- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:10000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2635 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 27146
I suppose it's time for a new thread seeing as the previous one is almost at 1,700 posts.
It's been kicking off in America (again) after the police have shot a black man (again). A couple of protesters/rioters have been killed after they were driven by the police towards an alt-right militia, with this planned in advance.
|>>|| No. 27147
A lot of Leftist-Yank-twitter seems to be openly calling for armed revolt now, to the point I suspect a lot of them are Russian as it's really not a smart move for them, tactically. They don't have the arms for it.
|>>|| No. 27149
Why do so many of them have their shields upside down?
|>>|| No. 27152
A 17 year old, out of state nutter more like. Granted he is a product of his time and upbringing, but "militia" is a strong word in this context.
|>>|| No. 27153
I'm sure some are sincere, real Americans but I don't think it's cowardice to focus on building your strength to the point that you have a fighting chance before you engage in violence. Though obviously they're already dealing with violence aimed at them.
Don't mistake me, I'm not claiming to be a prophet or anything and I am rooting for them, I just don't fancy their chances right now. Enough Americans and their media are already poisoned against them, they're on the back-foot and it wouldn't at all surprise me to discover that it's just an intentional plot to create an excuse to violently suppress all dissent there.
|>>|| No. 27154
The distance from Antioch in Illinois to Kenosha in Wisconsin is about 15 miles. Granted it's a different state but it'll be the nearest city to where he lives.
Militia may not be the right word, but I wasn't sure what else you'd call a group of armed civilians patrolling the area.
I'm fully expecting him to get away with it on self defence. One of the people shot dead had hit him over the head with a skateboard and I don't know if the other was the one pointing the handgun at him.
|>>|| No. 27155
The kid is though. He goes to the ground, clears a jam, fires and executes a tactical stand up in the space of about 15 seconds while under attack and remained calm, he has been drilled by a police officer or a soldier for years to have that level of proficiency.
The fact he is 17 makes it doubly impressive.
|>>|| No. 27156
>I'm fully expecting him to get away with it on self defence. One of the people shot dead had hit him over the head with a skateboard and I don't know if the other was the one pointing the handgun at him.
From watching a bit more footage, the first death occurred outside a car dealership. The gunman was there to protect it from rioters, who have been filmed en route shouting about how they were going to torch it, and when he was charged at he shot someone in the head. He's shown afterwards in the footage on the phone to the emergency services before fleeing.
When he was running away he was set upon and he shot a guy who attacked him with a skateboard. Another guy thought his semi-automatic had jammed so approached him with a pistol, which led to him getting shot in the arm.
From what I can gather everyone involved was a monumental idiot.
|>>|| No. 27158
That kid just painted a lifelong target on himself.
|>>|| No. 27159
That kid just painted a lifelong target on himself.
|>>|| No. 27161
Why do people keep leaning in to this "he was protecting property" thing like it's a justification for murder? Then you frame the second murder as though it was self defense in an unrelated incident and not someone trying to disarm him for already having murdered?
|>>|| No. 27163
The laws are actually quite clear in those states that have it - Texas for instance, you can protect your own property - the minute you step over the threshold, I can pretty much shoot you - but that doesn't carry over to protecting everyone elses property. Of course, there will be many who will defend him.
It will be interesting to see who else gets prosecuted - he isn't actually old enough to have that rifle, for a start - that is on either the parents/adults who bought the rifle, or the gun dealer that sold him it - they'll be part of the charges. Additionally, when he crossed state lines, this become a federal, not a local offence. I'm sure he'll get off.
What an awful business.
|>>|| No. 27164
>Why do people keep leaning in to this "he was protecting property" thing like it's a justification for murder
The so-called militia were there under the guise of protecting property, a lot of businesses were looted or badly damaged, which is why it is being mentioned. Nobody is using that as justification for killing someone.
>Then you frame the second murder as though it was self defense in an unrelated incident and not someone trying to disarm him for already having murdered?
The two killings were separate incidents, although one obviously led to the other. He was fleeing back to where he knew there were police officers when he tripped over and was pounced upon by protestors. If you're being hit over the head by a skateboard and have someone else drawing a gun on you I bet you'd find it difficult to know whether they were trying to kill you or simply disarm you.
Everyone involved is a colossal idiot whose hot-headed behaviour put them in a situation well outside of their depth. Being critical of both sides does not mean you are supportive of the gunman.
|>>|| No. 27166
Do you think as the lad who did the shooting walked, hands up, through the police lines, presumably expecting to get nicked, the penny dropped and he thought "oh, I get it, this is white privilege. This definitely isn't on, I should be arrested by now"?
|>>|| No. 27168
You're continuing to equivocate between some people who were murdered and the person who murdered them as though they're both equally culpable.
|>>|| No. 27169
They were all convicted felons, apart from the kid. The one with the pistol who got shot in the arm isn't legally allowed to own a firearm, yet was carrying a pistol. One of them was a sex offender, can't remember which.
They're hardly innocent bystanders.
|>>|| No. 27170
>They were all convicted felons, apart from the kid
The fact you think that is somehow a relevant factor really demonstrates your abhorrent nature.
|>>|| No. 27171
Yeah, how dare FASCISTLAD besmirch the good names of those poor blameless crims.
|>>|| No. 27172
They're all innocent of murder, apart from the kid. Which is really the only thing that's relevant in this context, despite >>27171 pretending it's about "besmirching" their names.
|>>|| No. 27173
Manslaughter at most. Recent events have been a real shot in the arm for the Supreme Court of the Internet.
|>>|| No. 27174
>all convicted felons
Oh come the fuck on. That is a quite ridiculous argument to make.
|>>|| No. 27175
It's quite simple, lad.
The gunman was a monumental twat.
The people he shot were monumental twats. You've got to be pretty thick to charge at and attempt to attack someone with an assault rifle; the first victim was bragging about how he was going to beat militia members up and steal their weapons. I believe he's also the one who was filmed repeatedly using the n-word, which is very strange for a white man to do at a BLM demonstration.
It's not a difficult concept. People can be twats regardless of which "side" they're supposedly on.
|>>|| No. 27176
This. This entire situation is born from the increasing efforts directed at creating division. The stupidest lap it up and run with it, across the board. Just see how politicised this is and how it's being used to create further division. The goal is to have them attacking eachother, and it's been working well so far.
|>>|| No. 27178
It's mental that it's essentially confirmed, but nobody cares. Maybe it's too late for them.
|>>|| No. 27179
Lucky for you to be such a wise centrist able to do nothing at all except create a division between yourself and everyone else.
|>>|| No. 27180
Russia is trying to start a civil war in the US, as part of a broader campaign to destabilise NATO. Most of the BLM protests and right-wing counter-protests are being orchestrated by Russian intelligence. This is not a conspiracy theory, but a verifiable fact. The people out rioting and the people shooting AR-15s at them are just pawns in a political game. If you side with either faction, you're having your strings pulled by Putin. The only way to win is not to play.
|>>|| No. 27182
If you look down you'll see yourself firmly grasping the wrong end of the stick.
|>>|| No. 27183
You don't win if you don't play, you just bulldozed by the people who do. Putin pulling strings doesn't mean black lives don't matter.
|>>|| No. 27184
This new thread is a lot less intelligent than the previous one.
|>>|| No. 27185
It's moved straight into /pol/think of "if you criticise x that must mean you support y" and "any actions done in support of the side I'm on are right."
|>>|| No. 27186
>Putin pulling strings doesn't mean black lives don't matter.
Literally nobody said this.
|>>|| No. 27187
Oh I see, so they do matter but "the only way to win is not to play" so not to support or do anything against about it.
|>>|| No. 27189
>The only way to win is not to play.
I'm not sure in what convenient way you're choosing to interpret that.
|>>|| No. 27190
So is everyone who discusses this from a perspective that doesn't laser align with your worldview abhorrent now? Fuck sake. They were part of a violent dissident mob which was committing criminal damage, assaulting people and they were all armed. The guy with the pistol had a warrant out for his arrest for rape as well as being a felon. The kid crossed state lines and is too young to carry that weapon, and he'll be punished accordingly, but you need to understand that is the only reason this is even contentious. If he was 18 and in his home state, he wouldn't even be charged with a felony.
Stop being a histrionic idiot, attacking people on an imageboard for disagreeing with your worldview and applying your own subjective moral compass to the pissing US, you'll drive yourself mental.
|>>|| No. 27191
And what about that says to you that black lives don't matter? You're making things up in your head that nobody has said and getting upset about them.
|>>|| No. 27192
Oh I see, so they do matter but "the only way to win is not to play" so not to support or do anything against about it.
|>>|| No. 27194
I think he's suggesting that the system is set up to allow for minor outbursts of rebellion like this, that raging against the machine is useless if that's what the machine feeds on.
|>>|| No. 27195
Okay, but rather than suggesting anything that would actually help he's just throwing up his hands and saying fuck it. Which one could equally argue is exactly what "the machine" wants you to do.
|>>|| No. 27196
>he's just throwing up his hands and saying fuck it.
It really doesn't read like this to me, he could well be supporting/helping in other ways, how would you know? Why would he have to state that he is? Why is the onus on him to start pitching different ways to support?
His post was on the well documented tactics Russia has been using to create division, not about "how can we support black lives matters more effectively?". In no way does it read to me that "black lives don't matter", it just seems like you've got some serious hangups that you're projecting onto someone elses post here.
|>>|| No. 27197
Again, I'm not sure how you're choosing to interpret "the only way to win is not to play" as the words of someone who is actually involved in anything.
|>>|| No. 27198
We can't help you here, lad. Your inability to see this any other way is your problem. Personally I took it as talking about the politicisation of civil movements in the US, they are being gamed from the get go, which would mean it's time to start thinking about alternative tactics to work outside of this/rise above it. This is commentary as an aside from BLM, as it relates to any social movements in the states. It's not one or the other, and if you don't support one you support the other, mate..
|>>|| No. 27200
>A couple of protesters/rioters have been killed after they were driven by the police towards an alt-right militia, with this planned in advance
I keep trying to parse this and drawing blanks. Are you saying the two separate incidents of protesters being targeted by non-LEO individuals constitute a pre-meditated militia? Are you saying the police conspired with these individuals prior to the attacks? I can't find enough on reliable news sites to figure it out.
|>>|| No. 27201
The only way to fix this is stop letting the US police militarise, have them be trained by civilian contractors in appropriate restraint and conflict resolution and stop sending them to Israel to get trained to shoot anyone browner than them just incase.
The US police kill more white people than black people, but white people are sleep walking on this issue like it's a black issue and it isn't. As stated, Russia has succeeded in making this a "black issue" so white people have no inventive to change the system because they've been told they're privileged and the riots, again stoked by Russian interest in creating a Civil war in the US, have polarised the populace further. The US is circling the failed state drain.
|>>|| No. 27204
I wish the bloody Americans would give it a rest already. I'm getting fucking sick of hearing about every time they shoot a black person. Can they not just fucking leave it now.
I know that's a very white privilege thing to say but I don't give a fuck, I don't live in America and no matter how much of a screaming twitter liberal you are, you can't convince me we share their issues. I can't be fucking arsed enduring this steaming shit-heap of a current affairs topic warmed up like yesterday's Chinese again, for fuck's sake.
It really can't be difficult to just not shoot people. Can't they just put out a nationwide order for pigs to just not shoot people. They have tasers and tear gas and rubber bullets and shit. What exactly is America's problem beyond the fact they all have cholesterol clogging up their brains and multi-generational mercury/fluoride poisoning rendering the majority of the population borderline lobotomised.
|>>|| No. 27205
I think when you're next in the office you should say this, verbatim, to your co-workers.
|>>|| No. 27206
>The only way to fix this is stop letting the US police militarise, have them be trained by civilian contractors in appropriate restraint and conflict resolution and stop sending them to Israel to get trained to shoot anyone browner than them just incase.
And the possible routes to achieve that point directly to the systemic dysfunction of the American political system. The US has nearly 18,000 different police forces at federal, state and municipal level. There is no federal agency responsible for police standards or oversight and the federal government has very limited ability to intervene in local policing - the Department of Justice can sue a police force, but they can't take control over it. Many parts of the US have elected police chiefs, sheriffs and judges, which can easily create a nepotistic quagmire of corruption, particularly in smaller jurisdictions where fines and civil forfeitures represent a large proportion of local government funding.
A lot of people have inferred a causal link between a racist president and racist policing, but bad policing is a long-standing and barely tractable problem in the US. Police brutality wasn't meaningfully better or worse under Obama, because the president really doesn't have much power to reform the police.
|>>|| No. 27207
If I worked in an office, I might understand the point you're trying to make. But among my current set of misfits and weirdos it wouldn't even be the most controversial thing someone has said this week.
|>>|| No. 27208
Let's also remember it's only been coming to light more now that everybody has a camera in their pocket.
>A lot of people have inferred a causal link between a racist president and racist policing
Unfortunately it's more to do with the fact that the FBI warned the police that they were getting infiltrated with white supremacists since 2006 and nothing was done about it. It's been left unchecked and this is the result.
|>>|| No. 27209
It's a much older problem, particularly in the south; the racism that exists in policing is largely reflective of the racism that exists in the wider community.
|>>|| No. 27211
> Can't they just put out a nationwide order for pigs to just not shoot people.
If the police don't shoot, they might get shot.
|>>|| No. 27212
That's mentioned in a time line the New York Times have cobbled together:
>About 15 minutes before the first shooting, police officers drive past Mr. Rittenhouse, and the other armed civilians who claim to be protecting the dealership, and offer water out of appreciation.
What I've found most telling about the whole sequence of events is this:
>In most of the footage The Times has reviewed from before the shootings, Mr. Rittenhouse is around this area. He also offers medical assistance to protesters.
In a lot of the interviews I've seen with the militia they were quite supportive of the protestors, they just didn't agree with the looting and destruction of property.
I don't think the killer was a bad person or went out looking for a fight, reflected in him offering medical assistance to the protestors; he was simply a dumb naive kid caught up in a movement who expected that standing there with an assault rifle would be enough to deter those looking for trouble. We all know that was a grave miscalculation and the end result is what happens when you've got a scared child in a situation that has escalated well out of their control who is armed with a fucking assault rifle. In other words, he's human.
|>>|| No. 27213
A risk our own police manage fine. Seen a raid team disarm and restrain 2 people in a drug bust in England somewhere with only armour and tasers, yet they managed to not get anyone killed or get killed themselves even though it was later revealed that both were armed.
Seppo police are fucking nancy boys.
|>>|| No. 27214
One big difference - America is absolutely lousy with guns. If a British police officer suspects that someone might have a gun, they'll call in an armed response unit and leave them to it. Here, pulling over a driver who has a pistol in their glove box is a rare and serious incident; in the US, it's a daily occurrence. British police officers are shot at a rate of about two per decade, while American police officers are shot at a rate of about one a week. If you do get shot in a less-populated area (particularly at night), there's a real possibility that the nearest officer might be half an hour away on blue lights.
Policing in America is uniquely dysfunctional for a variety of reasons, but the solutions that work here won't necessarily work there. Seppo police are broadly incompetent and trigger-happy, but they need a different set of skills to British police.
|>>|| No. 27215
Their "Warrior Training" is part of the problem. The best officers in the US are usually the ones who are ex-military, because their rules of engagement are stricter than the polices, where they just escalate everything.
|>>|| No. 27216
That's all well and good, these arguments have been gone over many times before. And I'm not even disputing them, there's truth in a lot of what you say- But it fails to address one question. Do they need to shoot people?
Obviously the line of logic is that if the baddies have guns, the goodies need to have guns, and that's doubly obvious in a place where you find guns laying around like we'd find a quid down the side of the sofa cushions. But is it actually a logically correct, helpful, assumption? Do the pigs actually have to shoot anyone, even if cunts are trying to shoot them?
What is wrong with non-lethal alternatives? Why are they unsuitable and shooting people dead is the only answer? I'm not asking these questions as smart-arsed rhetorical devices, if you have an answer please give me them. But I have a feeling it's less to do with the efficacy of non-lethal weaponry, and everything to do with an entrenched culture and lack of willingness to change it, because if I were a Yank copper with a moustache and sunglasses, I'd be about as willing to give up my gun as have my penis cut off too.
I think American policing, if anything, is under-funded. Calls to de-fund the police are naive, short sighted, and counterproductive. But it's also true to say that despite all these cultural idiosyncrasies, the American copper could learn a lot from the more civilised, developed countries of the world.
|>>|| No. 27217
>I think American policing, if anything, is under-funded.
Really? This chart is a bit meaningless without some non-American cities to compare it to but it seems a bit of a stretch.
|>>|| No. 27218
Considering how miniscule Yank public spending is in general, yeah, that's probably still a less than adequate funding level. Fire departments do next to nothing but installing fire alarms these days and they're not getting a much smaller cut. I mean... Parks? Parks only cost 1/4 of what the entire police force of Portland costs?
