USA Politics (redux)

Started by bhodges, November 10, 2020, 01:09:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Karl Henning

Quote from: drogulus on April 02, 2021, 03:31:43 PM
     
     I've seen enough leftist performance art in my life, thank you.

No kidding.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

greg

Quote from: André on April 02, 2021, 01:54:26 PM
I don't recall you questioning Trump's policies, statements, flat out lies or anything. And yet you had 4 years' worth  of overabundant material to question...
I questioned him before he even became president, I always found his personality very off-putting.

This place is overwhelmingly anti-Trump, why would I get into a discussion where everyone agrees with me, as well as the status quo media? You're questioning him, I'm questioning him, we are all in agreement, what fun is that?

And there was at least one time I remember criticizing him (probably more than once), probably people here might remember.
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

Daverz

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 02, 2021, 06:05:52 PM
No kidding.

Well, I don't know that it's all that different from Jennifer Rubin opinion pieces, just with a different ideology.

But don't worry, guys, if I find it's a waste of time I'll go back to my usual diet of rescued farm fox and river otters videos.

Herman

Quote from: greg on April 02, 2021, 06:34:43 PM
I questioned him before he even became president, I always found his personality very off-putting.

This place is overwhelmingly anti-Trump, why would I get into a discussion where everyone agrees with me, as well as the status quo media? You're questioning him, I'm questioning him, we are all in agreement, what fun is that?

And there was at least one time I remember criticizing him (probably more than once), probably people here might remember.

This is a giant revision of the actual record.

You were 100% ready to keep giving Trump the benefit of the doubt in 2020, even as hundreds of thousands of Americans were dying.

Herman

Quote from: greg on April 02, 2021, 12:25:17 PM
Actually, I think the George Floyd story might possibly be a good example of the point I'm making.

At first, the narrative from the MSM, and whatever sources people might find trustworthy, was just that the officer just flat out murdered him in broad daylight because he's racist.

Which seems unbelievably shocking, and things that seem unbelievable should always be questioned...

Only unbelievably shocking if you're unaware of all the other times police officers flat out killed a black dude, because they said they were not sure whether the victim was armed. In the case of Floyd this wasn't even an issue.
BLM is a product of all these shootings. However, in your world, BLM is a bunch of antifa radicals that want to burn down cities, and the Kyle kid from Illinois had a reason to go toi Wisconsin and shoot some folks.

QuoteAnd as we are learning, there are probably more contributing factors to the case. So yeah, just questioning everything is the way to go.

Chauvin's lawyer is desperately trying to make a defense case out of crazy stuff like "bystanders telling the cops to stop killing Floyd made him kill Floyd". It's the usual thing of reading crazy rightwing sources and saying "I guess that makes sense, too".

Fëanor

Quote from: greg on April 02, 2021, 12:25:17 PM
Actually, I think the George Floyd story might possibly be a good example of the point I'm making.

At first, the narrative from the MSM, and whatever sources people might find trustworthy, was just that the officer just flat out murdered him in broad daylight because he's racist.

Which seems unbelievably shocking, and things that seem unbelievable should always be questioned...

And as we are learning, there are probably more contributing factors to the case. So yeah, just questioning everything is the way to go.

It's clear the Chauvin killed Floyd.  Rationally what isn't so clear is whether (a) it was a racist act, and/or (b) whether he killed him intentionally.  Personally I haven't heard any evidence that could prove either beyond reasonable doubt.

Assuming the answers are "No", it's obvious that Chauvin used excessive force contrary to police training and Minneapolis police practices.  Personally it sounds like "manslaughter" as the term is typically used.  I believe the state prosecutor has charge him with "unintentional 2nd degree murder":  how that differs from manslaughter I don't know but assuming it's essentially the same, that sounds like a reasonable charge.

He should be found guilty of something and I'm confident he will.  However I hope the jury isn't swayed to insist on intentional murder based on racist motivation -- unless further evidence is forthcoming.


Spotted Horses

Quote from: Fëanor on April 03, 2021, 06:30:38 AM
It's clear the Chauvin killed Floyd.  Rationally what isn't so clear is whether (a) it was a racist act, and/or (b) whether he killed him intentionally.  Personally I haven't heard any evidence that could prove either beyond reasonable doubt.

