Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by HardOCP News, Aug 18, 2016.
Dr. Ben Carson would disagree.
And Tim Scott, the only black GOP senator would disagree with Dr. Carson. And pretty much all the black men I've talked to on the subject. I'm just trying to tell you, black men across the socioeconomic scale think that cops in general are going to treat them differently, and by differently more harshly. Because that's all black men are portrayed as violent criminals. And even when a black guy doesn't fit that mold, that makes some cops even more suspicious. "What's that boy up too? He shouldn't be on this side of town?" And even Dr. Carson isn't obvious to white racism: Ben Carson: Call it racism
An African American male born today has a 1 in 3 chance of serving a prison sentence.
We enslaved them until it was illegal to do so. Then we drafted Jim Crow laws which made them separate and unequal. We kept their fathers and grand father's from receiving an equal education or equal pay for equal work. The along comes the advancements of the civil rights era, but the old ways did not go quietly into the night. The establishment had to find a new method that would allow them to continue to legally discriminate against them. The method chosen was mass felonization, and it was used to create a permanent social under caste. Many refer to it as, The New Jim Crow.
Once again they could legally discriminate against them. They could prevent them from voting, serving on a jury, serving in the military, owning firearms, holding public office, and they could legally bar them from certain employment, educational, and housing opportunities.
If you can't vote, you cannot directly affect change through the political process. If you and your peers are disqualified from jury service, you cannot get a fair and impartial trial. They didn't want your ass serving beside them in the military any way. If you can't carry a firearm to defend yourself and your neighbors, they don't have to worry about you defending yourself as they drive down your lane armed to the teeth and burn a cross on your lawn, hang you from a tree, or blow up your church in the still of the night. We all know what happened. All we had to do was render them felons and we could continue to take everything for ourselves, and leave little for them.
Today we don't walk into their neighborhoods and hang them any more, but we send paramilitary forces into their neighborhood and imprison 1 out of 3 males.
Generations of arrested development can't always be reversed in the span of a generation, or even two. And some of the same people who support the system which goes into communities and incarcerates 1 in 3 males, have the fucking balls to pontificate about welfare mothers after their system has spent decades destroying families and forcing kids to grow up without parents.
We Americans represent 4.8% of the world population, and yet we represent more then 25% of the world's prison population. We incarcerate more per capita than any other nation on earth, including Russia, China, Korea, and other so called oppressive regimes.
Bottom line, racial control functions through the criminal justice system.
Wow - so I bring up Soros and his control and influence in keeping minorities down, and here come the countermeasures?
Damn downright freaky.
Are you saying.... that those 1 in 3 are not at fault?
It's always someone else's fault, never their own.
And when use a number like that, the other 2 must be guilty of something.
Stop pretending everyone has some racist hidden agenda in their posts. It's really stupid and it makes you look bad. It also completely invalidates every opinion you have on the matter because you are coming at it from a completely narrow viewpoint with your mind so closed that it's pointless to listen to anything you have to say.
Well fair enough. There's stuff in GenMay that you may not have seen and there's really no point in going into that here.
Portrayed? Like in movies? Police officers in most major cities have years and years of first hand experience with people to form their own opinions and stereotypes. And yes, when nine out of ten times an Impala cruising around at 10PM with five young black males in it has a chance of at least one ding (warrant, drugs, alcohol, illegal firearm, no insurance, etc.), then that is learned behavior that they will scrutinize any such flag in greater detail.
That's not racism, that's using common sense statistics to analyze probability in order to maximize your utility as a police officer. And that includes black police officers that learn how to profile in order to try and reduce criminal activity.
For example, police officers will also likely profile four lowered Honda Civics driving near Westheimer last at night that have flashy paint jobs, neon lights, and big wings on the back, because there's a high probability those are street racers and you can follow them a short while and catch the racers in the act.
Not everyone with a fast&furious looking Civic is a street racer, but the profile is reinforced time and time again by all the street racers that fit that look the officer catches on the regular, and the same goes for young black males. You don't get angry at police officers for recognizing the profile that criminals match, you get mad at the people that create that negative profile. And yes, believe it or not, young black males create a very disproportionate amount of crime compared to other demographics for example, black males that make up only 6% of the US population committed around half of all murders. Cruising around Detroit, you can see the people working hard around the clock (NSFW) to reinforce those profiles.