There's also the fact American cities/states are mad huge. You need a lot of coppers to cover the kind of territory they have there, and as other lad alludes to, if the nearest back up is 30 minutes away a copper backed into a corner is probably much more prone to act combatively.
|>>|| No. 27219
I suppose a European city would have other public services; housing and such that would change the proportions a lot.
|>>|| No. 27220
A great example would be the PSNI, who at the height of the troubles were getting shot at constantly and still had a lower body count than the US police. A lot of PSNI officers, even to this day, are ex armed forces.
So it's not the military training per se that makes yank cops mental, it's whatever they got taught during their IDF lead training that makes them like that. I suspect they are being trained to treat everyone browner than them as if they were a Palestinian teenager.
The IDF can claim all the like that they never taught the US police to kneel on people's necks or whatever, but we have the video evidence of the police using those techniques and they trained them.
|>>|| No. 27221
The US employs 35% fewer police per capita than the world average.
>What is wrong with non-lethal alternatives? Why are they unsuitable and shooting people dead is the only answer?
The sheer ubiquity of handguns in the US means that routine encounters can go very wrong very quickly. This makes British-style de-escalation less useful in a wide range of circumstances, because things can go from perfectly calm to a gunfight in a couple of seconds. American cops do need to learn those de-escalation techniques (particularly because they deal with an absurdly large number of mental health related call-outs), but it's less broadly useful to them.
Tasers are the only reasonable substitute for guns in most of the situations where they're used in the US, but they aren't especially reliable. You only get one shot before you have to reload, you only have a range of about 20 feet and an accurate shot is often ineffective because the probes don't always penetrate through clothing. The latest generation of Taser improves some of these issues, but a) I still wouldn't necessarily trust my life to it and b) most US police forces just can't afford to upgrade.
The most important problem in US policing is poor recruitment and training, but that's very difficult to systematically address for reasons I outlined here >>27206.
>A great example would be the PSNI, who at the height of the troubles were getting shot at constantly and still had a lower body count than the US police.
There are some very big differences. Northern Ireland presented the police with a relatively small number of armed criminals/daft militant wogs/freedom fighters with a generally unarmed population, whereas guns are totally ubiquitous in many US states. Northern Ireland is geographically very compact which makes it far easier to draw in other police resources. Ultimately it was the British Army who did most of the dirty work - we can't praise the RUC without acknowledging that the British government was using internment and assassination to pre-emptively deal with threats.
|>>|| No. 27222
Isn't one of the major issues with the police in certain jurisdictions in America the lack of accountability? The police force will always attract bullies with tough guy fantasies, similar to how financial services will always attract fraudsters, but the ability to act with impunity can turn them into monsters.
|>>|| No. 27227
The accountability is definitely one issue - but the militarisation of so many federal forces is the other. Many of these police departments got their kit and vehicles direct/free from the federal government under a "recycling" program - I mean, what the fuck are they doing with Mine-Resistant vehicles?
As an example, I found it very amusing (but sinister) that earlier in the week Steve Bannon was arrested on a boat - that was done by a SWAT team from the US Postal Inspection Service - again, what the actual fuck? Postman Pat armed to the teeth?
|>>|| No. 27228
Don't fuck with the USPIS.
Americans are all complete mentaloids. Mine the Atlantic to defend European sanity.
|>>|| No. 27229
>The sheer ubiquity of handguns in the US means that routine encounters can go very wrong very quickly. This makes British-style de-escalation less useful in a wide range of circumstances, because things can go from perfectly calm to a gunfight in a couple of seconds.
That still doesn't answer the question I posed. You only have a gunfight if someone opens fire, and the coppers are shooting back. If they don't return fire it's not a gunfight. Why do the coppers have to shoot back? Can't they just retreat and chuck a few flashbang/tear gas grenades while they wait for backup?
Tasers can let you down and they only work on a lightly dressed assailant from close range, that's fair enough. But what about those riot police rubber bullets? Salt loaded buckshot? Those things put anyone on the floor. This is what I'm trying to get at-Just because someone has a gun and is prepared to use it, doesn't mean the only way of solving that situation is shooting them dead with your own gun.
There are alternative options and they are being blindly dismissed because people can't get their head out of this action movie paradigm where the only way to protect oneself from a shooter is shooting them. I'm not trying to sound like a smarmy smart arse and I'm certainly not devout anti-gun type, I do like me some guns. I wish we had them here. But I think the Yanks have a really fucked up mentality where they still treat everyday life as though it's the old West, and getting over the inherent psychology of conflict and standing one's ground would go a lot further to helping them, as a society, than any kind of gun laws or restrictions or political interference with racial demographics etc.
Of course, you're right that a large part of it is simply training. US police are trained to shoot people dead as the first resort, not the last. But that's what I'm getting at, it has to be a drastic reversal to de-program those police officers into reaching for their guns as the very last option, and in turn I think that could even cause a ripple effect in the way American criminals use firearms, and indeed American civilians. It's all a very deep rooted psychological counter-offensive thing I reckon, not defensive.
|>>|| No. 27242
The presumption that Russia is hyper-competent at implementing these plans seems misplaced. The odds of the US descending into civil war aren't too high all things considered, while the potential political advantages that come from the current instability could be quite high indeed for one side or another in US politics. All it takes is for Russia to be slightly incompetent for their plans to be usurped and the whole thing to end with President Sanders-Skeleton in 2036.
(Also, the last US protest I'm seeing in that article which is assigned to the Russian-IRA is from 2017.)
|>>|| No. 27244
The report was published in 2017, it's not going to have updated intelligence.
|>>|| No. 27246
You are wrong, because you haven't understood the Russian agenda properly. You assume clear end goal, when there is no clear end goal. The purpose is not achieve any one position the point is to keep all debate and decent flowing constantly no matter how minor and to exaggerate it to position of ineptitude. You never need to start a fire, in fact it works better if you don't you just have to fan the flames
I'm sure Russia never expected to get Trump into the White House they just wanted the political landscape to look like shit show, but the fact that they did is double win.
|>>|| No. 27250
I don't understand why anyone here cares. 400 people get shot every day in the US.
|>>|| No. 27253
Because if you don't constantly virtue signal how much of a tragedy it is that racism still exists you're a thought criminal.
|>>|| No. 27256
>It's a finite resource
No it isn't. Dunbar's number may have an upper capacity limit but it's fluid, people can be added and removed as need be to suit any given moment. You could be up to your maximum and yet unless you're just angry and bitter at life, you'd still stop to help out a child in need.
|>>|| No. 27258
Without Googling it, who is the current president of D.R. Congo? What happened this week in Niamey, Niger? Ten children were killed this morning in an incident in the north-west of Uganda - how did they die?
We're now constantly being told that black lives matter, but we're also constantly directed to only pay attention to the 40 million black people in America or the two million black people in Britain, while studiously ignoring the 1.2 billion black people in Africa.
Empathy may or may not be a finite resource (the science would certainly suggest that it is), but there is most definitely a limit on how much stuff we can usefully pay attention to.
We have a cultural belief that paying attention to the news is a civic duty, but it's called the "news" not the "importants". Outlets like the BBC do a remarkably good job of avoiding political bias, but they have a fundamental bias towards stories that are a) anomalous, b) fit into a constructed narrative about current trends and c) are easy to report on.
Those biases create a popular understanding of the world that is hopelessly wrong, not because we've been told and believed facts that are incorrect, but because we have constructed a picture of the world based on unrepresentative samples. We are fed a constant stream of not particularly relevant information with very limited context and believe that we're becoming more informed about the world, when in fact the opposite is happening:
|>>|| No. 27259
I competely agree, but this is a thread about US news/politics involving BLM and a discussion about how it's been influenced, as well as addressing the other socio-economic issues related to it all. Everything on this thread is on topic, isn't it? A fair few posts in this have been very informative as well, so I'm not quite sure what the other lad was on about when he said he's surprised people care. Some people in this thread were just looking for more clarity on the core issues too. Otherwise couldn't we just dismiss everything with "Why do you care? Do you even know what's going on in the congo?"
|>>|| No. 27260
The fuck are you talking about? Are you genuinely confused why Black Lives Matter doesn't have a branch in the Congo?
|>>|| No. 27261
>That still doesn't answer the question I posed. You only have a gunfight if someone opens fire, and the coppers are shooting back. If they don't return fire it's not a gunfight. Why do the coppers have to shoot back? Can't they just retreat and chuck a few flashbang/tear gas grenades while they wait for backup?
American police undoubtedly shoot people when there were other options, they're undoubtedly trained to be needlessly trigger-happy, but they also face the kind of situations where your only realistic options are to shoot back or get shot. Better training can substantially reduce the number of officer-involved shootings, but they won't eliminate them entirely.
Someone who has decided to start shooting at you is unlikely to stop firing if you run away, nor are they likely to just stand there looking confused because you've run off.
If you start shooting at the police in the UK, you won't be taken down by a rubber bullet or pepper spray - you will be shot with live ammunition until you are very definitely dead. British people very rarely shoot at police officers, they rarely have guns and those that do are rarely stupid enough to point them at other people with guns, but Americans do it with alarming regularity. That's not an easy problem to fix.
|>>|| No. 27262
No, I'm saying that we should try and step back from whatever the heated argument of the week is and try and look at the bigger picture. I'm saying that if you do genuinely believe that black lives matter, you should take some time to learn about the continent where the overwhelming majority of black people live and reflect on whether the issues there are more pressing than the issues that the news is telling you to care about. I'm saying that the news has decided that Nigel Farage deserves more airtime than an entire continent, but thanks to the internet we don't have to be complicit in that process.
The really important stuff in the world changes over a period of decades rather than days, so a relatively small shift from "news" to "importants" has a vastly disproportionate effect on your understanding of the world.
|>>|| No. 27264
The only reason you care about this one shooting out of tens of thousands is you've been told to. This isn't about BLM, it's a social media proxy war between Trump and anti Trumpites. Why it should concern any Brit is beyond me, yet its top news on the BBC every day.
|>>|| No. 27265
Addendum: fuck, BBC news has the US election as higher priority listing than UK news on their own bloody website.
We are obsessed with that fetid nation.
|>>|| No. 27281
There's a particular strain of left-leaning liberal, these days, who think they are anti-racist, anti-imperialist progressives, when in reality they are at best very lukewarm centrists. The whole narrative surrounding BLM and America's racial tension is a strange kind of doublethink that seeks to somehow eliminate racism without meaningfully affecting any of the structural systems that actually cause, perpetuate and subject black people to poverty and oppression.
You won't get through to these people trying to logically explain why their attention is misdirected or their priorities skewed. Just go look at the rabidly pro-Biden lads in the US election thread. To their mind, you have to pick a side, and trying to retain an independent, rational perspective on the world makes you as good as the actual fascists on the other side.
|>>|| No. 27283
>Someone who has decided to start shooting at you is unlikely to stop firing if you run away, nor are they likely to just stand there looking confused because you've run off.
Are you sure? This is what I'm trying to hypothesise, really. I think that assumption is flawed.
I mean. If I was a criminal, the very last thing I would want to do is kill a cop. If I was shooting at a police officer it would be a result of having absolutely nothing left to lose. If shooting at them made them appear to back off, I'd try to use that opportunity to leg it- The last thing I'd want if I was already in deep water would be a charge for killing a cop.
>If you start shooting at the police in the UK, you won't be taken down by a rubber bullet or pepper spray - you will be shot with live ammunition until you are very definitely dead.
Indeed, but you have to start shooting first. You're not liable to be riddled with bullet holes just for reaching towards your glove box.
>British people very rarely shoot at police officers, they rarely have guns and those that do are rarely stupid enough to point them at other people with guns, but Americans do it with alarming regularity. That's not an easy problem to fix.
That's exactly what I mean, really. It's a sort of mutually assured destruction mentality, and at some stage someone has to break that cycle.
Broadly speaking, it's impossible to eliminate shootings entirely 100%, because there will always be some kind of drastic situation that does actually warrant it at some point. But America needs a drastic clamp down. Training is all well and good, but with Yank police it's like training monkeys, not people.
They have to give them all piddly .22 handguns with 5 round magazines or something. Some kind of disincentive. Training alone won't do it, they just need forcefully reprimanding from using their guns in anything but the direst of need.
|>>|| No. 27284
I see you got that image from a rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk about "critique of identity politics from a Marxist perspective" i.e. white men upset that socialism isn't all about them anymore.
|>>|| No. 27286
More like socialists upset that socialism isn't about socialism any more.
|>>|| No. 27287
>Just go look at the rabidly pro-Biden lads in the US election thread.
You've misunderstood why people are rabid. Biden could be deeply flawed and for all I know he is. The point is, that he isn't a Russian asset that has done exactly everything a Russian asset looking to Sabotage America whilst leaving enough space for people to pretend there is doubt.
Could you imagine any other American president in history entertaining conspiracy theories about people attempting to plant tracking devices and there for deserve to get brained by the police. We all know that is bullshit but we have accepted that as something the president can do now.
All Biden has to do is actually tell the truth and not operate on naked self-interest and he is a better choice that will repair the US.
|>>|| No. 27371
>a Russian asset that has done exactly everything a Russian asset looking to Sabotage America whilst leaving enough space for people to pretend there is doubt
You are overestimating Trump. He's not some cunning
KGB FSB best-and-brightest sleeper asset, he is very honestly thicker than pig shit as a person and only has unflinching presumption to belie the fact that he has been in over his head from the day he took office. I'm sure even the FSB has standards and has no place for an overweening senile cunt like Trump on their payroll.
That doesn't mean the Russians couldn't have contributed to Trump's election win in 2016. They very likely did, because anything that has the potential to destabilise the U.S. internally as a country is conducive to Russia's own geostrategic goals. They probably supported, even financed scores of Internet trolls and fake news outlets that made audacious claims and spread lies and half truths.
But it's worth remembering that the U.S. has been doing near enough the same the world over for well over 100 years. They have not only supported regime critics or bankrolled armed rebel factions, but they have also invaded countries simply because they didn't like the guy who was in power.
What goes around comes around, and my sympathies are limited if the Russians actually made inroads into American domestic politics like that. Just imagine if it came to light that the U.S. covertly supported the BNP with guns and manpower in an attempt to overthrow the Tory government. That's the kind of treatment that they've given many second- and third world shithole countries over the years.
|>>|| No. 27373
The Russians just wanted to destabilise the US political system. How better to achieve that than to get an amoral dunce into the highest office? The fact that he is in over is head is precisely why the FSB chose him - they can trust him to be absolutely useless, absolutely shameless and too vain to ever suspect that he's being used. In all likelihood, Trump genuinely believes that Putin is just a pal who wanted to help The Greatest Businessman In American History to Make America Great Again.
|>>|| No. 27375
Without intentionally sounding like a crazy person: I don't see why we should oppose the destabilization of the US political system just because the Russians want it too. America hasn't had a healthy political system in decades and while it would be a bugger if the whole thing collapsed into a massive civil war, if it just lead to the collapse of one of the political parties or at the least the formation of a Seventh party system the odds are acceptable that we'd live in a much better world for it.
Maybe because despite everything, I don't think the Russians are behind this so much as they're playing their cards well while America's stuck in a trap that it set up for itself. My view is that if Russia cheated Trump into office in 2016, it was because the US political system itself set up a situation where it was possible for them to do so. Russia couldn't have cheated the 2016 election in Trump's favour if Trump had never been the nominee of a major party, something that could've been avoided absent the craziness of the Republican base, the Democrats actively trying to elevate his profile and positions in the hopes that he'd pull the Republicans away from the center ground, and much legitimate resentment against the US political class, and it's going to take more than a hard line on Russia to make sure this kind of thing doesn't keep happening.
|>>|| No. 27376
Here's a cute little point you're all missing in the frenzy of paranoia: Russia is completely irrelevant.
|>>|| No. 27377
Christ there's some Trump Derangement Syndrome in this thread.
|>>|| No. 27378
Trump 2020 just like Boris 2019. Keep digging that far left politik hole komrad!
|>>|| No. 27382
They don't have to be incredibly competent super destabilisers, they just need to fan the flames which they are doing well all over the Anglosphere. It's in Russia and China's interest to destabilise the US because it weakens NATO.
Russia is still one of the largest nuclear powers on the planet, whereas we rent ours from America. They are more relevant than we are.
|>>|| No. 27383
Literally 3 posts in the last ten have even discussed him at any length at all, but who am I to look a useful strawman in the mouth.
|>>|| No. 27385
Putin is ex-KGB. Not FSB, KGB. He was at the pointy end of the Cold War. He has a mindset and a set of skills that are almost extinct in the west, but are still just as effective as they ever were. The Russian economy is completely shagged at the moment, but since when has that ever stopped the Russians from being a colossal pain in the arse?
|>>|| No. 27386
>He has a mindset and a set of skills that are almost extinct in the west
Are you seriously claiming that we don't fuck about in people's countries?
|>>|| No. 27387
I'm claiming that post-perestroika, we've lost our instincts for the dark arts of intelligence and counter-intelligence. We saw the bread queues in Moscow and concluded that we had won the cold war and needed to give it no more thought. Post-9/11, the intelligence community in the west totally shifted their attention from geopolitical threats to militant daft woggery. Most of the people who can remember what it was like to butt heads with a savvy nation-state operator have long since retired.
|>>|| No. 27388
One person was shot and killed in downtown Portland amid clashes between supporters of President Donald Trump and counter-protesters on Saturday night during a Trump 2020 Cruise Rally that started earlier in the afternoon.