Assuming the answers are "No", it's obvious that Chauvin used excessive force contrary to police training and Minneapolis police practices.  Personally it sounds like "manslaughter" as the term is typically used.  I believe the state prosecutor has charge him with "unintentional 2nd degree murder":  how that differs from manslaughter I don't know but assuming it's essentially the same, that sounds like a reasonable charge.

He should be found guilty of something and I'm confident he will.  However I hope the jury isn't swayed to insist on intentional murder based on racist motivation -- unless further evidence is forthcoming.

He is not being tried for intentional murder. Murder statutes are different in every U.S. state and qualifications are very complicated. Ordinarily first degree murder is pre-meditated. Second degree murder requires the the defendant intended to cause harm without necessarily intending to kill. Manslaughter may be appropriate when the death resulted from negligence rather than malice, or the defendant was provoked. In the state of New York, where I lived for some time, a person can be convicted of second degree murder if the defendant shows "a depraved indifference to human life." I have no doubt that is the case here. Chauvin continued to pin Floyd by the neck while Floyd begged for his life, according to multiple witnesses, and his own body camera. An off duty fireman called 911 on Chauvin and testified she asked to be allowed to check Floyd's vital signs and Chauvin refused. By the time Chauvin took his knee off Floyd's neck the man was dead. He exhibited a depraved indifference to human life, whether or not it was predicated on racism.
There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind. - Duke Ellington

Fëanor

Quote from: Spotted Horses on April 03, 2021, 08:42:06 AM
He {Chauvin} is not being tried for intentional murder {of Floyd}. Murder statutes are different in every U.S. state and qualifications are very complicated. Ordinarily first degree murder is pre-meditated. Second degree murder requires the the defendant intended to cause harm without necessarily intending to kill. Manslaughter may be appropriate when the death resulted from negligence rather than malice, or the defendant was provoked. In the state of New York, where I lived for some time, a person can be convicted of second degree murder if the defendant shows "a depraved indifference to human life." I have no doubt that is the case here. Chauvin continued to pin Floyd by the neck while Floyd begged for his life, according to multiple witnesses, and his own body camera. An off duty fireman called 911 on Chauvin and testified she asked to be allowed to check Floyd's vital signs and Chauvin refused. By the time Chauvin took his knee off Floyd's neck the man was dead. He exhibited a depraved indifference to human life, whether or not it was predicated on racism.

Thank you for your lawyerly explanation.  Based on your explanation of 2nd degree murder, I agreed that Chauvin "exhibited a depraved indifference to human life" and is guilty of the charged.  Demonstrating racist motivation isn't necessary to a conviction, (however it might have been the case).  I'm optimistic that he will be convicted.

You point out that each US state has its own criminal definitions.  Here in Canada there is only one, Federal, criminal law.

Spotted Horses

Quote from: Fëanor on April 03, 2021, 09:04:43 AM
Thank you for your lawyerly explanation.  Based on your explanation of 2nd degree murder, I agreed that Chauvin "exhibited a depraved indifference to human life" and is guilty of the charged.  Demonstrating racist motivation isn't necessary to a conviction, (however it might have been the case).  I'm optimistic that he will be convicted.

You point out that each US state has its own criminal definitions.  Here in Canada there is only one, Federal, criminal law.

...although I am no Lawyer, and the trial is not in New York.

I lived in Canada for a year and a half and I was shocked at the conduct of the police. They were humane. In any encounter with the public the default tactic is intimidation. The police in the U.S. kill 5 times as many people as in Canada, per capita. Racism is only part of the problem.
There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind. - Duke Ellington

Karl Henning

Quote from: Spotted Horses on April 03, 2021, 09:16:43 AM
...although I am no Lawyer, and the trial is not in New York.

I lived in Canada for a year and a half and I was shocked at the conduct of the police. They were humane. In any encounter with the public the default tactic is intimidation. The police in the U.S. kill 5 times as many people as in Canada, per capita. Racism is only part of the problem.

