Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, M j M said:

You don't think it is, yes, very worrying that people die when restrained by police but even more worrying when they are not just disproportionately but majority non-white?

I was responding to the thrust of the article, which was to focus on the fact that more non-white people had died over the last year than white and this was somehow worthy of greater attention than when more white people died than non-white.  I find that a racist premise.

As I said in my post, ALL deaths following restraint by police should be investigated with equal vigour.  I said that in my post.  Have another look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Saintslass said:

I was responding to the thrust of the article, which was to focus on the fact that more non-white people had died over the last year than white and this was somehow worthy of greater attention than when more white people died than non-white.  I find that a racist premise.

As I said in my post, ALL deaths following restraint by police should be investigated with equal vigour.  I said that in my post.  Have another look.

You are conflating two things - the IPCC investigates all these regardless and will assess them equally based on the facts. No one has said otherwise.

But individual events looked at in granular detail lead to cumulative figures and indicative trends. It's a little astonishing if you can't see that both the individual events and the disturbing trends from those individual events can both be looked at in detail.

Perhaps it offends some on the right because, perhaps, the trends lead to conclusions they don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, M j M said:

You are conflating two things - the IPCC investigates all these regardless and will assess them equally based on the facts. No one has said otherwise.

But individual events looked at in granular detail lead to cumulative figures and indicative trends. It's a little astonishing if you can't see that both the individual events and the disturbing trends from those individual events can both be looked at in detail.

Perhaps it offends some on the right because, perhaps, the trends lead to conclusions they don't like.

Perhaps try reading the article, reading my post and then having a think.

Maybe then you may be led to a conclusion you don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saintslass said:

I was responding to the thrust of the article, which was to focus on the fact that more non-white people had died over the last year than white and this was somehow worthy of greater attention than when more white people died than non-white.  I find that a racist premise.

As I said in my post, ALL deaths following restraint by police should be investigated with equal vigour.  I said that in my post.  Have another look.

I would think any statistical quirk is looking into.  The question is how it can be looked into impartially.

To use the example of the USA, they did great efforts post-WW2 of setting up many of their white working people up in their own Government back homes.  This set up a white middle class and a post WW2 deal of college, work, respectability that is precious and understood.  Just as the NHS is valued as a WW2 deal in the UK, so that deal is there.  To attack it is taboo.  It was a bit racist though.

Then they had a federally endorsed system of segregation until the 1960's.

Then the USA reinvents itself as a nation at the forefront of racial equality and a melting pot.

Which leaves people genuinely confused as to why the backs are so different and behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kayakman said:

Its already gotten a little silly hasn't it...it really boils down to an argument about collective vs.individual rights (and who,of course, pays for it).

The critics often denounce the intersectional crowd because of their collectivism but I see it as the opposite. I think a lot of it comes from the American obsession with individuality. There is a theory that the End Times are approaching for Intersectionality because people will eventually break into smaller and smaller groups to gain extra victimhood points, thus elevating their place in the hierarchy of oppression. Within 5 years, a female, black, trans, disabled, immigrant Muslim will no longer have status because they will be supplanted by someone with more victim points.

I believe this is part of the reason why many gender trenders have adopted new, barely definable genders: white American women have no place in the Oppression totem pole. The rules are simple: the person with the most victim points gets the microphone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Owers said: “We need to look closely between the relationship between ethnicity and the use of force.”  :rolleyes:

One sentence explains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bob8 said:

At which point, who cares.

The same people who are daft above are also the ones who get upset at them.  SJW is a well placed insult when it is playing a computer game rather than dealing with real life.  Signing a petition, rather than volunteering to improve things.  Because, when we get to ground level work, a few Twitter or YouTube accounts do not matter much.

I see little difference between the SJW and the person who complains bitterly about how they would be banned from saying things if that were actually true rather than something they read in the Mail.

I think you're ignoring the power of modern digital media. Even the traditional bastions of media, like newspapers and TV networks, now get a lot of their content from Twitter and YouTube. I was researching some long-forgatten point about a year ago and I dug up the ratings for the CBS channel in Atlanta which has a potential viewer catchment of 6 million people. Its viewing numbers were so low that if it was a YouTube channel it would just scrape into the top 34,000.