According to images posted by Getty photographer Nathan Howard, as well as reports by New York Times journalist Mike Baker, the man who died at the scene was a white man wearing cargo shorts, gloves, leg-strap saddle bags and a hat with the logo of Patriot Prayer, a local conservative group led by activist Joey Gibson.
I guess shooting people at protests is a thing now.
|>>|| No. 27389
It's America. Their murder rate is nine times higher than ours, so it's pretty much a statistical inevitability that someone will get killed at a large enough event.
|>>|| No. 27390
>He has a mindset and a set of skills that are almost extinct in the west, but are still just as effective as they ever were
Do you think the CIA is any different? CIA and KGB were more or less evenly matched during the Cold War, both of them engaged in destabilisation operations in the enemy's country, and the CIA has the added benefit of continuity since the Cold War, i.e. it was not disbanded and reorganised like the Russian secret service. A lot of the CIA's senior top brass came up during the Cold War and have found it pretty easy to revert to Cold War ways of thinking since the Ukraine crisis, and they are able to apply the skills they learned in the mid-80s at the last height of the Cold War.
|>>|| No. 27391
In the past week we've had a Trump supporting kid blasting BLM protestors with an assault rifle and a Trump supporter attacking counter-protesters with paintball and mace getting shot dead by them.
America seems to be in a very precarious position where shooting demonstrators with a different position to your own becomes the norm, with both sides using this as justification to go to protests armed to the teeth.
|>>|| No. 27392
This is what we have to keep in mind in the modern era- Whichever side of the media narrative you support, you have to keep in mind one of them is the CIA's, one of them is the KGB's, and between them is whatever China's intelligence agency wants you to think. When you try to pick apart the pieces and assemble the truth you start to get called a tinfoil hatter by members of either tribe looking to shame you into falling in line with their dogma.
America are the baddies, let's be honest.
|>>|| No. 27393
>Whichever side of the media narrative you support, you have to keep in mind one of them is the CIA's, one of them is the KGB's
Much of the British media were especially pro-Western during the Cold War, and the Americans made sure of that by exerting their diplomatic influence both on the BBC and independent media outlets. After all, as Airstrip One, we had to be kept in line. Much of what became known as the "special relationship" between the UK and the U.S. was based on the necessity of preventing public rejection of U.S. military presence on our soil. When in reality, we had painted a target on ourselves by letting the Americans station their long-range bombers here. As a NATO member, we probably would have been bombed to shreds either way by the Soviets in a global nuclear war, but it didn't help that American military installations about doubled the number of strategic nuclear targets in Britain.
|>>|| No. 27394
The CIA operate autonomously from the US government and have their own agenda. Their interests are only sometimes aligned and mainly operate through a quid-pro-quo - the CIA does the government's dirty work in a deniable manner and the US government turns a blind eye to whatever the CIA are doing of their own initiative. The CIA didn't do a great deal of direct confrontation with the USSR - their primary focus during the Cold War was counterinsurgency and subversion in peripheral and non-aligned states.
For all practical purposes, the Russian state apparatus is the FSB and vice-versa. The American need to keep up appearances means that their political and intelligence systems are far less integrated, with no-one really in charge. Putin has no qualms about being directly implicated in the dirtiest of dirty business, which makes Russia a far more co-ordinated actor.
|>>|| No. 27395
We were the first target on the list because of RAF Fylingdales. If you want to nuke the Yanks, you need to take out Fylingdales and Clear first.
|>>|| No. 27396
Russian politics has always tended to be more crude, the last example being that Putin flat out annexed Crimea to ensure that his Black Sea Fleet was not going to be at risk of being evicted from a newly pro-Western Ukraine. If there had been an anti-American revolution in a country where the U.S. maintains considerable military installations, then the Americans probably would have instigated plethoras of covert operations to destabilise the new government. They would have thrown all their resources at undoing or mitigating that revolution. But they would not have declared the area surrounding the military installations new U.S. territory.
|>>|| No. 27397
I'm still upset that we didn't copy the French example in the cold war. Still Western aligned, but with the theoretical capability to stand back and let the superpowers vaporise themselves (or just thumb their nose at US policy) thanks to a genuinely independent (that is, made in France) nuclear deterrent and armed forces largely outside NATO's integrated command structure.
Meanwhile it's difficult to imagine practical circumstances where Britain would do much more than send a strongly worded letter to the US if we had disagreements with their policy. More than most countries we seem determined to sacrifice our national interest on the altar of US national interest to preserve a "special relationship" that we don't seem to actually get very much out of.
|>>|| No. 27398
Many conservative politicians still see us as the colonial power that they drove off American soil with our tails between our legs. It's doubtful that they will ever actually agree to requests by the British government that go against American exceptionalism. There are enough fucktards in American politics still today that would jump at the chance to remind us that we no longer rule them.
It's like when you tell somebody that they can ask anything of you, as long as that anything is that you whip out your dick so they can suck it some more.
|>>|| No. 27409
>But they would not have declared the area surrounding the military installations new U.S. territory.
They would love to, but in Crimea the Russians had the advantage of pro-Russian sentiment among the people. I can't think of anywhere in the world besides the US itself that fosters genuine pro-US sentiment.
Much of post-war UK foreign policy seems to come down to the idea that the Empire died, but out of it's ashes was born NATO, which for all intents and purposes does and acheives the same thing- With the distinct advantage that the Yanks shoulder most of the bill.
I mean, it doesn't sound so shit when you put it that way, it just feels a lot of the time like the memo never made it as far as people like Thatcher or Blair, who were determined instead to make us into a client state, more or less.
|>>|| No. 27410
>Thatcher or Blair, who were determined instead to make us into a client state
To what end?
|>>|| No. 27415
>Much of post-war UK foreign policy seems to come down to the idea that the Empire died, but out of it's ashes was born NATO, which for all intents and purposes does and acheives the same thing- With the distinct advantage that the Yanks shoulder most of the bill.
Kind of sounds like a pretty shit sale and lease back agreement.
>it just feels a lot of the time like the memo never made it as far as people like Thatcher or Blair, who were determined instead to make us into a client state
Thatcher was the first PM since WWII who had genuine imperial aspirations.
My suspicion with Blair has long been that the CIA had a file on him, full of compromising secret information that they dangled over his head to keep him in line. Which meant that even against a pitifully weak U.S. President like Dubya, Blair's back was against the wall and he was forced to play ball. Don't be fooled by George W. Bush's demeanour which was a bit like your slightly dim country hick uncle. He was installed as a useful idiot, and as a mouthpiece of ruthless decepticon circles of power that pretty much got a free pass to push their vision of American ethnocentrism on the rest of the world.
|>>|| No. 27419
Britain destroyed itself by declaring war on germany those two times, we have been airstrip one AND a client of germany (may as well rub more salt) ever since.
|>>|| No. 27430
I'm getting a bit sick of this Twitter 'joke' despite being in agreement with the sentiment, please stop.
|>>|| No. 27433
I'm sure I read he has a few coppers in his family. I know he was in the Seppo version of the police cadets.
|>>|| No. 27434
You know, funnily enough I doubt I'd be getting away with it as effortlessly as he is, if it were me, and I'm as white as they come.
The reductionism of this whole thing is becoming quite tiresome.
|>>|| No. 27445
It makes you wonder if policing differs in the North. Obviously London is its own dystopian hell but are you more likely to be nicked in Sunderland than Bristol?
|>>|| No. 27467
>“There’s blood on your hands. You murdered Michael Reinoehl,” someone had posted in the street outside a law enforcement building. “Michael was murdered,” said another posting.
Glad to see the "rules for thee, not for me" mentality is alive and well in white middle-class America. In an interview prior to his attempted arrest, he says he acted within the law (self defense of a friend) but then actively evaded and aggravated not just police but federal agents leading to his death.
|>>|| No. 27563
Thousands of people have complained to Ofcom after Diversity did a BLM inspired dance routine on Britain's Got Talent where they re-enacted the death of George Floyd. It does seem a bit crass.
|>>|| No. 27565
They should have re-enacted Mark Duggan getting shot while vaulting over a barrier. Why is it always Seppo things?
|>>|| No. 27566
>Why is it always Seppo things?
That's one of the things that always irks me, trying to transfer American social issues over here. The internet has definitely accelerated the issue; the other week black Americans and white British people who blindly follow them got their knickers in a twist on Twitter over Adele dressing up for Notting Hill Carnival, accusing her of cultural appropriation, whilst black people from London thought it was great and defended her.
|>>|| No. 27583
America has such an egotism and a low concept of different social environments it talks about its problems in over generalised terms. And thick people either can't distinguish the difference, or find it convenient to believe it applies to them when it is beneficial.
|>>|| No. 27585
Every time I bring this up I get grilled saying that septic issues are our issues, and whilst this is true to a limited extent, there is a definite cultural difference and there needs to be a different approach to them.
Americans are the fucking worst; why are we importing their culture blindly? Can't we blindly import the culture of somewhere that isn't a shithole capitalist dystopia?
|>>|| No. 27586
I think with many Seppos it simply doesn't even enter their head that people in other countries think differently to them and have different social norms; they're so insular that America is the default setting in which all of the world should be viewed.
It doesn't help that they have it regularly drummed into them that America is the best place in the world so even if they were aware this they'd view other cultures as inferior, dirty and third world. I have been unironically asked by Seppos whether we travel by horse and cart in England and about our Sharia no go zones.
|>>|| No. 27589
American exceptionalism has a lot to answer for. The cruellest part of it is how their ongoing social and economic unravelling is going to plunge many of them into the kind of world they were wholly unprepared for, because they have simply taken it for granted their entire lives that USA #1 and that nothing bad can possibly happen in their modern, first world country. Such is their hubris that the only thing they've ever seen as an existential threat is Russia's nuclear arsenal, something devastating enough that it would wipe out civillisation on Earth as we know it.
I've heard it argued that 9/11 was the kind of culture shock that fundamentally changes the character of a country. It made ordinary Americans wake up from the dream that their country was different, invincible, untouchable. The 21st century has just seen that fantasy evaporate faster and faster by the day.
|>>|| No. 27590
Do you reckon 9/11 played a large part in where we are now?
I know conspiracy theories aren't new but "9/11 was an inside job" was the first one to have gained a substantial amount of traction in quite some time. I wouldn't be surprised if the truther movement was the catalyst for everything becoming so polarised as people become more deeply entrenched in their beliefs and cherry pick information that backs this up whilst disregarding information that doesn't.
|>>|| No. 27593
It coincided with the mainstreaming of the internet. Windows XP had just launched, broadband was starting to become widely available, free dial-up was widespread and Google was starting to become a household name.
In 1999 the internet was a weird hobby for nerds. By 2001 the cool kids were flirting on MSN and downloading Eminem songs on Limewire.
God, I'm so old.
|>>|| No. 27594
>By 2001 the cool kids were flirting on MSN and downloading Eminem songs on Limewire.
That was only among young people. I don't think it took off with adults, by which I mean middle aged people and beyond, until they all had smart phones and were on Facebook.
|>>|| No. 27595
>Indeed, but you have to start shooting first. You're not liable to be riddled with bullet holes just for reaching towards your glove box.
No, if in the UK and in front of an armed officer someone has a gun they will be shot before they start shooting assuming clear line of shot no bystanders etc
|>>|| No. 27596
It's probably the single most important event in living memory, but it's hard to say how directly it's responsible for the current state of things.
I don't put much weight in conspiracy theories usually, but in this case the truth is more or less irrelevant. Something definitely doesn't add up with the "official" story, but what really matters is that the levels of public scepticism and mistrust in the government are probably the highest they've ever been, and Yanks are known for being hostile to authority to begin with. Don't tread on me and all that.
It wouldn't be stretching it to say the chain of events post-9/11 has indirectly led us to the situation of the Trump presidency and such. I still believe Trump was elected mainly out of anti-establishment sentiment, not any particular faith in his MAGA, Build The Wall slogans- Or at least, he wouldn't have won without it. Furthermore this is what I think the Democrats are still underestimating, and are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.
|>>|| No. 27597
I remember reading a good article on some trendy leftist news site - I can never remember the one, frustratingly, only that it had a very brash sense of design - about the influence of right-wing grifters in US politics.
Basically the gist of it was that even in the Reagan years, there were people pushing absolute crank ideas on the American right, not because they believed them and not even really because they hated the Democrats and wanted to win, but simply because it was a great way to make a buck. There was a good line about lists of names and addresses of aged US rightists being one of the most valuable commodities with these people because these people were very easy to manipulate into giving you money. Because you're marketing a product rather than pushing politics, there's no reason to retain any connection to reality. Say that Dukakis is a satanist, it doesn't matter if it backfires on Bush: If the Republicans lose that will just send the people on your list into a frenzy and make them even easier to wring money out of.
It dovetails pretty well with your Alex Jones types. Lizards are running the world - but they won't be able to read your mind if you buy Brainforce!
A fun line of alternate history is that Britain would've remained in the EU but for 9/11. It rests on a lot of assumptions, but it's fun to say "9/11 caused Brexit" and then run through this sequence of events: On 9/11 Blair was going to give a speech to the TUC pushing for his Euro referendum. That alone isn't essential, but without the sudden turn to focusing on foreign policy caused by 9/11, he would've had the time to face down Brown and put a referendum on the Euro to the public. If it was defeated, which it almost certainly would be, it would release some of the anti-EU pressure that had built up over the years - or at least frighten Cameron out of calling a vote later. Intersecting with this is the fact that much of the Cummings bunch originally started their planning in preparation for winning a referendum on the Euro, with much of the same themes as in the 2016 vote. (I swear one slogan was "Keep the pound, Keep control.")
|>>|| No. 27598
You also see the grifter sort of thing here. The likes of Tommy Robinson and Britain First are always begging for donations and being a loudmouth like Katie Hopkins or Piers Morgan can be quite a lucrative career even if you don't really believe a word of it.
|>>|| No. 27599
These grifters are every bit as much a part of the "left", or what constitutes it in today's warped political landscape. That's where most of the controversial excesses of identity politics come from. That woman with her White Fragility book is a prime example- It isn't a political ideology, it's a managerial ideology designed to be sold pre-packaged to HR types and diversity consultants. There's no authentic interest in reversing the material hardship of minorities, it's all just empty bluster to circulate cash in the echelons of upper middle class and PMC busy-bodies.
|>>|| No. 27600
There certainly does seem to be a bit of a gravy train about it. Rachel Boyle, who was in the news earlier in the year for calling Liam Fox a white privileged male on Question Time, is a lecturer on race and ethnicity at Edge Hill University and Kehinde Andrews, who regularly spouts absolute bollocks in the Guardian and other media outlets, is a professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University (not to be confused with the University of Birmingham - this was formerly Birmingham Poly).
It seems that it's in their best interests to regularly perpetuate nonsense in order to keep their careers going.
|>>|| No. 27602
Not otherlad, but it makes sense to me that such nonsense views also have a much easier time finding platforms than any genuinely redistributive arguments. The right are happy for the left to be portrayed as disingenuous and identity obsessed, while the left are just happy to be airing any vaguely "progressive" views at all, with out without the awareness it's performative.
|>>|| No. 27604
There are plenty of people like that though on the right - see the Milo Yiannopoulous history in recent years for another cast-iron example. He was specifically trying to commercialise that kind of outrage using social media; it was interesting so read that he has claimed since getting "cancelled" from most of the platforms that he can't make a living anymore.
Same for people like Alex Jones, Prison Planet or dear old David Icke - there is a rich seam of right-wing lunatic that consumes this kind of media who can be weaponised/commercialised. I'm quite sure equivalents exist on the left.
|>>|| No. 27628
Alex Jones is an interesting case as he's stated in a court of law that he is an entertainer putting on a character. It put an interesting spin on his scene in Waking Life.
I think it's common knowledge now that shock jocks have taken over the world. It started on the right which found a tool to generate revenue for radio shows (and eventually political power) but has easily been adopted by the left's structures of ideological purism. Dan Carlin did an overview of how this came about in his last show owing to the practicalities of radio shows needed short and explosive opinions for people getting in and out of cars.
Ofcom really missed a trick in not having a premium rate line for complaints. It would be a sin tax on curtain twitchers with revenue put towards new risky programming.
|>>|| No. 27629
>Alex Jones is an interesting case as he's stated in a court of law that he is an entertainer putting on a character.
You have to put that in context he was in the middle of a custody battle. And he was trying to convince the Judge he wasn't completely fucking bonkers so he wouldn't lose access to his children. That doesn't mean he was putting on a character and the judge seemed to think he wasn't.
|>>|| No. 27630
I think it's common for celebrities and media personalities to claim this.
>The breakfast TV presenter Lorraine Kelly is performing the role “of a friendly, chatty and fun personality” when she appears on ITV each morning and not simply appearing as herself, a tax tribunal judge has ruled.
>The presenter of the magazine show Lorraine “presents a persona of herself”, Judge Jennifer Dean ruled, and as such can be described as a “theatrical artist”, meaning payments to an agent were allowed as a tax deductible expense.
Managed to dodge a bill of £1.2million in tax and NI with that ruling.
|>>|| No. 27632
I would assume the 1.2 million is her total tax not the deductable expense.
Are you suggesting tax deductable expenses shouldn't exist?
|>>|| No. 27634
man who plays a character that is also his real na.jpg
I've always suspected its an act, frankly. The thing is it's an act where you can't let it drop or you have betrayed the whole thing, like professional wrestling. You have to stick to it so religiously that it might as well be real.
People are easily confused when they're presenters or what have you using their real name, but I mean, it's pretty naive not to think they're putting on a front. For an extreme example, look at the recently revealed disconnect between Ellen Degeneres' persona and her actual personality. I always knew there's no way anyone can be that sickeningly positive in real life.
My faith in the human species might be misplaced for someone so jaded and misanthropic but I think Alex Jones is a lot more intelligent than you'd have to be to seriously be Alex Jones. I would probably also say the same thing about Katie Hopkins, except that she might have allowed to mask to consume her- She has stepped over the line of what you're allowed to say that you're not allowed to say a few too many times at the risk of actual career damage.
To contrast this, I would say David Icke is entirely earnest and means everything he says.
Even if it wasn't allowed, all we would see is TV presenters changing their names very subtly and saying it's a character.
|>>|| No. 27636
A lot of things fall into place when you realise that practically everyone in the public eye is an attention-seeking narcissist. Public speaking is consistently rated as one of the most anxiety-inducing experiences, so someone who voluntarily chooses it as a career is almost by definition psychologically abnormal.
Our politicians are weirdos for essentially the same reason that stand-up comedians are weirdos - most people wouldn't put themselves through the ordeal of being booed off stage or pilloried in the tabloids. The people who are willing to endure that experience have an extreme need for validation that overwhelms the natural fear of rejection.
|>>|| No. 27637
I frankly don't see how you could be the person in real life that you are on the telly. By and large TV panelists are a lot of fun but if they behaved that way outside of a dinner party in real life they would be insufferable. You wouldn't be able to have an adult conversation with them they would be just saying stupid things.
I don't want to spoil the magic for anyone, but if they were trying to win the quiz shows they were on they would be acting completely differently, they think it is all over would be just as dull as a question of sport. It is a performance, where the line is between that and them as real people probably varies from person to person.
|>>|| No. 27638
I reckon Icke has been playing a very long, very committed game. One day he will reveal himself as a master trickster, and thank his cultists for their money before fucking off to Thailand.
That or he's with MI5.
|>>|| No. 27640
That's much too simplistic. Successful politicians are just like any actor or athlete, they are very good at lying to themselves and dealing with inconsistency whether that be to lead the faith, never show weakness or being loyal to the degree that up becomes down. It's what we're made for as social animals after all.
The road to (good) public notoriety requires decades of hard graft for little reward that necessitates zealotry. I can't imagine a narcissist enjoys door knocking or would hire press officers to speak for them. It's not a rational calculation for these careers but one where you have to lie to yourself about the pyramid scheme as a means to survive and convince others (nobody elects a loser). As a result all criticism is rationalised and they always act in good faith because the alternative would be an outwardly weak leader or someone who is going to prison.
I wouldn't call it narcissism, the rank and file party members usually join for good reason - certainly not the money. Then they become swivel eyed loons or otherwise will end up disheartened and go work a proper job.
Or to put it simply: Who in their right fucking mind goes to work without playing an act? Sounds like a liar or someone who otherwise lacks self-awareness. A shit manager flinches and stutters, a good one projects confidence even though they are always the least informed in the room. That's the game.
|>>|| No. 27641
I wonder how many of them subscribe to my preferred toxic blend of narcissism with self loathing and a loathing of percieved narcissism in others. (It's one thing to be a narcissistic, it's another to let anyone catch on by expressing any sense of self worth whatsoever...)
I suspect it's a fair few, especially for backbench MP types who're a strange mix of public celebrity and total nonentity.
|>>|| No. 27642
I don't know if anyone saw those programmes the BBC did on the Troubles last year, but apparently it turned out almost everyone on all sides was a spy, so it wouldn't surprise me if Icke was an intelligence
|>>|| No. 27645
Anyone who has the talent and drive to become an MP could earn more money, do more good in the world and get a lot less shit in a different job. The only real upside is the status of being an MP and the occasional glimpse of fame/notoriety. It takes a very particular sort of person to think "yes, I will take this awful job where everyone hates me".
|>>|| No. 27647
I thought the advantages of being an MP were getting your snout in the trough and making connections that can set you up for life? I've known a few local councillors and many of them are full of their own self importance.
|>>|| No. 27648
Lad I know from school became a Parish Council member for the Lib Dems at the last election. He's gone from a coke fiend to thinking he's Donald Trump. Had to laugh because he posted on one of the local Facebook pages and threw a fit because nobody knew who he was.
|>>|| No. 27649
There are plenty of jobs where you can stick your snout in the trough without any real risk of being humiliated on Newsnight. Amoral bastards can make a lot more money with a lot less grief in the arms trade or the marketing department of a tobacco company or the shadier end of the financial services industry, but that doesn't offer the ego hit of politics.
|>>|| No. 27650
I used to be in a local Facebook group, Mirfield Matters, and one of the town councillors was a right little brat on there, frequently acting like a petulant child even though he must have been pushing 40. I'm fairly certain he got the role through his mum, who used to be the mayor, and I believe she encouraged him to stand down because he was embarrassing her. The group was changed to private from public because people in the nearby Dewsbury group kept sharing posts taking the piss out of him for doing things like boasting about how he called the police about ungritted roads.
|>>|| No. 27964
>Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old woman, was fatally shot by Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) officers Jonathan Mattingly, Brett Hankison, and Myles Cosgrove on March 13, 2020.
>The officers entered her apartment in Louisville, Kentucky, executing a search warrant. Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, fired a gun at the officers he believed to be intruders, who fired over 20 shots in turn. Taylor was shot five times, according to her death certificate.
>The Louisville police claimed that none of the officers were wearing body cameras, as all three were plainclothes narcotics officers.
Okay... Maybe they got a point this time. What are people meant to do if people with guns just kick down your door?
|>>|| No. 27971
>What are people meant to do if people with guns just kick down your door?
Especially in the US, where people are encouraged to buy guns for exactly this sort of thing.
|>>|| No. 28003
The case very much hinges on whether they shouted "police, nobody move" before booting the door down. Some yanks are mad cunts who'll start a gunfight with three cops, some yank cops are utterly gormless bastards.
|>>|| No. 28004
There seems to be other cases where this sort of thing happens. The chap who shot the police has had all his charges dropped. He even called the police and shouted that armed men shot his girlfriend and are invading his home.
So it appears that they may have not shouted police, but nobody knows since they elected to go in with no bodycam, and in plain clothes. It just seems a bit suspicious. It also doesn't help that the state this happened in has stand your ground laws. I don't know what they were thinking.
|>>|| No. 28005
It makes very little difference. There's nothing to stop a gang of home invaders from shouting the exact same thing.
|>>|| No. 28010
Consensus among the witnesses is that they didn't do anything to identify themselves between bashing the door in and getting shot.
There were three officers present. The one in charge got shot, and his mate fired the shot that killed Taylor. A third was outside and just fired at the window, and was rightly fired for his recklessness. The third guy was the only one to get a charge, for endangering the white residents in the unit nextdoor. The lead officer wrote an email to the entire force making clear just how little he regrets the whole thing.
|>>|| No. 28012
> The lead officer wrote an email to the entire force making clear just how little he regrets the whole thing.
If it's the email I'm thinking of, that's a bit of an understatement.
|>>|| No. 28013
It almost feels like they're trying to provoke hostility and provoke racial tensions.
Other cases had at least a bit of ambiguity, where the victim was a known crim or did something that could be charitably interpreted as threatening; but this was nothing short of an execution. This verdict is more or less a deliberate "Yup. And we're gonna keep on doing it."
What's the endgame?
|>>|| No. 28015
>What's the endgame?
Countrywide riots, marshal law, civil war, all good ways to avoid/cripple an election.
|>>|| No. 28016
But Trump is a Russian plant, surely the US establishment wants to topple him by any means necessary.
Also civil unrest of this kind, historically speaking, tends to make people more favourable to conservative parties, and makes the left (as much as that term means to Yank politics) look like the troublemakers. They don't need to sabotage the election if they want him in.
Some things don't add up. There's a deeper motive.
|>>|| No. 28018
I've been arguing with a lot of seppos on twitter and the anti BLM lot seem very entrenched in the idea that property damage is equal to if not worse than homicide. They seem to lack a grander understanding of their own history, I had one tell me that the Boston Tea Party wasn't looting or rioting, that the "teenagers" who did it were reasonably punished and that it was the limit of the "violence" of the revolutionary war.
Yeah I don't know what to make of that.
|>>|| No. 28020
I don't think there is anything bigger at play here. Maybe they just don't like non-whites. Their history contains a lot of weird stuff like this anyway, like Emmett Till.
|>>|| No. 28029
>What's the endgame?
I don't think there actually is one. The police in America are largely above the law so they often don't care about being brazen or reckless because they'll close ranks to protect one another; it's only because of the current political climate shining a light on this plus reporting and footage being more widespread that there is raised awareness of this. You've only got to look at police crime reports and statements from the heads of police unions to see that they don't give a shit if what they say outright contradicts what has been recorded happening.
The Republican party have shown that they're happy to forego just about all of their principles if it means they cling on to power.
|>>|| No. 28072
>Not sure which thread this is most appropriate for but this one isn't particularly covid related.
You make a new thread and then we have a cunt-off about how this doesn't change teaching materials at all.
|>>|| No. 28073
Seems weird they'd introduce a law about teaching materials that doesn't have any impact on teaching materials.
|>>|| No. 28079
>Some of the more fringe faith schools are teaching very spicy ideas.
I think what's happened here is he's implying something about eskimos teaching "dangerous" ideas in schools but he's linked to an article that's just about religious schools underperforming in general. What it does link to though, if you read it, is this article:
>In 2014, documents alleging a conspiracy to Islamise Birmingham schools were leaked to the media, sparking a national scandal. The papers were debunked
Not surprisingly, this all fits rather neatly into the whole "daft militant wogs are out to get us, better give up all our rights in the name of 'security'" thing.
This law affects* the teaching of History, English, Social Studies, Sociology, Philosophy, Geography, RE and fuck knows what else. I know Orwell and Bradbury get overused but...
|>>|| No. 28080
Not eskimos specifically. To quote the article:
>The Ofsted report, published on Thursday, said: “The new standards on fundamental British values look at requirements in relation to written policies on the curriculum, the quality of teaching and the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils.
>“While numbers are small, a higher proportion of the weaker faith schools are failing on these requirements when compared to those with no faith.”
>According to Ofsted figures, 81 out of 139 independent eskimo schools were found to be less than good at their most recent inspection, while 39 were inadequate. One-third of Christian schools were judged less than good, and of 58 Jewish schools, more than half were either “requires improvement” or inadequate.
Independent schools aren't legally required to follow the national curriculum and so aren't assessed by Ofsted on that basis, but they are required to have a written curriculum that does not "undermine the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and belief". A significant proportion of independent faith schools (of all faiths) are failing to meet that standard.
|>>|| No. 28081
That's not 'spicy' that's 'very boring'. I don't see what that has to do with banning works that are critical of capitalism.
|>>|| No. 28083
They're not banning works that are critical of capitalism. They're banning the use of materials produced by extremist organisations in the PSHE curriculum.
Schools should not under any circumstances use resources produced by organisations that take extreme political stances on matters. This is the case even if the material itself is not extreme, as the use of it could imply endorsement or support of the organisation. Examples of extreme political stances include, but are not limited to:
a publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow democracy, capitalism, or to end free and fair elections
opposition to the right of freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly or freedom of religion and conscience
the use or endorsement of racist, including antisemitic, language or communications
the encouragement or endorsement of illegal activity
a failure to condemn illegal activities done in their name or in support of their cause, particularly violent actions against people or property
|>>|| No. 28085
I wish people would not do things like tie themselves in a knot defending religious nuts, just because the mean old nasty people on the right don't like them. All the Abrahamic religions are fundamentally conservative and in a right thinking world we'd have rid of them by now.
It's no different from what Daveycambles brought in nearly ten years ago (itself being something May dreamt up when she was doing a job a bit more suitable to her capabilities), if I remember rightly. I did an adult apprenticeship a few years ago and had to attend Sheffield college- Naturally, because the place is
crawling with Esk so racially diverse, they had propaganda posters everywhere about "British values" like democracy, tolerance, and so on.
Needless to say I hardly expect endorsements of redistributive left wing ideology or revolutionary social upheaval were on the list of acceptable "British values" back then either. The cynic in me wants to suggest that the reason not as much fuss was made before, is that the other side knew they'd be doing more or less the same thing in reverse if they were in charge.
HaTE SpEeCH IS nOt FrEe SPeECh
|>>|| No. 28086
If you don't see how every part of that can easily be twisted to shut out anything they feel like coming down on then you lack not just imagination but historical grounding too.
I'm not defending religious nuts, I was pointing out what he appeared to be talking about was bullshit.
|>>|| No. 28087
Honestly some of you have this weird knee-jerk reaction to bad news where all you can do is respond by pretending it's all going to be fine, somewhere at the top, sensible adults are in charge. Public money won't be misused, vague laws won't be abused, etc etc. It's starting to sound just as delusional as Qanon; "The Patriots are in control! Trust the plan!".
|>>|| No. 28088
>If you don't see how every part of that can easily be twisted to shut out anything they feel like coming down on then you lack not just imagination but historical grounding too.
The guidance only applies to PSHE. Are you seriously worried that they can't teach socialist values in sex education?
|>>|| No. 28089
The ending of capitalism is an outlying, but still reasonably mainstream, political concept, one that you would not be shocked to see discussed on television. A large portion of the Labour Party would quite like capitalism consigned to the dustbin of history, and while you're entitled to think they're a bunch of dafties, it's not an "extreme" idea by any rational metric.
I would also take issue with the line "a failure to candemn illegal activities done in their name or in support of their cause, particularly violent actions against people or property". People like to pretend Apartheid was ended because Mandela walked down a street, but in reality it was violently resisted for decades before the government was brought to the table, which wouldn't have happened without that violence. Likewise if some knobheads turn a peaceful strike through London into a black block lark and Harrod's has to replace a window, are you supposed to disavow the whole event? The people smashing the windows thought they were helping, by the logic of this decree you must.
This is a chilling diktat from a government attempting cast the UK into something akin to a military junta from 80's South America. I know that's entirely overwrought, but the cretins in the Parlimentary Conservative Party would be far happier with that than a dangerous radical like Kier Starmer in charge.
|>>|| No. 28091
That 'E' isn't just there to make the acronym sound better, it stands for something.
|>>|| No. 28092
>This is a chilling diktat from a government attempting cast the UK into something akin to a military junta from 80's South America.
Fucking hell, I'd suggest you work for the Guardian but your spelling's rather too good. In any case, the Tories fear Starmer far more than any extremist - in contrast to a spineless laughing-stock like Jezza, he's a thoroughly electable centrist. The blue backbenchers will grow to loathe the juxtaposition of his military pragmatism and straight-forwardness with Bojo's wittering Oxbridge fop act.
|>>|| No. 28094
The idea that someone as awkward as Starmer is thoroughly electable is pretty funny. He's in with the slimmest of chances if Bojo keeps fucking up as badly as he is now for the next 4 years, but if the Conservatives ditch him like they did May then I don't see them doing any worse than they did in 2015 when they were up against the thoroughly unelectable centrist Ed Miliband.
This isn't about his policies: It's superficial. He doesn't actually look and sound like a prime minister (The media say so now while he's got the easy job of not being the one fucking up the Coronavirus response. Let's see them say the same in 2024 when that's in the past.), and looking and sounding the part is one of the best predictors of whether or not you'll be picked to play it.
|>>|| No. 28095
Explain to me how putting socialism on the same footing as white nationalism or ISIS is not going to have a chilling effect within schools? I'm also completely confused as to why you launched into a full-throated defence of Starmer when I never said a word against him.
|>>|| No. 28096
Starmer is a leader for now. Given a substantial majority, and a significant chance they'll lose it if they go to the country, the Tories aren't going anywhere soon. So in the meantime the best anyone can do is try and hold their feet to the fire. Which, incidentally, is something a prosecution barrister is generally very good at. Corbyn's "People's PMQ" was a nice idea, which worked well when his team picked the right issues for that week, which they frequently didn't.
Let's see what he does for local elections next year (assuming they happen). If his campaign game isn't great, replace him sometime in 2023 when an election is on the horizon. For now, he's doing a decent enough job of making sure the Emperor can be seen to be stark bollock naked.
|>>|| No. 28098
Does this mean Johnson looks and sounds like a prime minister?
|>>|| No. 28111
The problem with replacing him before the next election is that there isn't an obvious replacement. Left, right or centre Labour isn't exactly brimming with talent, let alone potential premiers. Starmer could quite possibly be the most prime ministerial of the 201 non-prime-ministers in the PLP.
In a gimmicky sort of way, unfortunately yes. The former mayor of London becoming PM is an evolution of the same skillset, while the director of public prosecutions is a different one. I have to wonder if his chances would've been half as good as they were if he wasn't already a minor celebrity for all his publicity seeking as Mayor.
It also didn't hurt he was up against Corbyn from the opposition and May in his own party, which were very low bars to clear - again for largely personal rather than political reasons. May is the precedent for what I think will happen to Starmer: Lots of media praise until people realise he's weird but not in an "upper class moron" way.
|>>|| No. 28115
I don't give much of a fuck about your personal political persuasions or thought of the man individually, but if we're talking about the "Prime Minister Material" factor, I simply defy you to name another politician in Westminster who has more of it than Starmer.
He's good at speaking authoritatively and he's already made clear that he's a Grown Up Who Likes The Army, not a loony lefty wimp. The only arguable alternative, realistically, is someone like Rishi Sunak- People loved him when he made the radical decision to spunk a shitload of money up the wall, but he's got no chance now because he's going down with the ship, whether he knows it yet or not. Indeed he'll be blamed for sinking it. And he's brown.
Otherwise, who are we left with? People like Rees Mogg? One of those Labour women who look more like they should be teaching Key Stage 2?
|>>|| No. 28116
>One of those Labour women who look more like they should be teaching Key Stage 2?
hahaha. Not sure I agree with all you say but this is extremely well observed.
|>>|| No. 28117
He's good at speaking authoritatively, but he's got a funny voice. The Key Stage 2 observation is very apt though. It's hard to imagine that if you picked 650 members of the public at random you'd get as few potential premiers as we've got at the moment.
|>>|| No. 28118
I don't think of May as weird. On the contrary she's about as thoroughly Tory as it's possible to get (that is to say, pure evil).
She said that thing about wheat but I would challenge anyone to give a decent answer to that question on the spot, and not being able to dance is actually quite a common affliction; apart from all that I struggle to think of anything genuinely oddball about her.
|>>|| No. 28119
Labours issue is reversed now. The more centrist types hated Jez, but now he's gone the Corbynites are still there and hate Kier. it's just more infighting.
|>>|| No. 28120
I don't think you can really compare the low level murmouring about Starmer from the left of the party to the complete meltdown the Blairite wing had from day one of Corbyn's reign. The Blairites behaved as if Corbyn sat upon a pale horse and was going to have them blindfolded and up against a wall by dinnertime, somehow keeping this overreaction up for four years; that's not even for accounting the ones who just lied to cover their own arses about how unpopular they were with their local parties like Kate Hoey and Frank Fields. However, criticism of Starmer focuses on his habit of not following up on his rhetoric and generally being a bit gun-shy. Wake me when the Labour left starts trying to poach MPs for no-hoper parties and screaming "PURGE!" everytime Keir scratches his bum.
|>>|| No. 28122
An 80 seat Tory majority and Labour losing stronghold seats like Blyth, Bolsover and Wakefield. It was obvious to almost everyone that was the inevitable end result of Corbynism and anyone with half a brain was opposed to it.
Cry about the bloody Blairites all you want, but at least he won elections.
|>>|| No. 28124
I dunno. Corbyn may have done better if he didn't have people on the inside plotting against him and all the menstrual rags spreading misinformation about him. Blair might have lost if he'd faced the same. It's a bit of a recursive argument to have. "[factor that contributed to it being inevitable] was right to do what they did because it was inevitable!".
|>>|| No. 28126
Yeah, it's the big bad media's fault he said we should allow Russia to be involved in investigating the Salisbury poisonings and that Seamus Milne refused to say that Corbyn accepts Russia were at fault because of intelligence used to justify invading Iraq.
|>>|| No. 28127
Firstly, no one's "crying", you big sod. Secondly, any look back at Corbyn's tenure must account for the damage done by hysterical Blairites becoming a de-facto party within a party and everything that goes with that. 2019 was an utter disaster and I certainly don't consider Corbyn to have been some kind of secret genius, but it's worth remembering that the single most unpopular policy at that election was in large part thanks to the chap now running the party. I'm not going to die on a hill for Corbyn, but it's hard not to sound as if I would because of the amount of, to be frank, nonsense you have to wade through to do so.
|>>|| No. 28131
>at least he won elections.
Traditionally the last man seen leaving the pub before it goes up in flames is the chief suspect, not the unsung hero.
|>>|| No. 28133
I do find it amusing how the roles have entirely flipped and now it's Starmer fans moaning about lack of unity. Why won't those bloody Corbynites get with the program? Can't they just put tribalism aside and focus on beating the Tories?
I like Starmer, he's definitely a strong leader. But ironic isn't a strong enough word for the Blairite lot's behaviour.
|>>|| No. 28135
Can't I ponder metaphysical questions without you getting all upset about tangentially related things that you're imagining I said?
|>>|| No. 28138
If you're going to be a representative of the common working class, you need to at least demonstrate that you can do working class tasks like pull a pint.
|>>|| No. 28141
>Completely failing to pull a pint of Coors Light while someone else holds the glass is peak Corbyn.
If someone else is holding the glass it's hardly your fault that it's at the wrong angle.
|>>|| No. 28145
Exactly - Corbyn's total lack of leadership was never Corbyn's fault, he just spurted foam into a glass and blamed the mess on the Blairites.
|>>|| No. 28149
Not half as funny as those of you who are still obsessed with trying to make fun of him. Isn't he irrelevant now? Can't he be mentioned in a historical analysis without someone immediately jumping in to post pictures of him to make him look worse?
|>>|| No. 28151
I posted that comment along with an image of a Tory failing to drink a pint and one thoroughly relishing it. I'm not partisan, I think most of the current Westminster crop are weirdos who shouldn't be trusted to run a tombola at a village fete. If you don't think that someone slopping frothy American pisswater over the hand of an unsuspecting Yanis Varoufakis is hilarious, you're part of the problem.
|>>|| No. 28152
I didn't vote for Corbyn or feel particularly strongly about him (except in an "anyone but Johnson" way), I just find it weird how it seems like there are vultures hanging around just itching to turn any vague mention of him into a bizarre "Lets try to trigger the Corbynistas!" thing.
|>>|| No. 28153
I don't think I'm very good at pulling pints but I'd 100% shoot all the bankers with my AK when the time comes, I don't think bartending skills necessarily translate to political competence. I was raised in a town that has at least one stabbing a week but I've never worked in a bar. Even at the social club they have a dodgy looking lass with red dyed hair pulling the pints.
I bet he knows how to pour a fucking perfect Guinness, mind, if you catch my drift
|>>|| No. 28155
There are a lot of sad old men nostalgic for the Blair years and confused about why they're not with it anymore. Half of them hate Corbyn because he reminds them how out of touch they are, and the other half hate him because they were around for the tail end of Kinnock's leadership and think that gives them the right to be massively wrong about Labour history by repeating propaganda from that time.
At least that's what I hope is happening, it's also possible that we've got unironic Labour Students careerists here, in which case you can jump the dates forward to the late Blair/Brown era but apply the same general sense of being totally out of touch but now combined with the frustrated ambitions of someone who thinks they could've been a SPAD had Labour just picked the right Miliband.
|>>|| No. 28157
Maybe some of us are just a bit concerned about the state of politics right now and would like a credible opposition?
|>>|| No. 28158
Well maybe you should have written to some of the thick-as-a-plank MPs stabbing the leadership in the back and resigning on a monthly basis. As I said earlier today ITT I don't think Corbyn was some kind of messianic figure or tragic hero, but the man had more bother from his own sodding party than anyone else. And before anyone pipes up with "he should have done more betterer at being leader then" he could hardly lock MPs in their second homes until they promised not to be mean to him, IE, you can only lead people who want to be lead. If the squad doesn't show up for Saturday's match, alright, some blame might lie with the manager, but it's clearly not all on him. Now you call me a "Corbynista" or say the Labour Party needs to do more racism while providing no actual policy shifts or even differing techniques Old Man Jezza might have employed before saying "well Blair won so there".
|>>|| No. 28159
Then why are you still obsesseing over the politics of last year?
Okay but now you're feeding into it too.
|>>|| No. 28160
But that's exactly what we've got in Mr Starmer, the Grown Up Who Likes The Army. Polling above Boris, bringing back the North. You should be happy. Not even taking the piss, I'm happy about it. Unless you've just woken up from a year long stasis sleep and haven't caught up,I'm really not sure what your complaint is.
Instead you're still looking for validation, perhaps because you feel a tinge of guilt for the knife you stuck in Corbyn's back. Deep in your heart of hearts, you know Corbyn was never going to win, he was only there as the voice of dissatisfaction from the young and hopeful membership, and we'd be in more or less entirely the same situation today without the brutal character assassination- But you did it anyway. And you were fucking inept at it then too.
You know that in so doing, you weakened the Labour party as a whole, and you feel bad about it, so here you are. Looking for people to back you up.
|>>|| No. 28161
>he could hardly lock MPs in their second homes until they promised not to be mean to him, IE, you can only lead people who want to be lead
Quite, and as a leader it's your job to persuade the team to follow you. Which Corbyn very obviously couldn't do.
>If the squad doesn't show up for Saturday's match, alright, some blame might lie with the manager, but it's clearly not all on him.
No, it's pretty much all on him.
|>>|| No. 28162
So if Corbynites do everything in their power to sabotage Starmer, it'll all be his fault because he couldn't rally them behind him?
|>>|| No. 28163
Are you still blathering on about Corbyn? Christ, lads.
|>>|| No. 28164
They'll never stop, which is why people love trolling the Corbynista/Centrists. Labour/the left just loves arguing about pointless shit.
|>>|| No. 28165
> Labour/the left just loves arguing about pointless shit.
Come on lad you can't surely think that's just "the left".
|>>|| No. 28166
It seems mostly to be people having a discussion that happens to mention him then people who think they're doing an epic trolling by derailing it with pointless shit.
|>>|| No. 28170
Tough shit, Peter Sallis is dead. I think Ben Whitehead's impersonation has grown in leaps and bounds and is now almost indistinguishable.
|>>|| No. 28348
>One person has died and another man, who 9News confirmed was a private security guard contracted by them, is in custody after a shooting during dueling protests Saturday in downtown Denver.
>The incident occurred after a man participating in what was billed a “Patriot Rally” sprayed mace at another man. That man then shot the other individual with a handgun near the courtyard outside the Denver Art Museum. Police later tweeted that the suspect was a private security guard with no affiliation with Antifa.
>Two rallies, one right-wing and one left-wing, were taking place near one another at Civic Center on Saturday. Until the shooting, the protests mostly consisted of each group chanting and yelling at one another from across the amphitheater, which separated the two groups.
|>>|| No. 28349
That is such an incredible picture. Literally the moment someone dies. You can see the shell casing being ejected from the pistol.
|>>|| No. 28351
>On 21 May 2016, two competing rallies were held in Houston to alternately protest against and defend the recently opened Library of Islamic Knowledge at the Islamic Da'wah Center. The "Stop Islamization of Texas" rally was organized by the Facebook group "Heart of Texas". The posting for the event encouraged participants to bring guns. A spokesman for the group conversed with the Houston Press via email but declined to give a name. The other rally, "Save Islamic Knowledge", was organized by another Facebook group called "United eskimos of America" for the same time and location. Both Facebook groups were later revealed to be IRA accounts.
|>>|| No. 28352
Call me old fashioned but I do ever so slightly suspect everything that the Russians have supposedly done was in fact the CIA.
I mean, this IRA can't be so all-powerful they can incite riots and install puppet presidents, yet can't keep their own wikipedia page clean.
|>>|| No. 28353
>Call me old fashioned but I do ever so slightly suspect everything that the Russians have supposedly done was in fact the CIA.
Maybe that's what you want us to believe, John Smith of Kensington Palace Gardens.
More than likely the Russian IRA is just incompetent like all covert influence operations but that you don't need a whole lot of intelligence to sway certain people on facebook from killing each other.
|>>|| No. 28355
>I mean, this IRA can't be so all-powerful they can incite riots and install puppet presidents, yet can't keep their own wikipedia page clean.
They want you to know.
Think about Litvenenko, Skripal or Navalny - you don't go around poisoning people with ultra-rare, highly-detectable chemicals if you want to remain anonymous. Using Polonium or Novichok allows them to deny responsibility at the UN, while smugly smirking at the fact that everyone knows you did it but nobody can prove it. It's a stronger power play than either silently disappearing someone or claiming responsibility for an assassination.
Russia demonstrably has the capacity to influence Western elections, but they don't really care who wins; the point of the exercise is to undermine trust and destabilise the social fabric. Us knowing that the Russians are meddling only makes their meddling more potent. We're completely zugzwanged.
|>>|| No. 28356
You really have no idea about Wikipedia, do you? This is what the IRA are up against:
|>>|| No. 28357
>Think about Litvenenko, Skripal or Navalny - you don't go around poisoning people with ultra-rare, highly-detectable chemicals if you want to remain anonymous.
Exactly. Their words say "We didn't do it, honest!" Their actions say "This is what happens when you cross us."
|>>|| No. 28358
Honestly if the population has had faith in most Western elections since ~1970 they deserve what they get. We'd look a lot better in hindsight if it turned out that the Soviets and Yeltsin were also responsible for the outcomes of everything since then. (Heck, it would tie in with the aim of undermining trust and destabilising the social fabric of Western society too. That's been a bipartisan consensus for a long time.)
To be clear, I'm not mocking the idea that Russia interferes in Western elections: They do. I'm mocking (and lamenting) how shite our choices were even before they started doing it in the effective fashion that they do now.
|>>|| No. 28359
The method of choice in Russia these days to actually shut up and off somebody without leaving clues as to who did it seems to be pushing them out of windows. If you just do a google search, you will find dozens of mentions of that mysterious phaenomenon of windows in Russia somehow luring people to their unexplained deaths.
Poisoning a series of public figures so that they end up having a realistic chance of survival can't just be explained by Russian secret service being shit at poisoning people. If they really want somebody dead, then it's reasonable to assume that the FSB has operatives skilled enough to make sure somebody actually dies, and then cover their tracks so that the Russian government isn't immediately implicated.
This was about sending a message. They didn't want Navalny dead. Probably because the diplomatic ramifications of outright killing an opposition leader would be much more grave. But now, Putin can just shrug his shoulders and say his government had nothing to do with it, while those in the know will have no doubt what is really going on.
|>>|| No. 28360
The thing the otherlads are missing is that yes, while Russia is no doubt up to sneaky shenanigans, it's not as if the entire western surveillance and security apparatus is just floored every time and powerless to stop them, outwitted at every turn and always one step behind... While the Russians are all but openly bragging about it.
The truth is ot serves both sides very well to be able to blame the other. It's like kayfabe in professional wrestling by this point.
|>>|| No. 28361
It will probably look like anti-US whining by an angry communist, but I'm very fond of the idea that the US government helped Yeltsin cheat the Communists out of the Russian presidency in 1996 (with a sort of "We'll break democracy just once, and that will help democracy in the long term compared to going back to the bad old USSR" view) and as a result permanently hobbled Russian democracy and so set the stage for Putin to lock himself in power and subsequently undermine US democracy. As a narrative it makes for an excellent comedy of errors.
|>>|| No. 28362
>it's not as if the entire western surveillance and security apparatus is just floored every time and powerless to stop them
The western intelligence system has been severely denuded in recent decades, with a massive over-reliance on electronic surveillance and whizz-bang algorithms. After 9/11, there was a massive and somewhat desperate effort to recruit Arabic and Farsi speakers, which indicates a massive intelligence failure - they were relying on technology to keep them informed on the middle east, but realised far too late that they needed people.
The Russians aren't geniuses, but they don't have to be; our lot are too clever for their own good. The Doughnut is rammed with PhDs working on elliptic curve theory, but we don't have nearly enough people out in the field cultivating assets and developing their tradecraft. We've forgotten the basics and the Russians know it. We've spent billions on developing the capacity to intercept the vast majority of internet traffic, while the FSB just bought a load of typewriters and went back to dead drops.
|>>|| No. 29064
>A majority of people believe Black Lives Matter, the anti-racism movement that spread across the UK this summer, has increased racial tension, according to a poll.
