If it's not ok to fund white bigots then it's not ok to fund non-white bigots. It's pretty obvious the KKK et al, BLM/antifa, and BAMN all have self-serving agendas aligned along various lines, all under the guise of making the world a better place, of course.
Of reported persons who died during the process of arrest, 95 percent were male. About 42 percent were white, 32 percent were black/African American and 20 percent were Hispanic or Latino. More than half (55 percent) were between ages 25 and 44, and juveniles (persons under age 18) were about three percent of all arrest-related deaths.
Among persons who committed suicide during the process of arrest, 60 percent were white, 20 percent were Hispanic or Latino and 15 percent were black/African American. About 12 percent of persons who committed suicide during the process of arrest allegedly committed homicide during or prior to the arrest.
Of reported arrest-related deaths by intoxication, black/African Americans were 41 percent of persons who died, whites were 34 percent and Hispanic or Latinos were 21 percent. During an arrest, females were more likely than males to die of intoxication (16 percent compared to 11 percent) and natural causes (12 percent compared to five percent).
This one does contradict but only when the suspect is drunk.
Over the seven year period when the arrest-related deaths were reported to BJS, the FBI estimated that state and local law enforcement officers made nearly 98 million arrests.
5000 arrest related deaths over 98 million.. Not nearly as bad as the media makes it out to be, but I'm sure we can agree that we'd like it closer to 0.
virtue signaling is when someone is trying to make sure his comrades know he doesn't agree with the politically incorrect position. He's not necessarily interested in actually making a point one way or the other or achieving anything relevant.
It is virtue signaling. If corporate execs cared about the bottom line, they'd be as a-political as possible. The public line would be "We love people who love our products."
Irrational belief often leads to violence, especially when other expression is suppressed. White nationalists/KKK are no different than BLM or antifa. They each have self-interested, identity driven agendas and try to claim the moral high ground, the former based on a claim of supremacy, the latter under the guise of equality. Idiocy all around.
Just like the term 'social progress' holds no weight with me. It is thoroughly tainted by tyranny and used as a justification for all sorts of atrocities over the years. It is well loved by both communists and nazis alike.
Better shoes? Who defines what is 'better'? The state? Corporate oligarchy? Mob rule? Some other clique that's overstayed its welcome? I'll just wear the shoes I want, thanks.
Yeah, and antifa and blm are quite active and open about their racial opinions on major college campuses and mainstream society.. what's your point? In my view, they all have the right to express themselves. I want to know about the moonbats regardless where they sit on the spectrum.
I dare to take the bold stance that words are not actions. Did you think I would change my mind because the silenced group is reprehensible? Silencing people is not a way to get them to change their minds, and if they're nutty, I'd rather them vent online with words and know what they're thinking than feel the need to switch over to action.
I based my statements on your GP. ISPs should provide access and/or hosting if they choose, but they should not be able to dictate user content so long as it is not harmful to the network itself (eg malware hosting). Yes, that is my opinion. No, I am not making a legal argument.
You argued that it's ok to use the decency act to shutdown a site. Can they do it legally? Probably. Should they have? No. It's an easy slippery slope towards silencing other views down the road.
Yes, insults are speech, too. The crime itself was not speech. It was a chosen action that resulted in someone's death and the perpetrator should be prosecuted accordingly.
Do you think google (all hosting providers actually) should pull the plug on antifa, blm, and bamn sites for the same behavior? I'd rather everyone have the right to express their views online. I can choose what to read without big institutions (public or private) filtering for me.
Incitement is bogus reasoning. Others still choose whether to do what these idiots say to do. The ones who commit violence should be punished. (notice I did not make a legal argument here, this is an opinion)
Silencing political speech is really a moral issue, not a legal one, because any laws passed were based on the morals of those who passed them. Don't equate the two. It's often circular reasoning.
Slashdot Mirror
oh you want a file explorer? that'll be $2.99, thanks. You should have everything in the cloud anyway.. it's only $10/mo for 1TB!
Welcome to slashdot. It still works better than 99% of internet discussion boards where people with out of band positions are simply banned.