Even a low-brow channel like Bearing gets more daily viewers than 90% of the programmes on OZ TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

This is true. Rachel Dolezal was an interesting example. Whilst identifying as whatever gender you like is a huge issue right now many of the same people had zero respect for her decision to identify as another culture. 

Rachel Dolezal produced more interesting side issues than the interest in her own story. Current dogma teaches us that:

- Gender is a social construct therefore it can be changed at will

- Race is a social construct but it can never be changed

Here's another favourite of mine:

- there's no possible evidence for differences in the hard-wiring of men and women

- gays are born hardwired as gay

The interesting secondary kerfuffle over Rachel Dolezal came when a feminist philosopher named Rebecca Tuvel published an article in a feminist philosophy journal, Hypatia, where she postulated that, since dogma maintains that race is a social construct then transracialism should be seen as a legitimate identity. Wow! She was instantly tarred and feathered and run out of the Sisterhood and the editors of the publication had to apologise for letting something so heretical slip through.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bob8 said:

http://www.beliefnet.com/news/2008/12/rick-warren-transcript.aspx?p=7

I attach an interview in which a rather conservative man called Rick Warren compares gay marriage to siblings getting married.  I attach this as it caused controversy, but I find it a reasonable comparison, even as someone who supports gay marriage.

We have a big cultural taboo against incest.  It is disgusting to many of us.  Clearly, they should not be able to have kids.

So far, it is similar to previous taboos against gay marriage.

Oddly it is fine for first cousins to marry in most countries, including UK and Australia. Since we have the capacity for genetic screening of potential parents there's no scientific reason why siblings shouldn't breed if neither carries any recessive genes but socially it just seems wrong. Possibly it goes back to tribal times when marriage was a way of improving a family's status or wealth and as a way of building alliances within communities. Under those conditions a family would have derived no benefit from an incestuous marriage.

The main reason I see against it is that the relationships we form with siblings should ideally be on the highest level of friendship which should transcend any sexual interest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saintslass said:

Excellent points. 

The concept of 'nuance' has been all but obliterated from public discourse in recent years.  

On your point about IVF, it is probably the liberalisation of single parenthood which will have increased the risk of incest but nobody in the political or indeed any other arena would dare raise this possibility.  I think the more liberalised and comparative our moral views become, the closer we get to being challenged on some very serious taboos.  

This one of the problems of the culture war and the dogmatic approach of both sides. I could hear practically any argument from SJWs and reply, "I agree but......" There is no room for expansion of ideas because that would threaten the solidarity of the group.

Aside from the single parent issue contributing to the greater risk of sibling relationships, the greatest contributor to gene pool contraction that we see in many societies is actually small "founder" populations of immigrants. The Ashkenazi Jews are one of the best examples. Jews first moved to Germany in tiny numbers and because they retained a preference for in-group marriage, even second cousins ended up very closely related. The same thing occurs with Pakistani populations in Britain, particularly where there is very little social mobility.

In Australia it's the Maltese, many of whom came from the island of Gozo which only had a population of under 20,000 back in the 60s when the "founder" population moved here. My landlord is from Gozo. His daughter married an OZ-born man from a Gozo family and his son married the guy's sister. They have 3 daughters and 2 are married to local Maltese guys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saintslass said:

Back to normal at the Guardian ...

:wink:

Seriously, though, this article concerns me.  The outgoing IPCC chief signals concern because over the last 12 months of 11 people who died after being restrained by police 6 were not white and she wants this to be looked at.  However, in the two previous years more white people have died after being restrained by police than non-white but it would appear nobody needs to look into that.

I find this attitude racist and I want it to stop.  ALL cases of death following restraint should be looked at with equal rigour; the colour of a person's skin should have no bearing upon the degree of that rigour.  

I just thought I'd throw this into the mix.

This is a hot button issue in Australia. The rate of Indigenous incarceration is mind-boggling. 3% of the population make up 27% of the prison population. At first glance this seems like it must be a typo and is generally interpreted as undeniable proof of racism. My first question though is, "How many of them are guilty?" Even worse, 48% of juvenile inmates are Indigenous.