>Just over half (55%) of UK adults believe the BLM protests that took place in big cities but also in the Shetland Islands and the Isle of Wight, increased racial tensions, according to a survey of more than 2,000 people by pollsters Opinium. Only 17% of the people polled in October disagreed. The polling also showed 44% of ethnic minorities felt BLM increased racial tensions.
|>>|| No. 29065
But that doesn't really tell us what people think about BLM itself, just what they think the outcomes of BLM's protests have been.
|>>|| No. 29069
The general consensus seems to be that people agree with the notion that black lives matter but have a much less favourable view on the clusterfuck that is BLM UK as an organisation.
|>>|| No. 29070
Given that the same research shows that Asian people have had a similar rise in racist experiences to black people, they may have a point about the rise not being entirely due to BLM's actions.
Black and Asian Lives Matter would be so much easier to pronounce though, just BALM. Then you'd get some interesting confused mythology referencing Poe; "There is no BALM in Gilead" as in, there should be no minorities in the promised land, only that gets tied up with how Atwood used Gilead in her books.
|>>|| No. 31378
>Disney Plus has added a content warning to the beginning of 18 episodes of The Muppet Show, which started streaming on the platform on Friday.
>"This programme includes negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures," it reads.
>"These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now."
>The disclaimer has been added to each of the episodes for different reasons, including one where Johnny Cash sings in front of the Confederate flag.
>The re-assessment of old content was prompted by the Black Lives Matter protests last summer, and has sparked debate around programmes and films ranging from Fawlty Towers and Gone With The Wind to Little Britain and Bo' Selecta.
|>>|| No. 31381
First they came for the muppets and I did not speak out... because I was not... actually let me rethink this.
The most suprising thing I learnt from this story is that kid's TV shows used to get Johnny Cash, Spike Milligan and Peter Sellers on as guests. Are there currently any three figures in popular culture who are on that level? What do we have now? Meme-ified Keanu Reeves and the children of the moderately talented of yesteryear.
|>>|| No. 31382
The BBC have been using similar warnings for a number of years on archive content and nobody has seemed to notice. Disney threw Songs of the South down the memory hole back when "woke" was still called "politically correct".
|>>|| No. 31383
This is nothing new, it's been done for the past 5 years or so with the likes of old Tom & Jerry cartoons and such, with a message stating something akin to: "these shorts are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed."
|>>|| No. 31386
What the fuck is offensive about Porridge? It's a family sitcom, hardly a klan rally.
|>>|| No. 31388
They use words that are now considered slurs (they were also slurs then, just nobody cared that they were) and make disparaging jokes about race, nationality, sexuality and so on that would not be considered acceptable if used today by many people.
This is the least-worst way of dealing with the issue of everything on TV being a bit racist in the 70s - acknowledge it but don't censor it. Anyone who has any real issue with that little warning statement is missing the point entirely, or just wants to get themselves or others riled up about how you're not allowed to say nig nog anymore.
|>>|| No. 31389
There's loads of casual racism and homophobia in the scripts - it's not done in a particularly mean-spirited way, it's an accurate reflection of the attitudes of the time, but it's played for laughs in a way that wouldn't be acceptable today.
|>>|| No. 31390
I agree. It's a good idea to provide context so that young people today who weren't around in the 70s or 80s understand, or are at least given the opportunity to understand, that the past is a different country. A warning label is the best, and least intrusive compromise.
|>>|| No. 31391
I don't see how these are meaningfully different to the Comic Code seal of approval or age ratings for film and video games.
|>>|| No. 31392
The Comic Code and BBFC ratings are effectively a form of mandatory censorship and place strict limits on what can actually be published. To a lesser extent, the same goes for the "parental advisory" stickers on American records - a lot of major retailers wouldn't stock anything bearing the sticker.
These warnings aren't censorship, the content is still available on the platform in full, but the platform can disavow parts of it and make clear that some of the attitudes reflected in it are unacceptable by modern standards.
|>>|| No. 31393
The fact that films can't be commercially sold in this country without a BBFC certificate is absurd. It's 2021 for fucks sake. I don't mind age ratings existing but we should adopt a US style 'Unrated' for anything too strong for an 18.
|>>|| No. 31394
That's because nobody watches the BBC anymore and nobody expects them to take a strong editorial stance.
>t's a good idea to provide context so that young people today who weren't around in the 70s or 80s understand
I'd hope young people can understand that things were different in the past without needing a warning label. You will get the odd moron complaining but they will quickly be shot down like that guy that got mad at TOS casting a black woman to answer the phones.
|>>|| No. 31395
>I'd hope young people can understand that things were different in the past without needing a warning label.
Have you met people?
|>>|| No. 31396
Much as I hate young people, isn't 18 the acceptable age for almost everything in this country? It seems absurd to then have an 'unrated' go above -unless it's an instructional film on how to drive a lorry I suppose.
At any rate, surely we still need a body ensuring content can be legally sold under UK law so you don't have instructional snowman-building videos being sold at HMV before it can be banned. The BBFC is anachronistic these days in the sense that the taboos have changed but we're not an American society of a presumption of free speech, much as I wish it was.
|>>|| No. 31397
That's not really what I meant. I was just thinking about people who are currently outraged about "wokeness" or about the PC-gone-mad that's led to these warnings, that those people generally identify with the same ideological camp as those who called for mandatory ratings of film and videogames in the first place.
|>>|| No. 31398
Loads of films that were released uncut on the continent needed significant cuts to get an 18 certificate or were refused classification entirely. Just last month, the BBFC refused classification for a blu-ray release of Cesare Canevari's 1977 film Gestapo's Last Orgy - the Italians thought it fit for a cinema release, but apparently British people would be corrupted or depraved by it. That's before you get into the whole mess surrounding the R18 certificate and how it affects niche pornography.
The American "presumption of free speech" isn't as strong as they'd like to imagine because of the huge degree of corporate control and self-censorship. The government doesn't do much to restrict speech, but they also don't do much to restrict monopolistic behaviour either.
Another problem with the BBFC is that certificates are mandatory but you have to pay for them. A typical certificate fee for a feature film is between £600 and £1000, which is obviously peanuts for the big studios but a total dealbreaker for a foreign language film that might be screened in a handful of independent cinemas or sell a few hundred copies on blu-ray.
|>>|| No. 31400
I dunno, as time goes on the more I get the feeling it's the woke lot who have more in common with the Christian moral guardians and hand-wringing parents associations that have tried to gatekeep media in the past.
It's the same energy as trying to have Judas Priest banned because their evil satanic hidden messages makes kids commit suicide, only the times have changed and the bogeyman is different.
|>>|| No. 31403
The origins of the phrase "Politically correct" in the modern sense still amuse me.
So far as I understand, in the socially progressive sense it started as a joke among right-on lefties, a way of making fun of the doctrinaire stalinists who would get upset that you went against the party line (usually less about being socially progressive and more about why the USSR sending tanks into Hungary was good).
So if you were part of the fisherperson communist league or whatever and you said something a bit sexist, nobody would really mind and someone would joke "Not very politically correct of you comrade!"
Then people overheard and assumed there was no irony in the statement, that it was meant as a rebuke to be taken at face value - as it would be in the doctrinaire parties it was originally mocking - so it spiraled from there into the way we understand it today.
|>>|| No. 31404
Jesus, we've got enough confusing wordfilters without people inventing their own.
|>>|| No. 31405
I think something happened indeed in that some gits picked it up and thought it was actually a way of setting the standard for what's deemed fit to say and do and what isn't.
On the other hand, I don't think many people today, once again, use it without a hint of an eye roll. You kind of only hear people complaining about political correctness and using the actual word who are tired of it or otherwise against it, and not the proponents of it who would defend the concept as such.
So that in that sense, the actual meaning or at least the usage of the phrase "political correctness" isn't that different from the circumstances under which it was first coined in the USSR.
|>>|| No. 31409
Lots of things have come full circle in politics and society in general since the days of the civil rights movement in the 60s, which may be regarded as the birth of the broadly liberal consensus we have lived in since then. That's what makes these such strange, interesting and occasionally baffling times to live through.
Last year I was drawn into a rabbithole after seeing a few articles in places like the NYT, Atlantic etc essentially suggesting racial segregation as a proposed solution to white privilege in the education system. One can only wonder what MLK would have thought of that. History really does repeat itself.
|>>|| No. 32464
It is over exposure to American media online a certain kind of thicko can't understand we are culturally different.
|>>|| No. 32466
You're still terminally retarded if you make a whole movement and slogan revolve around a phrase you constantly have to stop and explain "Well, actually, that's not what it means." and then when someone asks you what it does mean cry "IT'S NIT MY JOB TO EDUCATE YOU" and then wonder why your entire movement is ineffective at best and actively counterproductive at worst.
But that's just where we are as a society nowadays, really, isn't it.
|>>|| No. 32467
>and then when someone asks you what it does mean cry "IT'S NIT MY JOB TO EDUCATE YOU"
The person you're replying to did educate you though.
|>>|| No. 32468
Whatever lad, you're the one who said we can't defund the police because of 'culture'.
|>>|| No. 32469
>It's not difficult to educate yourself what the slogan means if you're ignorant.
Words can have several meanings. For example, when agitators in Bristol last night were attacking coppers and breaking their bones whilst chanting "kill the bill!" were they shouting about the new policing bill or shouting that they wanted to kill the [old] bill?
|>>|| No. 32470
Little from column A, little from column B. I'd wager mostly column A, but any kind of protest regarding the police will include a violent minority of shit-stirrers who, for whatever reason, feel that society would work better without law enforcement.
|>>|| No. 32471
More likely undercover agents encouraging or perpetrating the most photogenic violence in order to build more of a wall around the new legislation.
|>>|| No. 32472
>Cultural differences are that their police drink coffee and our police drink tea.
No that is hand waving bullshit of a thicko can't understand we are culturally different.
Do our police have weapons and vehicles repurposed from the Iraq war?
Are our prison services private business that purposefully lobbies for longer sentences so they can use prisoners as cheap labour?
Are our police historically slave catchers who were rebranded?
Have our police been caught out before by not clamping down on a pedophile ring because it might be perceived as racist even though it isn't, could you picture that being a issue that happened in America anywhere?
No? it might be because we are massively culturally different and you don't understand that because you are a thicko.
|>>|| No. 32473
>breaking their bones
This didn't happen. Half a dozen bee stings. Quite a few peaceful protestors (who were literally sitting around doing nothing) injured though.
|>>|| No. 32475
Weren't Guardian readers whinging a few years back on austerities impact on the police force and particularly the kind of community policing they like which really by objective targets outreach to minority communities? The fact that we've gone from number 1 to 2 in per capita spending is ignored by the obviously biased article.
>Cultural differences are that their police drink coffee and our police drink tea
All my limited interactions with the police tell me that they prefer a caffè macchiato or similar while on patrol. My sample size is small and I'd love to see the data on how caffeinated beverage choice impacts police work - I bet a straight black drinking officer would be more likely to shoot people as they've already rejected life.
|>>|| No. 32477
They ground up the policeman's bones, they ground them up and turned them into soup. They forced the families of the police to drink the atrocious broth, and then put the families to death by way of burning. Bristol was razed and salted, such was the villainy and imhumanity of the so-called protesters. Many more nearby hamlets were laid to waste in the following days.
Ahem, alright, someone set a van on fire, but what I said was true in spirit and I can think of no better rationale for stripping all subjects of the British Crown of all rights from now until it is so deemed appropriate to give them back, if such a time arises at all. Can you?
|>>|| No. 32478
Thank goodness we've got our resident ACAB marcher on site to correct the record here. Do you think they can claim expenses on the patrol they used to set fire to their police cars or was it all holograms?
|>>|| No. 32481
>Do our police have weapons and vehicles repurposed from the Iraq war?
Yes, for example this is the SA80 Bullpup which was developed for the first Iraq war.
You're going move the goalposts here by saying you meant garden variety police and while it's true they're "unarmed" (not that you'd be classed as "unarmed" if you were carrying a baton and taser) they do routinely use military technology in general, particularly surveillance tech.
>Are our prison services private business that purposefully lobbies for longer sentences so they can use prisoners as cheap labour?
>Are our police historically slave catchers who were rebranded?
They're historically union-busters who were rebranded. Brought in to make sure factory workers couldn't organise against the owners. In terms of overall mechanics of control that's arguably the same.
>Have our police been caught out before by not clamping down on a pedophile ring
Yes, not because it would be racist but because it would upset the ruling class.
I was leaning towards agreeing with the general principle of what you were saying but then I looked it up and you're pretty far off base.
|>>|| No. 32482
I meant to add to >>32481 that the police officer who lobbied Patel for these new powers just happens to be the same one who gave the order for the shooting of Charles de Menzes, so you have more overt "police shooting people of colour" stuff there, if you're looking for parallels.
|>>|| No. 32485
Well. If we must have this tedious cunt off all over again, just remember the Tories have been ahead of the curve on this for years now, and austerity is a good thing, actually.
|>>|| No. 32486
Are you suggesting that no one needs to protest defunding the police? but then what can they be angry about?
|>>|| No. 32488
As someone who has spent a not insignificant period of my life selling drugs for a living, I'm hardly fond of the pigs. But you've got to be a total dickhead to think we don't need them at all.
Fair enough if you say "defund the police" actually means "reform the police" but that is a classic motte and bailey if I've ever seen one. Why not just say "reform the police" to begin with, and people might actually agree with you for once, instead of just becoming more entrenched in their existing viewpoint because they think you're one of those people.
|>>|| No. 32489
>Yes, for example this is the SA80 Bullpup which was developed for the first Iraq war.
The lady in the picture works directly for the ministry of defense. I am sure you will accuse me of goal post moving but that is clearly not a normal policeman.
>routinely use military technology in general, particularly surveillance tech.
I don't know what battle you've been in but typically no one uses a mobile phone tracker. You can not like surveillance but that doesn't make it military hardware.
>>Are our prison services private business that purposefully lobbies for longer sentences so they can use prisoners as cheap labour?
you got me small number of prisions are private. The rest of the statement you ignored.
>They're historically union-busters who were rebranded. Brought in to make sure factory workers couldn't organise against the owners. In terms of overall mechanics of control that's arguably the same.
So more accurately not the same at all.
>Yes, not because it would be racist but because it would upset the ruling class.
You dropped your foil hat.
>I was leaning towards agreeing with the general principle of what you were saying but then I looked it up and you're pretty far off base.
don't be disengenious you aren't a good liar.
|>>|| No. 32492
>The lady in the picture works directly for the ministry of defense. I am sure you will accuse me of goal post moving but that is clearly not a normal policeman.
I'll accuse you of goal post moving for ignoring the link that followed it listing all the other military weapons they use then. That's "The rest of the statement you ignored." isn't it?
>I don't know what battle you've been in but typically no one uses a mobile phone tracker. You can not like surveillance but that doesn't make it military hardware.
First paragraph of the wiki article "The StingRay is an IMSI-catcher, a cellular phone surveillance device, manufactured by Harris Corporation. Initially developed for the military and intelligence community, the StingRay and similar Harris devices are in widespread use by local and state law enforcement agencies across Canada, the United States, and in the United Kingdom".
>you got me small number of prisions are private. The rest of the statement you ignored.
Seemed sort of a moot point given we're moving in that direction, those 14 prisons that house 15% of the prison population having been started by the Tories starting in the '90s.
>So more accurately not the same at all.
No less objectionable for similar reasons.
>You dropped your foil hat.
You dropped your head dobber.
>don't be disengenious you aren't a good liar.
Far be it from me to question your literacy skills.
|>>|| No. 32493
All that article is is a bunch of wishful thinking about creating groups that aren't called "the police" to essentially act as defacto police. Or, in other words, reforming the police.
Still. It's hard to discredit something which is basically fantasism.
|>>|| No. 32495
The irony is that many of America's problems with policing are the direct result of inadequate funding. They don't have enough officers, so they do a lot of lone patrols in remote areas with a heavily armed populace and little chance of backup, so they're paranoid and trigger-happy. Police pay in many jurisdictions is pathetically low and they have very limited training budgets, so they have to take whoever they can get, creating "gypsy cops" who keep getting sacked for misconduct but keep finding forces desperate enough to hire them. The US has no national database of police officers and many smaller police forces don't have the resources to do proper background checks, making it easy for corrupt or violent officers to lie about their employment history.
|>>|| No. 32496
>They're historically union-busters who were rebranded. Brought in to make sure factory workers couldn't organise against the owners. In terms of overall mechanics of control that's arguably the same.
No. The first proper paid constables were before the industrial revolution and those after involved wider policing reforms as industrial cities grew. British policing is unique in that the force has historically been deliberately underequipped in firearms and basic protection so as to not imitate the military given the then fears we were going to imitate Prussia.
This decision to underequip officers for the job was later adopted by MOD.
|>>|| No. 32497
>No. The first proper paid constables were before the industrial revolution
Aside from being pedantic about whether or not a tythingman counts as a police officer you haven't said anything different.
|>>|| No. 32499
I've quite clearly said that British police do not originate from union busters.
|>>|| No. 32501
No, you're quite clearly saying they were just reformed during industrialisation from one constable per parish, to large forces able to better control masses of people.
Substantial difference, that.
|>>|| No. 32504
It's just a nonsense to say that British police were "historically union-busters". There's no point in our history that policing was significantly expanded or formalised to deal with industrial unrest; most major conflicts between labour and the bourgeoisie prior to the 20th century were enforced by the army or by private militias. As >>32496 says, Peel's model was deliberately designed to prevent militarisation, in large part because of the spectre of Peterloo. The formation of the Organisation for the Maintenance of Supplies in 1926 clearly demonstrates that the police simply weren't equipped for strikebreaking.
|>>|| No. 32505
All right then. They came into being to rule by consent. This is something they'll absolutely lose with the new bill, which is something Cressida Dick has been angling for.
|>>|| No. 32524
>Defund the police
What absolute utter gibberish. The calls to defund the police in America make sense; every politician wants to be tough on crime so they invest more and more in the police every election cycle, even taking money from elsewhere to do it. Now, you've got small-town sheriffs with tanks and attack helicopters, chasing down meth addicts like fucking My Lai because all the libraries where meth addicts normally live have been closed down. That is not happening in this country!
I do find it profoundly astonishing, though, that the police can arrest a bunch of whiny women for breaking coronavirus rules on public gatherings, but when 500 militants with lead pipes and balaclavas set their car on fire, they just run away. Someone, somewhere, must have told them not to fight back because they want the good PR of being victims for once.
|>>|| No. 32525
Police unions are also incredibly powerful. The mayor of MInneapolis (I think; wherever George Floyd died of his fentanyl overdose after climbing under that policeman) said at one point that he couldn't fire racist cops, because if you fire a cop, every other cop will go on strike until they're reinstated. So it's effectively impossible to weed out wrong 'uns.
|>>|| No. 32605
One of my friends keeps posting shit like this, claiming it's proof that the violence in Bristol was faked and that the protestors were actually the police in disguise. She was a hardcore Corbyn supporter and that seems to have been the gateway into believing all sorts of conspiracy theory nonsense.
|>>|| No. 32613
I'm not sure what violence being "faked" means but undercover police are hardly a conspiracy theory.
|>>|| No. 32622
What about undercover police posing as protestors to attack the police and set vans on fire? Does that link conclusively prove that's what happened in Bristol?
|>>|| No. 32624
It doesn't at all. But Police Agent provocateurs is almost undeniably a thing, that anyone who has ever gone to a few protest will confirm.
|>>|| No. 32626
It's a video of a scratty bloke talking to riot police, it on its own doesn't prove anything other than what you can see on the surface. But those other things you describe are known police tactics, yes.
|>>|| No. 32629
Would you expect a police force tasked with counter-terrorism and close protection in the capital to have no armoured vehicles? The Jankel Guardian was purpose-built for the Met and has no direct military equipment; it's built on a perfectly ordinary Ford F450 chassis. There's a world of difference between a military vehicle and what the Standard chooses to call a "military-style vehicle".
|>>|| No. 32630
"They're not doing the thing! They would never do a thing like that!"
"Yes they are, here's the evidence"
"Well what do you expect? It's right and proper that they do the thing."
|>>|| No. 32631
You seem to have confused innuendo by papers with reality. That is not a purpose built military vehicle and would have serious design flaws if used as one.
You might as well start calling land rovers "military style vehicles" if you are going to be so alarmist, it would be much more accurate.
|>>|| No. 32632
Yes, I'm sure land rovers are more militarised than "what [the Met] described as armoured personnel carriers, armoured military vehicles, armoured combat vehicles and weapon carriers."
|>>|| No. 32633
Land rovers were being purpose used in combat zones by the British army until about 10 years ago. So yes they are, absolutely and unequivocally.
What this looks like is a prisoner transport with some anti riot defenses glued onto it.
|>>|| No. 32635
>Land rovers were being purpose used in combat zones by the British army until about 10 years ago. So yes they are, absolutely and unequivocally.
I see. So your evidence that the Met aren't using military vehicles is that they've always used military vehicles.
|>>|| No. 32639
You got me, the whole of Chelsea and Kensington has been in a state of escalated militarization for as long as anyone can remember too.
We need to bring in UN peace keepers to stabilize the region. Or you could accept the idea armored car ≠ military vehicle, and it is absurd to claim it.
|>>|| No. 32641
Combat land rovers are armoured, often called 'snatch' land rovers. There was also the built to MOD spec 'wolf' land rover, a non-armoured version also for military purposes.
Whether the police (RUC/PSNI notwithstanding) have ever used armoured or MOD land rovers, I could say.
By the way, wasn't the point of "the police are using militarised vehicles" that the police were overfunded, rather then the specific definition of 'militarised'? Because those fucking APCs we're looking at further up in this thread look like the sort of thing you buy when you're overfunded, regardless of how semantically 'military' they might be.
|>>|| No. 32648
*I couldn't say.
And to expand the Wolf rovers were 'purpose built' for the military, to their specifications - they're basically a 90, but were built with heavier axles, folding door windows rather than roll up ones, had extra bracing and radio and rifle mounts out of factory. They also ran on the milspec 24v standard and had wiring for the clansman radios used at the time. But it was still just a defender in green paint, really - it would take a landmine just as well as a farmers model. So is the wolf a military vehicle? I'd say so. But it's still irrelevant to the original point.
Whether or not specific police use specific military hardware, that doesn't really indicate whether police funding is poorly spent or not - I think it definitely is. The US police system is far worse, with literal tanks being bought by small towns, but again, that doesn't magically mean our police are spending the right amount of money on the right things. I bounce around regional airports (or I did) and I just think the amount of transport police with SA80s and armoured range rovers is more than a little excessive, not to mention a small county force running multiple helicopters.
|>>|| No. 32649
It was based off this rhetorical question
>Do our police have weapons and vehicles repurposed from the Iraq war?
>By the way, wasn't the point of "the police are using militarised vehicles" that the police were overfunded, rather then the specific definition of 'militarised'? Because those fucking APCs we're looking at further up in this thread look like the sort of thing you buy when you're overfunded, regardless of how semantically 'military' they might be.
you are going to have to be more specific about APC (I assume you mean Jankels) but since the funding has gone down significantly for the police in the last 10 years >>32485 I am going to say no they aren't overfunded. If a city of 11 million people has 13 Jankels I am going to say if that number might be appropriate.
|>>|| No. 32652
You're still now arguing that it's actually justified for them to have militarised vehicles, rather than that they don't have any.
|>>|| No. 32659
It isn't a military vehicle, it is just an armored vehicle there are clear and distinct difference you seem to choose to ignore. There are a list of very obvious reasons why you wouldn't use this in combat, it was developed as a police vehicle because it is a police vehicle.
|>>|| No. 32662
You wouldn't use a Wolf defender in combat either yet they were built specifically for the army.
|>>|| No. 32663
I feel like you lost your point a while ago and now you are just shuffling words around.
|>>|| No. 32664
You said they were being purpose used in combat zones by the British army until about 10 years ago. So yes they are, absolutely and unequivocally.
|>>|| No. 32665
Did either of you have a point? I just assumed it's the usual .gs bickering over semantics that don't really matter.
|>>|| No. 32668
They also wear socks in combat zones. Fucking hell, I'm a killer.
Come on, chaps, easy on the cuntery.
|>>|| No. 32670
Easy on it yourself. I haven't said they should or shouldn't be using them, just that they do, that it's not a way in which they differ significantly from American police. Meanwhile it's gone from "They never do" to "Those aren't technically military" to "These are definitely military but don't count because my Overton Window" to "I'm not a murderer just because I wear the same socks as one". Nobody said you were.
|>>|| No. 32671
Just to be clear, are people comparing the UK and the USA militarization of police by picking out the one or two cases in the UK and trying to hold them up to the overwhelming trend in the USA? Yes, it looks like we've done something similar once or twice, but it's not the culture, and that's the main issue, isn't it?
|>>|| No. 32672
I'm not really in this argument but from my personal experience there are more coppers with guns than I feel comfortable with. Whether it's 'needed' I'm not qualified to say, though that certainly doesn't stop me having an opinion that is is not.
|>>|| No. 32673
That has only happened in your head.
The actual conversation was
>the police don't use military equipment.
>what do you call this then.
>that's an armored car. it isn’t military vehicles at all, they are a police vehicle, designed to be a police vehicle and the military has never used them.
>I refuse to acknowledge this point!
|>>|| No. 32674
If you read the post in context you would understand that was the point I was making. Just saying the millitary uses a thing don't actually mean anything other than making shocking emotive statements.
|>>|| No. 32675
Weird, I must be hallucinating the part where someone said that Land Rovers were military and that photo of a police one.
|>>|| No. 32676
Yes to illustrate the point of how daft it is to just call anything the military uses military equipment, like a knee juerk reactionry.
|>>|| No. 32677
>Just saying the millitary uses a thing don't actually mean anything other than making shocking emotive statements.
It's something that people generally understand though, and not emotively. Military designed/purposed vs generally available would be the distinction, wouldn't it? Though I suppose the greater distinction is the lack of APCs our police have.
|>>|| No. 32729
Turns out Bristol police just invented the injured officers and their punctured lungs. Lied about it to the news. They've known it wasn't true for days but waited until today to admit it, now the narrative has been set for most people.
Again, that's just your Overton Window having shifted. They might not be relatively dangerous machines now, with all the SUVs and Jankels on the road, but back in the day they were. That is, our police having a history of using military vehicles.
|>>|| No. 32732
> wasn't the point of "the police are using militarised vehicles" that the police were overfunded
American police forces can get hand-me-down military kit for just the cost of shipping via the 1033 program. Because of the huge amount of surplus materiel from Iraq and Afghanistan and the proliferation of very small police departments, this has led to some truly absurd situations - the San Diego School Police received an 18-ton armoured personnel carrier and the Los Angeles School Police Department got three 40mm grenade launchers. Over the last decade, American police departments have been flooded with equipment that is totally inappropriate for routine police use without any training, support or oversight.
There's a vast difference between small rural police departments being given heavy machine guns and attack helicopters for no real reason and the Met ordering small numbers of purpose-built armoured vehicles to deal with daft militant wog incidents.
|>>|| No. 32770
Live face off between protesters and police. Protesters chanting various things like "You're sexy, you're cute, take off your riot suit". Lack of scansion aside, the police seem to not be rising to it, even letting themselves be adorned with daffodils.
|>>|| No. 32771
Other chants: "Turn on your body cam", "Where's your broken arm?", "Police killed Sarah", "Is your mother proud?".
|>>|| No. 32773
At the risk of accusing a Tory of not being a hypocrite, he was one of only two not to vote for That Bill last week.
|>>|| No. 32795
The comments are something.
>Do you think these protests highlight why the police need more powers?
>About time the Police stood up to these idiots who are ruining the country
>The very fact that these young idiots are being supported by people is the ,lowest of the low. Bring back National service and educate these lost children
|>>|| No. 32796
At the end of the day, most of the protestors are middle class students larping who know they have the security of their posho lifestyle to go back to when they grow out of this phase. They're in need of a bit of police brutality.
|>>|| No. 32797
That's too long to put in a tweet but you don't need to post it here instead.
|>>|| No. 32809
What's your point, exactly? That it's important to Other people who haven't been beaten into submission from a young age to the point they won't stand up for themselves?
|>>|| No. 32810
Have you ever had a pet cat who claws the fuck out of you? If so, it's most likely because they didn't spend enough time as a kitten with the rest of the litter in order to feel what it's like to cause trouble and get scratched when they go too far. Or you didn't teach them not to scratch, the metaphor is transferrable in all such as its target responsibility.
|>>|| No. 32812
The problem with society is that kids aren't disciplined anymore. They're told they're always right and that everyone is a winner.
|>>|| No. 32815
I'm sorry that your parents abused you as a child but I don't really see what that has to do with whether or not unjust laws should be protested against. This "I assume they're all middle class because they look like students to me (despite the fact that anyone can go to uni, making all degrees useless) and that means they weren't taught proper discipline like I was (because, famously, nobody of my socio-economic status ever breaks the law), therefore their opinions are invalid" is some pure red-top unlogic.
|>>|| No. 32816
That Batchelor's Degree in Owen Jones books really isn't paying off for you, is it?
|>>|| No. 32819
You were being a gammon, facebook-meme posting wanker and got called out on it. Not complicated. Maybe if you'd taken advantage of the lax university entry requirements when you were younger you'd be able to keep up with adult-level discourse, like all the people who moved out of your childhood estate can.
|>>|| No. 32821
Adult-level discourse, as in not treating everything like it's a game of who can troll who or even just pretending to be retarded when you lose an argument.
|>>|| No. 32822
Perhaps you could help me out with two of my kids? My 56-year-old son, Boris, has never been told he's wrong and has never had the discipline instilled into him to stop him behaving like a dribbling imbecile. Now he's hanging out with this Asian girl he works with, and she's even worse. She's an absolute mad bitch. It's too late to beat any discipline into her, but my Boris can still be saved. Should we do it? Or does discipline not apply to them?
|>>|| No. 32823
Christ we really are turning into America aren't we, judging from some of the comments in that thread and in this one, and the one about the bill. Apparently this is fine and nothing to worry about as long as it's happening to people we don't like. This place is going downhill.
|>>|| No. 32824
Of course what's happening in Bristol is shit and the police are shit, but objectively speaking he's someone wanted in connection with an offence, so fair play to the police luring him into an easy arrest. And he won't make the same mistake again about trusting those uniforms to have a human side.
|>>|| No. 32825
Nothing in that video even hinted at a breach of s.24 or Code G of PACE. I have no time for the "lock up these lefty layabouts" brigade, I oppose many of the provisions of the PCSC Bill, but I also have no time for people who believe that the law shouldn't apply to them.
To quote a wise old man, "If you do it, don't get caught. If you get caught, don't whine".
|>>|| No. 32826
I don't want to come off as some sort of carpet baggist, but I'd certainly beat a bit of discipline into your son's Asian mate, IYKWIM.
|>>|| No. 32829
Out of curiosity, does the standard US advice of "Never speak to the police, under any circumstances, ever, just shut the fuck up." apply in Britain too?
Full disclosure: I do not expect to be speaking to the police any time soon. I just happened to watch this video a while back because I got drawn in by the humour.
I assume the legal system is relatively similar in principle (common law and all that) so even if our judges aren't going to be paid per conviction your safest bet (especially if you're guilty) is to shut the fuck up, but on the other hand for all I know with no fifth amendment and a much longer history there might be some feudal era law about not helping an officeholder of the realm with any inquiries he may make involving or potentially involving a Scotsman between the hours of dawn and dusk which means you'll be put in prison for that even if they give up on getting you on the original crime, just for being annoyed by how rudely you refused to make polite conversation.
|>>|| No. 32830
You have the right to remain silent.
Just don't be one of those belligerent "AM I BEING DETAINED" cunts. Be nice to the pigs. Be polite and respectful. They do not like it if you're a smart arse. But in general: Yes.
|>>|| No. 32831
There is one important difference to note - "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court".
On balance it's still better to not start chatting in the back of the police car, but if you've got an alibi you might as well be bleating about it straight away, just make sure it's watertight.
|>>|| No. 32832
>does the standard US advice of "Never speak to the police, under any circumstances, ever, just shut the fuck up." apply in Britain too?
Not really. Saying too little is usually but not always better than saying too much.
If you haven't yet been arrested, being excessively cagey or confrontational will just provoke greater suspicion. Being polite and friendly will meaningfully reduce your chances of being searched, looked up on the PNC or otherwise investigated and meaningfully increase the odds that you'll get the benefit of the doubt.
If you're asked "have you got anything on you that you shouldn't have", you're usually better off handing over any drugs or explaining why you're carrying a pocket knife before they dig it out of your pockets, because that sentence is invariably followed up with a search. This is particularly true if you've got no record and you're carrying a small amount of cannabis, because the police have the option of issuing an on-the-spot caution. There's no point in refusing to give your name or address, because they'll usually assume you've got a warrant out and detain you until they can confirm your identity.
If you are arrested, there's no point in saying anything about the alleged offence until you're interviewed under caution. You should try to stay friendly and polite and there's no point in refusing to talk to the Custody Sergeant. Always ask for a solicitor and don't answer any questions about the alleged offence until you've had the chance to speak to them privately. If you are asked questions before that point, the best response is "I do not wish to comment without a solicitor present".