There's none of that "only the guilty have anything to fear," here.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

greg

Quote from: Herman on April 02, 2021, 11:30:53 PM
This is a giant revision of the actual record.

You were 100% ready to keep giving Trump the benefit of the doubt in 2020, even as hundreds of thousands of Americans were dying.
Giving the benefit of the doubt sometimes, criticizing/questioning other times.
Giving the benefit of the doubt towards Trump sometimes = questioning YOU people, who wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt EVER.
Also I never gave him 100% the benefit of the doubt.

You people = Trump is 100% racist, no questioning that narrative whatsoever.

Me = he's sure not a saint, but perhaps you are looking into things a bit too much. ("Dog-whistling?" lol)
He may or may not be racist, there is a LOT of grey area there, perhaps he is, but even if so, I think you people are overestimating the extremity of it.


So every instance equals questioning. Just the target is different. That is consistent.



And you don't have to throw in the dying Americans thing, that has nothing to do with what I have ever discussed about Trump.



Quote from: Fëanor on April 03, 2021, 06:30:38 AM
It's clear the Chauvin killed Floyd.  Rationally what isn't so clear is whether (a) it was a racist act, and/or (b) whether he killed him intentionally.  Personally I haven't heard any evidence that could prove either beyond reasonable doubt.
It just seems like both are responsible. A healthy/non drug-taking person probably wouldn't have died in the scenario, but the way Chauvin handled it (regardless if it's following procedures), very likely contributed. Just my guess. But yeah, it's just a mess.




Quote from: Herman on April 03, 2021, 12:18:00 AM
Only unbelievably shocking if you're unaware of all the other times police officers flat out killed a black dude, because they said they were not sure whether the victim was armed. In the case of Floyd this wasn't even an issue.
Can you share with me the stats of how many unarmed black Americans were killed by police each year for the last 5 or so years?

"Shocking" because it was captured on video. That doesn't happen often, everyone found it shocking and that's not a case at all against me in any way, it was shocking enough to provoke protests and riots for months.


Quote from: Herman on April 03, 2021, 12:18:00 AM
BLM is a product of all these shootings. However, in your world, BLM is a bunch of antifa radicals that want to burn down cities, and the Kyle kid from Illinois had a reason to go toi Wisconsin and shoot some folks.
Dude. Can you just tell me once and for all if you are intentionally misrepresenting everything I talk about, or you are just misunderstanding?
Because your track record of this is so vast I can't even count the times you get it wrong.
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

Daverz

Quote from: greg on April 03, 2021, 03:30:51 PM
You people = Trump is 100% racist, no questioning that narrative whatsoever.

"He's not 100% racist" sounds like bargaining to me.




SimonNZ

#2352
Quote from: greg on April 02, 2021, 12:25:17 PM
Actually, I think the George Floyd story might possibly be a good example of the point I'm making.

At first, the narrative from the MSM, and whatever sources people might find trustworthy, was just that the officer just flat out murdered him in broad daylight because he's racist.

Which seems unbelievably shocking, and things that seem unbelievable should always be questioned...

And as we are learning, there are probably more contributing factors to the case. So yeah, just questioning everything is the way to go.

It wasn't the "narrative of the MSM" it was the footage captured by bystanders - which, in case you forget, you have argued here as being the best source. The "contributing factors", if you want to call them that, come from reports from official bodies and are reported through the MSM, which you have argued are the worst.

My feeling is that you are a consistent apologist for racist speech and actions and you'll accept any avenue that allows some downplaying and sweeping under the rug of obvious racism.

greg

#2353
Quote from: Daverz on April 03, 2021, 04:04:21 PM
"He's not 100% racist" sounds like bargaining to me.
There's a scale for almost everything. I think people tend to overestimate how bad he is in some ways. Remember people saying he is "literally Hitler?"
Given all the information provided over time and thinking about all of the possible doubts, it's hard to say that he is quite as racist as people think.
I know Hitler was racist, no need to question that. But Trump? He gets into some very questionable territory, but for me that just isn't enough to jump on the "literally Hitler" bandwagon.