Then there's the issue of deaths in custody. Whenever this happens the Outrage-Industrial Complex goes into overdrive. Every possible angle which could be labelled racism is examined but often the blatantly obvious is ignored - if he hadn't hanged himself, he wouldn't have died. The outrage these days is way out of proportion to the facts to the extent that the definition of "custody" has been expanded to keep the numbers up. I can think of two cases where the cops weren't within 100m of the victim and the victim hadn't even been apprehended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, M j M said:

You are conflating two things - the IPCC investigates all these regardless and will assess them equally based on the facts. No one has said otherwise.

But individual events looked at in granular detail lead to cumulative figures and indicative trends. It's a little astonishing if you can't see that both the individual events and the disturbing trends from those individual events can both be looked at in detail.

Perhaps it offends some on the right because, perhaps, the trends lead to conclusions they don't like.

If you like statistics, which I do, then you'll work out that the average rate of deaths in custody in UK is 329/year. Given the UK prison population of 95,000 this translates to a mortality rate of 3.43 per 1,000 while the national average death rate for the UK is 9 per 1,000.

One could draw the conclusion that, given the high concentration of violent people in prisons, the death rate is remarkably low. I checked the OZ stats for overall deaths in custody and they are remarkably similar in some respects to the general population - over 80% die of heart disease or cancer or old age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oxford said:

"Owers said: “We need to look closely between the relationship between ethnicity and the use of force.”  :rolleyes:

One sentence explains.

No. We need to look at the relevant circumstances in each individual case. The line you quoted says to me, "Decide which answer we want then arrange the evidence to support it."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Farmduck said:

This is a hot button issue in Australia. The rate of Indigenous incarceration is mind-boggling. 3% of the population make up 27% of the prison population. At first glance this seems like it must be a typo and is generally interpreted as undeniable proof of racism. My first question though is, "How many of them are guilty?" Even worse, 48% of juvenile inmates are Indigenous.

Then there's the issue of deaths in custody. Whenever this happens the Outrage-Industrial Complex goes into overdrive. Every possible angle which could be labelled racism is examined but often the blatantly obvious is ignored - if he hadn't hanged himself, he wouldn't have died. The outrage these days is way out of proportion to the facts to the extent that the definition of "custody" has been expanded to keep the numbers up. I can think of two cases where the cops weren't within 100m of the victim and the victim hadn't even been apprehended.

Indeed.

It is a reasonable question.  The danger is how many are asking that with the implication of there being even bigger social and societal issues at stake, and how many are asking thinking "those abos are just naturally criminal".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

Indeed.

It is a reasonable question.  The danger is how many are asking that with the implication of there being even bigger social and societal issues at stake, and how many are asking thinking "those abos are just naturally criminal".

Which all comes back to nuance and facts. You are right about the correct path - don't just complain about the figures, ask the next level of questions which might reveal more useful information. The next level of questions presents some classic SJW-type contradictions. The last crime stats I checked were for 2015 (I think) and 14 indigenous people were homicide victims. In 11 cases the perpetrators were Aboriginal. If there is a genocide of Indigenous people then they are the ones doing it.

One of the biggest offences among Aboriginal prisoners is called "Judicial proceedings." This includes breaching Apprehended Violence Orders (generally related to domestic violence), breach of good behaviour bonds, breach of parole, failure to complete non-custodial sentences such as diversion programmes.

So here's your next contradiction. The only way to keep Aboriginal women safe is to keep locking up their husbands. Many of these cases probably come from small communities where, if the perpetrator isn't locked up, the only place he can go is back to the same community. What is a magistrate supposed to do?

Another large proportion of Indigenous in Custody is people on remand. They don't get bail in many cases because they have no fixed address or they have a history of not turning up or they were already under judicial order from a previous offence. The only way to cut these numbers would be to have a separate set of laws for Indigenous people - the very definition of institutionalised racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Wiltshire Rhino said:

 

I stick up for a hard line evangelical preacher and I get this!

There is no pleasing you!

:D

It is a weird one though, as it pits Goverment Out vs social conservatism.  It is disgusting.  Ron Paul would say, "so what", Rand Paul would say "Ban it".

Edited by Bob8
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Farmduck said:

Which all comes back to nuance and facts. You are right about the correct path - don't just complain about the figures, ask the next level of questions which might reveal more useful information. 