At interview, the problem with being totally silent goes beyond "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court". There are a broad and quite complicated range of reasons why a court can lawfully draw "adverse inferences" from your choice not to speak - a magistrate or jury can to some extent lawfully assume that if you're refusing to say anything, you've got something to hide.
For relatively minor offences where your guilt is fairly obvious, you might actually be better off coming clean, but that's really something you'd need to discuss with your solicitor. For everything else, the best option (and one you'll usually see professional criminals use) is usually to "no comment" during the interview but prepare a statement privately with your solicitor explaining your account of events. This reduces the risk of you being affected by adverse inference at trial, while also massively reducing the risk of saying something incriminating.
|>>|| No. 32840
The police will only use testimonies in order to try to convict you. They will ask leading questions to try to get you to incriminate yourself.
|>>|| No. 32851
She's deffo got a fat body, standard dumpy pear shape. Put a sari on her and she'd be at home on the priority seats on the bus, holding her little walker in the aisle.
|>>|| No. 32855
I just want her to sit on my face but smother me for too long so I suffer some sort of brain damage where I'm rendered immobile, a select committee will find her innocent and then she'll come to visit me in hospital all the time and edge me under the sheets but not let me cum, with that cruel look in her eyes.
|>>|| No. 32856
Don't try to fight it, lad. Just imagine her coming up to your chest and doing her Ms Bossy-Boots act, cornering you because she's absolutely aching for it with that crazed hunger in her eyes...
I've done much worse both morally and physically.
|>>|| No. 32859
Physically is she bollocks. This is just you lot living out your "powerful woman" submissive fantasies (see >>32855), you'd have been saying the same about Thatcher forty years ago and you'd be wrong then too.
|>>|| No. 32860
This is the wrongest post I have ever seen on this fine website.
|>>|| No. 32862
lad these subhuman fatty fanciers would get the horn for Jabba the Hutt if you put him in a dress they are going to never understand.
|>>|| No. 32867
We don't, but we've had a "don't post nsfw stuff in /sfw/ boards" policy for several years now.
|>>|| No. 32870
Agree with this lad, if clothed women are suddenly NSFW, then you can finally delete the fucking Vorderman thread and I can browse .gs at work without feeling like my co-workers think I'm a perv.
|>>|| No. 32873
None but there are plenty who read the paparazzi pages of the Daily Mail.
|>>|| No. 32874
/iq/ is treated as SFW by the mods, which puts the mods in violation of international convention that has always respected the freedom and autonomy of /iq/ this violation makes the mods in my legal opinion the enemy of all mankind.
|>>|| No. 32875
Her big third tit was uncovered.
I'm one of the resident chubby chasers, but Moffatt is a munter. I might be a pervert, but I'm not blind.
|>>|| No. 32885
Going to university isn't exactly a high bar these days. According to Wikipedia she studied sport at York St John University.
|>>|| No. 32889
It doesn't say if she finished though.
Till monkey at Asda was slightly more like her.
|>>|| No. 32917
Whistleblower says the HMICFRS deliberately sought out evidence that would support Patel's bill, rather than being unbiased in its report. HMICFRS says they don't believe it but promise to investigate themselves.
This is the HMICFRS who investigated the police actions at Clapham and found them "appropriate".
Same event that Kate Middleton was at, which Cressida Dick says was legal as she was "working" in a PR capacity, despite the official line being that she was just there as part of her vigil and various journalists genuinely working, covering related protests, being arrested.
|>>|| No. 32925
>various journalists genuinely working, covering related protests, being arrested.
This didn't happen.
|>>|| No. 32926
The thing that a video of, cut from the live stream of it happening, was linked to earlier in this thread, didn't happen?
|>>|| No. 32928
Oh right, I thought you were just referring to some youtube streamer. About time someone bashed a journo, their wank is why this shit is happening in the first place, priority one is shitstirring.
A legal observer is just a cunt calling himself a legal observer by the way, there is no exception for people calling themselves that.
|>>|| No. 32930
>A legal observer is just a cunt calling himself a legal observer by the way, there is no exception for people calling themselves that.
How can you even function with this much boot in your mouth?
|>>|| No. 32931
More boots occupying more mouths and we might not have to bother with shithead students thinking their idiot made up excuse for a pissup and to lob some bricks is worth a damn.
|>>|| No. 32932
What do boots in mouths have to do with it? When you want to protest effectively, you swot up on how the law works regarding what you want to do, and you do it first, because whinging about it after the fact will get you fucking nowhere.
I hate to come down on this side of the fence but in my day protesters knew what they were doing. This really is a set of disorganised student twats. Or controlled opposition whipped up by insiders designed to sway public opinion, of course.
|>>|| No. 32934
Them not having a special status doesn't mean they're legally part of the protest. Unless you think you know better and are better organised than Green & Black Cross? It's no wonder you're so happy to have that boot in your mouth when you're so good at talking out your arse.
|>>|| No. 32935
It doesn't matter whether you're "legally part of the protest" or not. Calling yourself a "legal observer" doesn't exempt you from the Coronavirus Regulations or the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act. People aren't being arrested in Bristol for protesting, they're being arrested for breaching the Coronavirus Regulations and/or failing to comply with a dispersal order.
|>>|| No. 32937
Being a legal observer is volunteer work.
Cressida Dick said Kate Middleton's presence at the vigil was legal as she was there working.
Your logic a shit.
Please though, go on more about how in your day they were better organised and informed than people who can ask Siri what their rights are, even when they're handcuffed, and who organise both nationally and internationally using technology and training gathered from lessons of the past. Same people who the home secretary wants to change the protesting laws on, to combat their use of "loopholes" in the existing law. You're not just a blowhard.
|>>|| No. 32938
I'm going to protest inequality by injecting a load of kids with HIV. The fascist pigs had better not arrest me for a perfectly legitimate expression of dissent.
|>>|| No. 33054
No, but nor are they "just something they did in the past we're all more civilised now".
|>>|| No. 33087
That and the statement that
>FBI agents recruited a Proud Boys leader to provide them with information about antifa networks
Seems odd. Why would you ask for information from an enemy rather than trying to recruit someone "in" antifa? His information is hardly going to be reliable.
|>>|| No. 33089
Do you remember that scene in American History X where he gets bummed in the shower because he doesn't understand that ostensibly opposing groups actually cooperate? Anjem Choudary and Tommy Robinson kept in touch. It's all a game.
|>>|| No. 33116
Those American coppers sure love shooting black people.
|>>|| No. 33122
Police use of force accounts for the death of over 0.5% of all deaths of white males age 20-35 in the USA. They have an endemic proboem with violence.
|>>|| No. 33123
The whole "Well actually they don't just shoot black people, they shoot lots of white people" attitude that inevitably comes up when black people are protesting being shot seems fairly stupid. If the people bringing it up cared, they'd be protesting the other deaths too, not just using them as a way to dismiss the fears of the people who do protest. It very much is "All lives matter" but smugly, without a slogan.
|>>|| No. 33125
Americans love guns and hate investing in public services. Unless they're willing to change one of those facts, the whole argument is moot. Poorly paid, poorly trained, poorly supervised police officers in a country riddled with guns is inevitably a recipe for disaster.
|>>|| No. 33126
They do, but they seem to pull over/engage with black people more often than might be statistically necessary.
It's two different problems - the cops shoot loads of people but also end up pulling people for being black, so put them together and you end up with a nice long list of innocent black folks who got shot.
I don't think you can go wrong in this argument provided your stance is either that cops should be less racist or that they need to stop shooting people. Either one would help.
|>>|| No. 33127
I am starting to find it very odd how the entire reason for Americans all having guns is to stop potential government oppression, and yet literal US government agents execute your friends and neighbours in the street without trial, and don't even get in trouble, and people very rarely shoot them for it. Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd's neck is the exact thing the Second Amendment exists to prevent, and Americans just stood around awkwardly for nine minutes until George died of his unrelated fentanyl overdose and pre-existing heart condition.
Anyway, if the most recent police killing is anything to go by (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56768217), I guess we can all assume that if a cop tells you to drop the gun, actually dropping your gun is pointless because you're going to get shot anyway.
|>>|| No. 33129
American culture fetishes guns and the personal sense of power they bring. Everything else is just an attempt at self-rationalisation.
|>>|| No. 33130
Americans and their whole 2nd ammendment, "protection from tyranny" argument always puts me in mind of that bit in Shaun of the Dead where the young lad at the shop goes"Oh yeah? When."
And of course, the answer is occasions like that capitol storming we were all arguing about for about a month. Not that it got them very far, but you do have to ask yourself. When there have been mass protests in this country, something like the ones about the Iraq war... Do you reckon they'd have acheived more if we were all packing AR-15s and strolled into Westminster?
If you think about it the fact they have so many guns is probably what has lulled the American populace into a false sense of security and allowed them to become one of the most subjugated and submissive populations on earth. The second ammendment was a bait and switch that let Americans think they're fiercely independent and indomitable, whilst a ruthless corporate oligarchy was built underneath them.
|>>|| No. 33131
The broader issue is the weird quasi-religious relationship that Americans have with their constitution. Our courts rule on things like fairness and reasonableness, but American courts have to engage in a weird Kabbalistic exercise to guess what the framers might have meant.
|>>|| No. 33132
I heard a thing that one of the founding fathers had proposed a rewritten constitution every 40 or so years.
That would have been quite interesting.
Also I've worked out the problem in life and the solution to it.
There's no more free land. You can no longer just stake out a bit of land with a group of similarly minded individuals and start your own state.
That's it. That's the main problem, and you could solve it with a bit of state sacrifice. If you could get all of the righties and the lefties living in their own areas, and they weren't overtly hostile, everyone would be much happier. You just need states to give up land. lol we're fucked
|>>|| No. 33134
Somewhat impractical today because you'd have to be outside the twelve-mile zone which most contries now consider their coastal waters and therefore part of their national territory. Coastal small islands and rock formations are also usually included in that, even if they are uninhabited. So you'd have to go out quite a bit into international waters, and in a shallow sea, if you want to implement a design similar to an oil platform, which is usually only doable if you've got 500 metres or less of water under it. That rules out many areas, because the continental shelfs at ocean edges quite often drop off vertically two or three miles down before you're 12 miles out.
And to really be on the safe side, you'd have to be over 200 nautical miles away from any sovereign state's seacoast, because that's a country's exclusive economic zone.
|>>|| No. 33135
A deeper reading of the Policing bill shows that it makes questioning the legality of a stop and search, illegal. “Obstruction of an SVRO”. So asking questions is illegal now.
Incidentally, yesterday, the Tories all voted against a law that would actually help victims of stalkers and sexual harassment, as if you needed any evidence that their pretence the policing bill was about concern for women, was just that.
|>>|| No. 33136
I'm pro police - being a socialist we should all be told what to do and killed if we don't obey the state. Having a Stasi is great, I can't wait for a time when thinking is wrong.
|>>|| No. 33137
I fully believe that socialists think that way, whether they are aware of it or not.
|>>|| No. 33138
More or less everyone thinks that way, even if they believe they don't, the only caveat is that the imaginary stasi is always one that enforces one's own ideological values.
|>>|| No. 33139
As I see it this is an insufficiently cynical view.
The state killing people is generally a sign of weakness, not of strength. The reason we have the illusion of a peaceful society today is because the powerful are so much more powerful, not because they're more humanist.
The Soviet Union, East Germany, etc, all had comparatively poor governments that needed to rely on repression to hold on to their position and to protect the position of their elites. The government was also a clear, centrally identifiable point of power which their citizens could attack if they were unhappy. What we read off as some kind of pathological evil authoritarianism on their part was ultimately just what was necessary to hold onto their power. (See how East Germany integrated with West German power, while Russia has transitioned to a more advanced form of authoritarianism in the combo of oligarchy and a very openly "managed" "democracy".)
We do not have such governments or live in such countries, nor do we have such centralised distribution of power. The rich and powerful in Britain can rest assured that whoever is in government, their interests are secure - even if the communists won a snap election tomorrow, they could probably be removed from office by capital flight alone, assuming they couldn't be steered into being right of the average Labour government "just temporarily, you see, due to the ongoing crisis..." by the civil service and friends taking advantage of their inexperience. No need to go out and beat up the people who voted for them, no need to get rid of elections, etc. But equally: No way to seriously upset established power.
We like to imagine that we're much more politically free than the Soviet Union or wherever because we allow people to go around saying they're proud communists while the USSR would've had them jailed for going around saying they're proud capitalists. In the interest of provoking I put the opposite view: proud soviet capitalists were jailed because they and their ideas were an actual threat, they actually had the ability to change the system under which they lived. In short they had some power. Proud western communists aren't jailed because they powerless and of no threat to anyone or anything. Banning them or beating them up would be a waste of resources, much better to let them think what they want so long as they pose no threat, then highlight your own benevolence in doing so.
|>>|| No. 33140
So this policing bill, the spycops one and Patel wanting to bring back the death penalty mean what about our status quo, exactly?
|>>|| No. 33141
Well, just like pretty much every draconian sounding policy people have panicked about in the last decade or two, it'll basically amount to nothing and only exists to win votes with maungy auld pensioner cunts who sit and look through the net curtains wishing all the young people outside in the sun were more miserable.
Remember when they banned porn?
|>>|| No. 33143
You misunderstand. It's not that those bills won't come though, it's just that it's going to be nothing the pigs weren't already up to.
(The death penalty one is the only one I'm willing to just dismiss out of hand for being patently absurd.)
|>>|| No. 33144
It legitimises their doing those things so while yes, they do them now, they will do them a lot more.
|>>|| No. 33145
Could be that they feel they're at risk (I mean we are on a melting planet and all that), could be culture war runoff, could be coincidence*, could be that the police are lobbying a receptive government. I couldn't say for certain, I haven't paid enough attention to either to say definitively. Patel wanting to bring back the death penalty is probably just standard Tory nonsense though.
*Coincidence isn't the ideal word, but I'm getting at the way the Spycops bill started with a 2019 court case confirming MI5 could break the law undercover, which gives the impression that they partially just want to legitimise the sort of thing they were already doing.
That depends on who you're getting at. They will amount to nothing for the average person, perhaps, but it's probably worth thinking about what they're going for when it comes to tightening up restrictions on protests and the like.
Just for illustrative purposes: Let's say it's because climate protestors are starting to look like they might create too much pressure. Look at how they haven't been banned, strictly, they're still entitled to protest - provided it doesn't inconvenience anyone and is trivial to ignore as a result. You can even sort of invert it and say it's been done to protect the freedom of ordinary people to get on with their lives without being annoyed by "politics", which a lot of the public will sympathise with. It's all so much cleverer than sending people to Siberia.
|>>|| No. 33146
Not to mention the way it targets travellers. Completely criminalising their way of life. But to >>33141 it'll feel like nothing.
|>>|| No. 33147
The Home Secretary's job description must include somewhere that you absolutely have to be a despotic fascist. Theresa May was like that too, and when she became Prime Minister, she didn't totally remove all civil liberties at any point. It was like she had stopped caring about Orwellian thought-policing.
Priti Patel also provides a 2-for-1 for the Conservative Party: she's a non-white woman who hates immigrants. It's hard for anyone to gain a political foothold to the right of the Conservatives, because how much more right-wing can you get than sending battleships into international waters to machine-gun starving families in inflatable rafts? But you can't say they're far-right reactionary lunatics, because these opinions are being voiced by an Asian lady. You say you're woke, but as soon as ethnic diversity and gender equality get introduced, suddenly you get "upset" because this strong independent woman is a "swivel-eyed psychopath". It's like you never cared about social justice at all. So you've been defeated on both sides.
|>>|| No. 33148
>You say you're woke, but as soon as ethnic diversity and gender equality get introduced, suddenly you get "upset" because this strong independent woman is a "swivel-eyed psychopath"
I unironically kind of like that aspect of it though. Gives you a stronger platform to talk people around to class based politics by using her as an example to demonstrate racial reductionism is misguided, and the causal link with being an evil bastard is that she's a blue blooded upper caste elite.
|>>|| No. 33173
FedEx shooter wrote about My Little Pony in suicide note
The teenager who shot killed eight people at a FedEx warehouse in Indianapolis wrote about My Little Pony in a Facebook post less than an hour before going on a shooting rampage and taking his own life.
“I hope that I can be with Applejack in the afterlife, my life has no meaning without her,” Brandon Scott Hole, 19, posted at 10:19pm, The Wall Street Journal reported. The shooting started around 11pm on Thursday. Applejack is the main character in the children’s cartoon My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic first broadcast in 2010.
Mr Hole had two Facebook accounts dedicated to the show that were removed by the social media giant following the shooting after requests from law enforcement, according to an internal memo acquired by The Wall Street Journal. While law enforcement hoped that Mr Hole’s online activity would help shed light on his motive for the attack, the Facebook memo said the gunman’s accounts were mostly focused on the cartoon show.
For actual fuck's sake.