that resulted in so much protest and unrest, rather than having citizens coming out to police people and put them in their place.  Especially when those people are coming from out of town to defend property from the very people who live in said community.

iron_megalith said:

Holy shit. Someone here actually falls for the the White Power hand symbol meme? LMAO.

I wouldn't even be surprised if someone also fell for the "It's OK to be white" movement and were enraged by it. I don't care if you're left or you're right. Falling for these memes and taking it unironically just tells how much you're out of touch. Whether you advocate to ban the symbol because you believe white supremacists do actually use it in a serious manner. Or whether you are a white supremacist that bought the meme and used it yourself within your group. Just believing it is a thing and taking it seriously just proves their point that people are fucking gullible. Congratulations for demonstrating boomer levels of ignorance right there.

This thread really is Twitter lite simulation. You guys crack me up.

Even looking at the ok symbol through the kindest lens (as simply a meme), it was a meme that was made to make people of color and their allies upset and uncomfortable in a space.  Would that not make anyone that participated in the trolling, either online or in public, participants of hate?  You are intentionally trying to make people feel uncomfortable and unwelcome for the lols.  Sounds like a really shitty thing to do.

I was fully aware of the 4chan origins, and I still use the ok gesture, but context is critical.  White supremacists started using the ok gesture in their own circles, because they would just claim they were "trolling" too.  Ever hear of Poe's law?

Besides, it's 4chan.  The cesspool of the internet.  Nothing is "just a meme" there.

thismeintiel said:

Tell me you're easily duped without telling me you're easily duped. 

I love what fools the Left and media has made themselves out to be.  A massive troll job by 4chan, who bet they could get the Left to believe that anything was racist, including the internationally known OK hand sign, and won that bet just because it was something Trump does when he talks.  Talk about TDS.  The best part?  Instead of acknowledging they got had, they kept going along with it.  Now, EVERYONE is a White Supremacist.  Oh God, it's so fucking good. 

I guess Biden is a massive White Supremacist, too.

Dude, context is critical.  Are you trying to tell me this level of trolling has no racial undertones whatsoever?!  I still use the okay symbol too, but I have enough brain cells to tell when someone is intentionally being an asshole.

My friends and I were really pissed off at the ADL for classifying the okay symbol as a hate symbol back in 2019, and we continued to use it defiantly, because we were not going to let it be co-opted.  So, no, we were not going to let the racists take something from us.  If you really think mocking and mentally distressing people over their desire to not offend other people is HILARIOUS, then there is something seriously wrong with you.



thismeintiel said:

Ever hear of a citizen's arrest? If I see someone committing a crime, it is legal for me to detain them til the authorities get there. If he fires upon me, he would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon if I survived or murder if I died. There is no self-defense for people breaking the law in the first place.
Oh, that's not what you are implying? Yet, you seem to be in Kyle's case. Even though, he was very responsible with his gun, as I stated. And his only decision was to protect his community, which he had the right to do. Further enforced by the ruling of the jury.
No, this is not Nazi Germany. The people are the authority. We give the government the authority to protect us, our property, and our community. When they are told not to by a political hack in charge, we can take that authority in our own hands. That is our right and the law. That is why people hoped he would lose because it may put that right into jeopardy. However, it just reinforced it.

So let me make sure I understand your logic here.  As long as I believe you are committing a crime, I have the right to pull my gun out on you and make a citizen arrest.  So the person you pull your gun on does not have the right of self defense because your right of citizen arrest outweighs my self defense rights. You better check those citizen arrest laws you seem to put a lot of trust in because I can assure you, if you pull your gun on someone just because you believe they are committing a crime and they shoot and kill you, they will walk.  You do not have total authority to do as you please and any citizen arrest comes with huge risk including you just getting killed.

Depending on the state depends on what you can actually do.  Most does not support you pulling out a gun on that person.  The reason I made the analogy of a simple misdemeanor because the actual crime that is happening does make a difference.  Maybe you should take the time to research the topic before answering. Deadly force is not a requirement to any citizen arrest and most states do not support it.  Only the police has the option which is why you have police.  I really do not believe you thought this through and threw out some BS.  

Maybe you need to go back and read what I have wrote.  You are so narrowed focus on defending everything Kyle did that night all you can see is trying to find a way to support his actions.  His actions was just as reckless and stupid as the people chasing someone who is armed.  He came out the killer as I stated, but he could have easily been the victim.  

You seem to believe you have more authority then you actually have.  If you are protecting your property then you are on your property.  Everyone has the right to protect themselves and once you pull your gun out the rules of engagement change, now everyone has a self defense right.

You are right about one thing.  The next time, everyone will be on equal playing field and everyone will use self defense if both parties have a gun.  Lethal force will be approved for everyone and the stone cold killer will rule the day.  He had a gun in his hands and I feared for my life and shot him.



Around the Network

So as an add on, we see the situation now where armed people out protecting the protestors. This is going right along the lines I am talking about. Everything gets escalated as these type of events occurs and we will see where everyone will be out armed and one idiot, one fool, one trigger happy individual no matter what side they are on will ignite that fire and there will be a blood bath. Because there is no real law on engagement, the fastest and coldest killer comes out on top. If you survive, you get to tell your side of the story and if you are dead well, you hope there is some video because everything goes from zero to 100 in the US, we will be looking at the movie "Escape from New York" like it was a documentary.



thismeintiel said:
Machiavellian said:

Here is a scenario for you.  Lets say you are out and about like Kyle and you see someone break a window of a store.  You with your trusty gun point it at that person and they turn around and shot you.  Would the person who shot you be able to claim self defense.

The point is that you are not a police officer so your ability to point your gun at anyone unless they are directly attacking you goes out the window.  Once you point your gun, then the terms of engagement changes and its whoever shoots first wins the day.

Nothing make me smile more than when someone just totally do not understand context. I have no clue what the heck you are talking about that I am pushing that games make people violent.  Since it probably escaped you since you are very much so keen to not see the slight humor of walking around with your gun in your hand like Call of Duty which mind you is a game where you walk around with your gun always in your hand.

Also you have no clue on "My Way" because if I was Rittenhouse, I would have shot everyone as well because at that point he is getting attacked.  My point is that his decisions as well as the attackers lead to this situation and if he came up against the wrong people he would have been dead.

Even your reply says you would do the same stupid thing believing you are in the right because as you say, the Police was not doing anything but the police is the authority.  You going out to protect some property that isn't even yours and wind up dead, maimed or paralyzed for life, you would be thinking to yourself if not 6 feet under, why did I not just say home.

Ever hear of a citizen's arrest?  If I see someone committing a crime, it is legal for me to detain them til the authorities get there.  If he fires upon me, he would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon if I survived or murder if I died.  There is no self-defense for people breaking the law in the first place.

Oh, that's not what you are implying?  Yet, you seem to be in Kyle's case.  Even though, he was very responsible with his gun, as I stated. And his only decision was to protect his community, which he had the right to do. Further enforced by the ruling of the jury. 

No, this is not Nazi Germany.  The people are the authority.  We give the government the authority to protect us, our property, and our community.  When they are told not to by a political hack in charge, we can take that authority in our own hands.  That is our right and the law.  That is why people hoped he would lose because it may put that right into jeopardy.  However, it just reinforced it.

Given that individuals are innocent until proven guilty, by what calculus is an ordinary citizen to make a snap decision to determine whether an action is criminal or not? If we wish to exist in a world where ordinary citizens are encouraged to intervene in such situations, should we be protecting them if their conclusion proves to be incorrect?



Machiavellian said:

So as an add on, we see the situation now where armed people out protecting the protestors. This is going right along the lines I am talking about. Everything gets escalated as these type of events occurs and we will see where everyone will be out armed and one idiot, one fool, one trigger happy individual no matter what side they are on will ignite that fire and there will be a blood bath. Because there is no real law on engagement, the fastest and coldest killer comes out on top. If you survive, you get to tell your side of the story and if you are dead well, you hope there is some video because everything goes from zero to 100 in the US, we will be looking at the movie "Escape from New York" like it was a documentary.

You hit the nail right on the head.  I think a lot of people share these concerns (or at least the people I typically interact with).  That's why I am so frustrated by the notion that the Rittenhouse verdict made people feel safer.  We (society) are setting ourselves up for an inevitable fire fight between civilians.  Add in some law enforcement into that recipe, and it might be more of a prelude to a massacre.



IvorEvilen said:
iron_megalith said:

Holy shit. Someone here actually falls for the the White Power hand symbol meme? LMAO.

I wouldn't even be surprised if someone also fell for the "It's OK to be white" movement and were enraged by it. I don't care if you're left or you're right. Falling for these memes and taking it unironically just tells how much you're out of touch. Whether you advocate to ban the symbol because you believe white supremacists do actually use it in a serious manner. Or whether you are a white supremacist that bought the meme and used it yourself within your group. Just believing it is a thing and taking it seriously just proves their point that people are fucking gullible. Congratulations for demonstrating boomer levels of ignorance right there.

This thread really is Twitter lite simulation. You guys crack me up.

Even looking at the ok symbol through the kindest lens (as simply a meme), it was a meme that was made to make people of color and their allies upset and uncomfortable in a space.  Would that not make anyone that participated in the trolling, either online or in public, participants of hate?  You are intentionally trying to make people feel uncomfortable and unwelcome for the lols.  Sounds like a really shitty thing to do.

I was fully aware of the 4chan origins, and I still use the ok gesture, but context is critical.  White supremacists started using the ok gesture in their own circles, because they would just claim they were "trolling" too.  Ever hear of Poe's law?

Besides, it's 4chan.  The cesspool of the internet.  Nothing is "just a meme" there.

thismeintiel said:

Tell me you're easily duped without telling me you're easily duped. 

I love what fools the Left and media has made themselves out to be.  A massive troll job by 4chan, who bet they could get the Left to believe that anything was racist, including the internationally known OK hand sign, and won that bet just because it was something Trump does when he talks.  Talk about TDS.  The best part?  Instead of acknowledging they got had, they kept going along with it.  Now, EVERYONE is a White Supremacist.  Oh God, it's so fucking good. 

I guess Biden is a massive White Supremacist, too.

Dude, context is critical.  Are you trying to tell me this level of trolling has no racial undertones whatsoever?!  I still use the okay symbol too, but I have enough brain cells to tell when someone is intentionally being an asshole.

My friends and I were really pissed off at the ADL for classifying the okay symbol as a hate symbol back in 2019, and we continued to use it defiantly, because we were not going to let it be co-opted.  So, no, we were not going to let the racists take something from us.  If you really think mocking and mentally distressing people over their desire to not offend other people is HILARIOUS, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

I didn't mention anything in my post about it being right or wrong. If anything, I'm just pointing out how dumb it is to fall for it. Just like you mentioned, the government took it seriously and added it as a symbol of hate which is ridiculous. They added a fucking OK symbol that is widely used by everyone as a hate symbol just so ADL can probably claim they're actually doing something and not being a complete waste of money. And I guess also to make some boogeyman real. Let that sink into your head how dumb that is.

You can assume that they were being racist on that pic but you have nothing to support it. Just so you know, he willingly surrendered his phone and they have not found anything to suggest any evidences that can tie the incident to any racial motives. Even his Facebook account was searched and was found to be clear. Just take the L dude. You fell for a fucking 4chan meme.

Last edited by iron_megalith - on 23 November 2021

the-pi-guy said:
iron_megalith said:

I didn't mention anything in my post about it being right or wrong. If anything, I'm just pointing out how dumb it is to fall for it. Just like you mentioned, the government took it seriously and added it as a symbol of hate which is ridiculous. They added a fucking OK symbol that is widely used by everyone as a hate symbol. Let that fucking sink in.

You can assume that they are being racist on that pic but you have nothing to support it. Just so you know, he willingly surrendered his phone and they have not found anything to suggest any evidences that can tie the incident to any racial motives. Even his Facebook account searched and was found to be clear. Just take the L dude. You fell for a fucking 4chan meme.

And communists use the hammer and sickle which are just implements that farmers use/used.

That doesn't stop conservatives from recognizing that the hammer and sickle is communist symbolism.

Your "meme" is how all of language and symbolism work. People use words and symbols in a particular way (as a joke or not, it doesn't matter), and people start recognizing how people are using those words and symbols.

ADL has nothing to do with the government, by the way...  

This may come as a surprise to you. It's not only conservatives that associate that symbol for communism. But you are correct in that symbols can mean anything. But using it to stigmatize a particular group of people for using it is dumb when you don't even know what the hell they're using it for.

Just like someone wanting to use the Charlie Chaplin mustache that can be associated with Hitler. If someone wants to use it, so be it. Don't go jumping to conclusions that they are racist for doing so. You're gonna sound like some evangelical from the Bible Belt.

Last edited by iron_megalith - on 23 November 2021