Exactly.  The 'next level of questions' is rarely explored.  On a different issue - the NHS (of course - I'm in the UK!) - I challenged the Daily Telegraph yesterday because it simply repeated the story about the elderly lady who had been left waiting over four hours for an ambulance and had died in the meantime (that is truly shocking).  I asked the Daily Telegraph - to no effect obviously - why they hadn't investigated the story further.  Yes, waiting four hours for an ambulance is unacceptable in any circumstance but why was she waiting that long?  It was simply presented as being the government's fault and all to do with lack of money.  Why would more money have made that ambulance turn up within four hours? What calls were preferred over this lady's?  Was her age a factor?  Is there inherent ageism within the NHS?  Was a mistake made by the call handler?  

I'm not sure what that has to do with the conversation at hand but your point about asking the next level of questions made me think of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wiltshire Rhino said:

 

Mark Dice desperately trying to make some moral equivalence between incest and gay marriage. I notice nearly everyone he interviewed immediately raise the possible genetic complications. What are the genetic issues surrounding gay sex? After that everyone of them repeated the traditional Republican mantra - consenting adults in their own homes should be free from Government interference. Basically he has proven that traditional Republicans support incest.

Another connection that he could have made was that conservative Southern States which have generally been anti-gay also have the fewest restrictions on having sex with animals. So what's that all about?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Farmduck said:

The main reason I see against it is that the relationships we form with siblings should ideally be on the highest level of friendship which should transcend any sexual interest.

The one group of people we should feel completely safe with sexually is our family.  If we cannot feel safe with our fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters, where can we feel safe?  Allow incest in and all manner of horrors walk right in the door with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Farmduck said:

Mark Dice desperately trying to make some moral equivalence between incest and gay marriage. I notice nearly everyone he interviewed immediately raise the possible genetic complications. What are the genetic issues surrounding gay sex? After that everyone of them repeated the traditional Republican mantra - consenting adults in their own homes should be free from Government interference. Basically he has proven that traditional Republicans support incest.

In days of yore, a case for moral equivalence would have been obvious as both were considered sexual deviance.  That is no longer the case in some societies but obviously not all by a long stretch. 

Quote

Another connection that he could have made was that conservative Southern States which have generally been anti-gay also have the fewest restrictions on having sex with animals. So what's that all about?

Have you been to the Deep South?  There is a definite feeling of other worldliness about the region!  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

The one group of people we should feel completely safe with sexually is our family.  If we cannot feel safe with our fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters, where can we feel safe?  Allow incest in and all manner of horrors walk right in the door with it.

Despite what Mark Dice is attempting to imply in the above video I have seen and read a huge amount of feminist and SJW material and I have never seen anyone, except Lena Dunham, advocate or endorse incest.

I think there are different incest situations. Sex between a parent and a child should always be out because of the power dynamic in that relationship, regardless of the ages of the participants. I can see cases where siblings might be OK. If both people were over 30 and had been through sexual relationships with other partners over the years and had some considerable life experience then I guess I would have no objection.

I think the power dynamic is central for me to a lot of issues around sex, like teachers and students or bosses and employees. Where it is clearly asymmetrical, I would have issues because we all know that coercion and manipulation can take many forms. That's not to say that all allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace are 100% true but more that I think each case needs to be judged on its merits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I suspected silly stuff under the guise of the OP/thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

In days of yore, a case for moral equivalence would have been obvious as both were considered sexual deviance.  That is no longer the case in some societies but obviously not all by a long stretch. 

Have you been to the Deep South?  There is a definite feeling of other worldliness about the region!  

I've never been there but it has so many contradictions. For instance, the first two black Senators elected in the USA, were both from Mississippi and both in the 1870s when surely racism must have been very rampant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Oxford said:

As I suspected silly stuff under the guise of the OP/thread.

Not really. Mark Dice is an active player in the Culture Wars and he is employing a standard tactic of the Right, the old reliable strawman. It was becoming quite common in 2017 for Conservatives to criticise the SJWs for endorsing pedophilia also. Again, apart from Lena Dunham, I don't know any prominent person who endorsed it. Bear in mind that the USA Age of Consent is 18, very high by international standards, although there are regular cases of State-endorsed pedophilia - in many States, mainly conservative, 13-year-olds can get married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express Yearbook 2018/19 - Order Now


Rugby League World - Nov 2018

Rugby League World - Nov 2018



League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday