Links: | Thanks Ant. |
Play: |
Supergun. Bouncing Balls. |
Stories: | How Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination changed America 50 years ago and still affects us today. |
Science: |
Boeing shows its vision for a hypersonic spy aircraft. ‘Pet translator,’ to convert dog barks to human language in 10 years? Thanks RedEye9. How people born before 1968 are more at risk of getting nasty 'Aussie flu.' |
Media: |
OVERWATCH
(Elders React: Gaming). I think some of them were on my team. Just One Of Those Days. Sisyphus of the swamp. Deleted scene from Predator (1987). |
jdreyer wrote on Jan 16, 2018, 03:38:Yeah, I have little doubt that decision will someday get parked right along with the Dred Scott decision on the list of things SCOTUS got wrong.
That was the court's argument for gutting the Voting Rights Act. "We're post racial!" said a bunch of white guys. Yet you still read stories of black precincts only have two voting machines to service 50,000 voters while a white suburban precinct will have 100 machines. And voter ID laws coming back. And voter roll purges coming back. Etc. Etc.
Cutter wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 11:00:
In this age of satellites, hacking, and drones, is there really still a need for a hypersonic spy aircraft? I'm sure given how insanely expensive they'll be that Boeing and the Air Force would argue they are.
Cutter wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:18:Well, sure: Hitler, Stalin, etc. Surprised you didn't bring up Hitler yourself.
If people think it can't get worse than Trump they're dead wrong.
And it's the elites both left and right that only have themselves to blame for it."Both sides do it!" False equivalency.
Between the right trying to steal everything not nailed down and the left trying to forcibly shove PC bullshit down everyone else's throats something has to give.Again, false equivalency. That's like saying a parking ticket is the same as a murder.
We saw the beginning of that sort of reaction with the assholes at G20 summits. Then Occupy. Then Trump. And it will continue. Yes those first two things don't line up with Trump but they're indicative of an unfolding pattern. Of history repeating itself.You do realize that G20 protests and Occupy were a direct response to, as you put it, "the right trying to steal everything?" And Trump's election had very little to do with those two movements, and much more to do with the election of the first black president, the loss of unskilled labor jobs to automation, the codification of gay rights, economic instability caused by the aftermath of the 2008 crash, 25 years of the right painting Hillary as an awful person, Comey, etc. etc.
Study enough history and you've seen this played out a 1000 times before and you know exactly where it's headed and where it will end.Hard to say. Modern technology has sort of changed the rules of the game.
NKD wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 22:49:Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 19:44:
While things are certainly better than they were -- the lack of progress is really quite astounding and not understood by many/most of the white population. States are still passing laws and changing voting rules which have been proved in a court of law to be racially motivated against minorities. And then there are the actions of clowns like Joe Arpaio, which are more common than most are willing to admit. The amount of progress we've made in the last 50 years is maybe 25-50% of what needs to be accomplished. It is going to be a long, hard road.
It's really unfortunate the number of people who think racism and discrimination are no longer an issue. You can't work on solving a problem if a good portion of the population won't admit it exists. It's now an acceptable mainstream opinion to be against civil rights and anti-discrimination laws because they "harm freedom of association" and "the problem they fix doesn't exist anymore."
BobBob wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 18:15:
I understand what is taught in our history and the concepts of civil rights. I do question the truth of what is taught to us .. if it's a reality or a fantasy. As soon as there is mention of 'rights' be it civil or natural, one should always question them because the arrow of justice can be pointed in different directions using the same exact language with a different intention or meaning. Hence, my question of what is considered violence, is similar to when asking what is a human right. As defined by the victors of a struggle or something more fundamental? That sort of thing. I hope I'm not sounding crazy.
Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 19:44:
While things are certainly better than they were -- the lack of progress is really quite astounding and not understood by many/most of the white population. States are still passing laws and changing voting rules which have been proved in a court of law to be racially motivated against minorities. And then there are the actions of clowns like Joe Arpaio, which are more common than most are willing to admit. The amount of progress we've made in the last 50 years is maybe 25-50% of what needs to be accomplished. It is going to be a long, hard road.
Sepharo wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:27:While things are certainly better than they were -- the lack of progress is really quite astounding and not understood by many/most of the white population. States are still passing laws and changing voting rules which have been proved in a court of law to be racially motivated against minorities. And then there are the actions of clowns like Joe Arpaio, which are more common than most are willing to admit. The amount of progress we've made in the last 50 years is maybe 25-50% of what needs to be accomplished. It is going to be a long, hard road.On March 7, 1965, an estimated 525 to 600 civil rights marchers headed southeast out of Selma on U.S. Highway 80. The march was led by John Lewis of SNCC and the Reverend Hosea Williams of SCLC, followed by Bob Mants of SNCC and Albert Turner of SCLC. The protest went according to plan until the marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where they encountered a wall of state troopers and county posse waiting for them on the other side.