Quote from: SimonNZ on April 03, 2021, 05:02:46 PM
It wasn't the "narrative of the MSM" it was the footage captured by bystanders - which, in case you forget, you have argued here as being the best source. The "contributing factors", if you want to call them that, come from reports from official bodies and are reported through the MSM, which you have argued are the worst.
Yeah, direct footage is the best source. But they didn't release all of the footage immediately, some of it came out later.
At least that's what I remember- if I'm wrong, correct me.

Nothing is infallible, you can film something in a certain way to fit your point of view. But it's much harder than being a journalist writing whatever he wants according to his political perspective.
That's why police have bodycams now, video is much better than he said/she said.
The narrative of the MSM was that a racist police officer killed a unarmed black man for no reason. Maybe? We'll just see how everything turns out.




Quote from: SimonNZ on April 03, 2021, 05:02:46 PM
My feeling is that you are a consistent apologist for racist speech and actions and you'll accept any avenue that allows some downplaying and sweeping under the rug of obvious racism.
That is one crazy perspective. Asking "was that really racist?" is not being a racism apologist. That's just really messed up to view someone that way.

So with the case of that one time SJWs cancelled a Magic:The Gathering card because it was an orc, and orcs reminded them of black people, if you were confronted with a question of whether that was racist or not, what would you say?
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

SimonNZ


greg

Quote from: SimonNZ on April 03, 2021, 08:36:39 PM
No.
Not here, maybe. But online, for sure.
The sentiment here seems to be not far off. If my perception is wrong about that, that can be discussed. I'm open to different viewpoints on the facts of that.

Maybe if people knew what the enneagram 5w4 is like, they would understand me better, because I think it's a pretty good description. My motivation is not to apologize or make excuses for blatantly racist speech. That would just be bizarre IMO, why would anyone do that?

The type is called "The Iconoclast" for a reason. They want to challenge the status quo, and aren't afraid of going into taboo territory. The status quo here is what I mentioned. I like to challenge stuff like that, it's like the complete opposite of caving into peer pressure. Make people challenge their worldview. Make myself challenge my own worldview, which I have done many times to myself.

Maybe that would help. But it's probably hopeless. When people have an extremely solidified worldview, it's triggering to even question any of it at all.  And instead of trying to understand, only getting personal attacks. :-\
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

SimonNZ

#2356
I can't say what's happening at some corner of the internet where they don't know the meaning of the word "literally", and I don't know why you'd feel they represented the wider conversation. I'd say try serious journalism, but "it's probably hopeless".

In places more worthwhile they have commented every time Trump and his enablers used a page from the authoritarian playbook and drawn specific parallels in his words and actions to events from the past. And the "othering" and attempted scapegoating of specific non white and non christian groups to solidify with manufactured grievance a nationalist base was blatantly and obviously racist and easily called to mind moments in history including, yes, Germany in the 30s and to refuse to see it one needs - how did you put it? - "an extremely solidified worldview".

I have absolutely no interest in you considering yourself an "iconoclast". Saying that is going to make me take you less seriously, not more.

Herman

#2357
Quote from: greg on April 03, 2021, 07:50:54 PM
There's a scale for almost everything. I think people tend to overestimate how bad he is in some ways. Remember people saying he is "literally Hitler?"

Frankly, no. But obviously I don't go to online places you do.
It has never been the standard narrative.
It took the Times years to use the word "lie" in the same sentence as "Trump".

You're probably making this "literally Hitler" thing up.

Herman

Quote from: greg on April 03, 2021, 09:05:03 PM
Maybe if people knew what the enneagram 5w4 is like, they would understand me better, because I think it's a pretty good description.

As ever you're eager to make this about your wonderful psyche.
FYI most people here are adults.

DavidW

Quote from: greg on April 03, 2021, 09:05:03 PM
Maybe if people knew what the enneagram 5w4 is like, they would understand me better, because I think it's a pretty good description.

So an online quiz told you that were a philosopher and your reaction is to try to lean into this by acting like a Karen (the exact opposite)?  BTW if you were truly were an iconoclast you would be widely read instead of disparaging of any written form of journalism.

Please Greg you are embarrassing yourself.