The Syrian Arab Army, Kurds and Iranian militias have plenty to say about foreign mercenaries and islamic terrorists.
Arabs have been killing other Arabs for a thousand years (like Sunni and Shia)... and buddhists, and christians, and hindus, and just about everyone they can reach.
Iran is a theocratic Islamic extremist nation itself, so a power struggle between one militant Muslim group and another doesn't mean that they don't share the same basic belief systems and desire to see Sharia Law enforced globally, Islam's influence spread, and for people to be afraid of criticizing Islam for fear of death or injury. While terrorism is carried out by a minority of Muslims, various polls such as done by Pew show that the majority are sympathetic to the cause terrorists are fighting for, even if they don't approve of their specific methods (the majority do at least say that they don't support suicide bombings).
For example, in Asia, 84% of Muslims believe that Sharia Law should be promoted as the law of the land, which of course is even higher in middle-eastern Muslim nations. And if you're curious what that means, in the pew poll, 76% of those Muslims believe that the death penalty is appropriate for leaving the religion, and 79% believe that religious leaders should have some political influence. For obvious reasons, this aspect alone is incompatible with Western culture.
Here is a telling infographic.
You're not a peace officer. Your job is not Law Enforcement. Those are euphemisms. You don't keep the peace. You routinely initiate conflicts where, otherwise, no conflict would have been. You are an agent by which your employer uses violence to enforce a monopoly on law de facto. The vast majority of the disputes that you initiate on behalf of your employer are also adjudicated by your employer, where the plaintiff, the judge, the antagonist (that's you) and the only witness (also you), all represent the same party, and, since no corpus de lecti can be produced, probably (depends on which state you're in) doesn't technically qualify to be heard according to its own "laws". Your employer is indistinguishable from a criminal cartel.
You do not serve us. When the matter of whether or not you have a duty to protect the subjects of your employer has been brought before one of your employer's courts, your employer has decided that you do not. But, when you are charged with the task of using deadly force to apprehend a person who has incurred no liability for damages to anyone, you are obligated to obey.
Everything I've written, here, is literally true. I understand that you can't believe that, but, once you strip away all the obfuscation and rationalizations, nothing else remains.
So, you see, even if you always do your job, as you believe it to be, to what you believe to be the best of your ability, you cannot be a good cop. There is no such thing as a good cop because what cops do is, by necessity of its nature, bad.
Whew, I thought that was all made up anti-cop leftist bullshit, but since you say its literally true... it pretty much HAS to be. Literally!
Be sure not to call the police next time you or loved ones are victimized by criminals, because remember, criminals are the good guys and police are the bad guys. Enjoy your anarchy, in a country where laws are optional because no one enforces them.
Those aren't my words, I should have used quotes.
What part of the following is false?
"You routinely initiate conflicts where, otherwise, no conflict would have been. You are an agent by which your employer uses violence to enforce a monopoly on law de facto. The vast majority of the disputes that you initiate on behalf of your employer are also adjudicated by your employer, where the plaintiff, the judge, the antagonist (that's you) and the only witness (also you), all represent the same party, and, since no corpus de lecti can be produced, probably (depends on which state you're in) doesn't technically qualify to be heard according to its own "laws". Your employer is indistinguishable from a criminal cartel.
You do not serve us. When the matter of whether or not you have a duty to protect the subjects of your employer has been brought before one of your employer's courts, your employer has decided that you do not. But, when you are charged with the task of using deadly force to apprehend a person who has incurred no liability for damages to anyone, you are obligated to obey."
Mostly the part between the quotation marks.
Police respond to suspicious activity because we train them to, and we train them to because the majority of us want them to not just respond to crime after it has happened, but to also deter and stop crimes and to catch criminals on the loose. Why? Because the majority want laws, and lawful nations prosper and perpetuate themselves over time.
Force, not necessarily violence, is used because a law that is not enFORCEd (that's where the word comes from) is no law at all. If I'm short on cash, why can't I just walk up to someone at an ATM, wait for them to finish withdrawing their cash, shoot them in the back of the head, and voila I have money? Because there are police officer sheepdogs out there that will protect the sheep against wolves like me, using force, and if necessary measured application of violence.