County Sheriff Jim Clark had issued an order for all white males in Dallas County over the age of twenty-one to report to the courthouse that morning to be deputized. Commanding officer John Cloud told the demonstrators to disband at once and go home. Rev. Hosea Williams tried to speak to the officer, but Cloud curtly informed him there was nothing to discuss. Seconds later, the troopers began shoving the demonstrators, knocking many to the ground and beating them with nightsticks. Another detachment of troopers fired tear gas, and mounted troopers charged the crowd on horseback.
This was just 50 years ago... 50 years ago a sheriff and his community was so threatened by a peaceful march of black americans, who wanted to exercise their constitutional right to vote, that they deputized the white male population so they could beat these people with immunity.
BobBob wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 18:15:
I understand what is taught in our history and the concepts of civil rights. I do question the truth of what is taught to us .. if it's a reality or a fantasy. As soon as there is mention of 'rights' be it civil or natural, one should always question them because the arrow of justice can be pointed in different directions using the same exact language with a different intention or meaning. Hence, my question of what is considered violence, is similar to when asking what is a human right. As defined by the victors of a struggle or something more fundamental? That sort of thing. I hope I'm not sounding crazy.
Sepharo wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:42:Just look what the Guard did to a protest in Ohio years ago. Trump would have loved it!BobBob wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:33:Sepharo wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:30:How?BobBob wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:17:Yes.
My question abridged: Is it possible to have a 'peaceful protest or march' without threats of violence?
You did not address the underlying philosophical question.
I guess I'm missing the underlying philosophical question. It looked to me like you were asking if a 'peaceable protest or march' was possible without violence. It definitely is. What am I missing?
Are you asking if the source of the threatened violence is important? Yes, if the protesters are threatening the violence, well then it's not constitutionally protected... But if the protesters are being threatened with violence for protesting, if the state does not protect them from that violence, their civil rights have been violated.
Sepharo wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:49:BobBob wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:45:Sepharo wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:42:BobBob wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:33:Sepharo wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:30:How?BobBob wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:17:Yes.
My question abridged: Is it possible to have a 'peaceful protest or march' without threats of violence?
You did not address the underlying philosophical question.
I guess I'm missing the underlying philosophical question. It looked to me like you were asking if a 'peaceable protest or march' was possible without violence. It definitely is. What am I missing?
Are you asking if the source of the threatened violence is important? Yes, if the protesters are threatening the violence, well then it's not constitutionally protected... But if the protesters are being threatened with violence for protesting, if the state does not protect them from that violence, their civil rights have been violated.
Well. Without some sort of protection or security, how does a peaceful protest remain secure and peaceful?
Try reading my second paragraph again. Violence against a peaceful protest doesn't make the protest not peaceful, at least not in the context of civil rights. You're getting stuck on some semantics.
BobBob wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:45:Sepharo wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:42:BobBob wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:33:Sepharo wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:30:How?BobBob wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:17:Yes.
My question abridged: Is it possible to have a 'peaceful protest or march' without threats of violence?
You did not address the underlying philosophical question.
I guess I'm missing the underlying philosophical question. It looked to me like you were asking if a 'peaceable protest or march' was possible without violence. It definitely is. What am I missing?
Are you asking if the source of the threatened violence is important? Yes, if the protesters are threatening the violence, well then it's not constitutionally protected... But if the protesters are being threatened with violence for protesting, if the state does not protect them from that violence, their civil rights have been violated.
Well. Without some sort of protection or security, how does a peaceful protest remain secure and peaceful?
Sepharo wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:42:BobBob wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:33:Sepharo wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:30:How?BobBob wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:17:Yes.
My question abridged: Is it possible to have a 'peaceful protest or march' without threats of violence?
You did not address the underlying philosophical question.
I guess I'm missing the underlying philosophical question. It looked to me like you were asking if a 'peaceable protest or march' was possible without violence. It definitely is. What am I missing?
Are you asking if the source of the threatened violence is important? Yes, if the protesters are threatening the violence, well then it's not constitutionally protected... But if the protesters are being threatened with violence for protesting, if the state does not protect them from that violence, their civil rights have been violated.
BobBob wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:33:Sepharo wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:30:How?BobBob wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:17:Yes.
My question abridged: Is it possible to have a 'peaceful protest or march' without threats of violence?
You did not address the underlying philosophical question.
Sepharo wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:30:BobBob wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:17:
My question abridged: Is it possible to have a 'peaceful protest or march' without threats of violence?
Yes.
BobBob wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:17:
My question abridged: Is it possible to have a 'peaceful protest or march' without threats of violence?
First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Cutter wrote on Jan 15, 2018, 17:18:
If people think it can't get worse than Trump they're dead wrong. And it's the elites both left and right that only have themselves to blame for it. Between the right trying to steal everything not nailed down and the left trying to forcibly shove PC bullshit down everyone else's throats something has to give. We saw the beginning of that sort of reaction with the assholes at G20 summits. Then Occupy. Then Trump. And it will continue. Yes those first two things don't line up with Trump but they're indicative of an unfolding pattern. Of history repeating itself. Study enough history and you've seen this played out a 1000 times before and you know exactly where it's headed and where it will end.