Police officers are employed by the public, which means people like myself, and we WANT police to protect us from the minority criminal element so that we don't always have to be on our guard 24x7 or resort to vigilantism to maintain order and justice. So the American people are the employers of police officers, and police are doing the exact job the majority of us asked them to do. That is the definition of service.
Its nonsensical anarchist dribble, and the only people that would truly want to live in a lawless society are the wolves that the police protect us from.
"The police are your enemy, and the criminals are your friends, little Red Riding Hood. Come a little closer, so that I might see you better..."
And yes, of course there are extremes when it comes to levels of law enforcement, and stupid laws (but that's not a police problem, as they don't create the laws). I've bitched about this before in the militarization of police, using surplus Iraq war gear to do silly marijuana raids. That's too much force and a stupid law, but that sure as hell doesn't mean I want a lawless state without an effective police force.
Watch this guy. All his videos are comedy gold even though he is quite serious.
Is every black person a BLM member? You know BLM have killed cops and attacked innocent white people in Milwaukee, that meets the definition of terrorism.
Who officially in BLM killed cops? Where does BLM officially call for the killing of cops?
Ugh, that faggot.
I remember him, he has a bunch of cucked white SJW friends too, that were apologizing for slavery and accepting that they owed reparations and needed to check their privilege, lol!
The guy I just posted is a member of BLM. There he is praising killing of cops.
He lists links to two black militant web sites in that video but not BLM. Not every black person with grievances against the criminal justice system wants to kill cops.
Wow, just stop. I don't know who you are trying to convince, but unless its yourself, its not going well.
Funny how you seem to lump all of us into one group. Somehow we all think alike because of some posts you saw in Genmay?
Then you've simply not read my posts. I speak constantly of black stereotyping. Indeed I'm arguing against the point here. Not every black with grievances against the criminal justice system wants to kill cops.
So you think every black person wants to kill cops?
Gee, that escalated quick. Did he say that all black people are terrorists?
Which nobody ever said. You're jumping to conclusions that you think we are going to make.
The first damned response where flat out implies that BLM is a terrorist organization. I don't support all of their agenda but yeah, I do agree with a lot they say about the criminal justice system. We lock up too many for too long, especially over minor drug offenses, and then it becomes extremely difficult to get out of the system because it's tough to get a job as a ex-con. And this effects whites and other minorities as well.
You implied that every black person is BLM, then you have being going on about this black guy or that black guy isn't BLM, which is it?
The question is what does BLM have to do with the shutting down of terrorist groups? Pretty lame response.
The fact that BLM is part of these dumb ass riots makes it, despite you trying to deny it was BLM or not.
But still, what about what I asked?
So every time blacks have rioted it's because they were terrorists? What was the single deadliest black riot in US history?
Thanks for linking it to every thing instead of just the recent ones where BLM were involved in.
Maybe now you'll answer what I asked.
From what I understand, the Nat Turner Rebellion is the single most violent race riot in US history. It has no analog in current history, it was incredibly violent from what records I know about it and a horrifically evil act. That blacks started in slavery. And it did more to harm black enfranchisement than to help it. Blacks have made PLENTY of mistakes on US soil seeking equality. As a person that tries to be rational, and look at the facts, that's the only rational conclusion I can make.
There are no heroes or demons in these kinds of conflicts. But there is right and wrong. For some reason whites think they need to praise MLK and the Civil Rights Movement as some great peace movement, which it wasn't. We're talking about conflict here. Not one black grievance in the US has ever been addressed without conflict. Not a single one. Whites never universally said "Just let them protest in peace, they just want equal protection under the law."
So that's a no.
The Civil Rights Movement was part of things like ending Jim Crow which wasn't popular in Jim Crow states. So I have no idea what your question means. People will have disagreements and label each other as whatever. That's always been the history of it.
You implied that every black person is BLM, then you have being going on about this black guy or that black guy isn't BLM, which is it?
Its pretty plain, I thought.
All I'm saying is name one significant person in the history of black enfranchisement that wasn't considered a threat by someone. From what I've researched they all were.