If it's not ok to fund white bigots then it's not ok to fund non-white bigots. It's pretty obvious the KKK et al, BLM/antifa, and BAMN all have self-serving agendas aligned along various lines, all under the guise of making the world a better place, of course.
Anyway, it's a little more complicated than you suggest.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pu...
Of reported persons who died during the process of arrest, 95 percent were male. About 42 percent were white, 32 percent were black/African American and 20 percent were Hispanic or Latino. More than half (55 percent) were between ages 25 and 44, and juveniles (persons under age 18) were about three percent of all arrest-related deaths.
Among persons who committed suicide during the process of arrest, 60 percent were white, 20 percent were Hispanic or Latino and 15 percent were black/African American. About 12 percent of persons who committed suicide during the process of arrest allegedly committed homicide during or prior to the arrest.
Of reported arrest-related deaths by intoxication, black/African Americans were 41 percent of persons who died, whites were 34 percent and Hispanic or Latinos were 21 percent. During an arrest, females were more likely than males to die of intoxication (16 percent compared to 11 percent) and natural causes (12 percent compared to five percent).
This one does contradict but only when the suspect is drunk.
Over the seven year period when the arrest-related deaths were reported to BJS, the FBI estimated that state and local law enforcement officers made nearly 98 million arrests.
5000 arrest related deaths over 98 million.. Not nearly as bad as the media makes it out to be, but I'm sure we can agree that we'd like it closer to 0.
Perhaps it is you who buys into cultish propaganda.
That applies to any food.
No, they just don't want wives who were raised with irrational views and expectations of men.
That advice applies to everyone, not just white males.
How about we just respect the personal liberties of individuals regardless of irrelevant attributes?
Just lump them under 'authoritarian' and leave it at that.
virtue signaling is when someone is trying to make sure his comrades know he doesn't agree with the politically incorrect position. He's not necessarily interested in actually making a point one way or the other or achieving anything relevant.
It is virtue signaling. If corporate execs cared about the bottom line, they'd be as a-political as possible. The public line would be "We love people who love our products."
Irrational belief often leads to violence, especially when other expression is suppressed. White nationalists/KKK are no different than BLM or antifa. They each have self-interested, identity driven agendas and try to claim the moral high ground, the former based on a claim of supremacy, the latter under the guise of equality. Idiocy all around.
I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if a service dropped a BLM or antifa channel.
Just like the term 'social progress' holds no weight with me. It is thoroughly tainted by tyranny and used as a justification for all sorts of atrocities over the years. It is well loved by both communists and nazis alike.
Better shoes? Who defines what is 'better'? The state? Corporate oligarchy? Mob rule? Some other clique that's overstayed its welcome? I'll just wear the shoes I want, thanks.
Yeah, and antifa and blm are quite active and open about their racial opinions on major college campuses and mainstream society.. what's your point? In my view, they all have the right to express themselves. I want to know about the moonbats regardless where they sit on the spectrum.
I dare to take the bold stance that words are not actions. Did you think I would change my mind because the silenced group is reprehensible? Silencing people is not a way to get them to change their minds, and if they're nutty, I'd rather them vent online with words and know what they're thinking than feel the need to switch over to action.
I based my statements on your GP. ISPs should provide access and/or hosting if they choose, but they should not be able to dictate user content so long as it is not harmful to the network itself (eg malware hosting). Yes, that is my opinion. No, I am not making a legal argument.
You argued that it's ok to use the decency act to shutdown a site. Can they do it legally? Probably. Should they have? No. It's an easy slippery slope towards silencing other views down the road.
I'm not sure I can be more clear than that.
Yes, insults are speech, too. The crime itself was not speech. It was a chosen action that resulted in someone's death and the perpetrator should be prosecuted accordingly.
That is true. Was google hosting their content or just their DNS? I thought it was their DNS.
Do you think google (all hosting providers actually) should pull the plug on antifa, blm, and bamn sites for the same behavior? I'd rather everyone have the right to express their views online. I can choose what to read without big institutions (public or private) filtering for me.
Incitement is bogus reasoning. Others still choose whether to do what these idiots say to do. The ones who commit violence should be punished. (notice I did not make a legal argument here, this is an opinion)
Silencing political speech is really a moral issue, not a legal one, because any laws passed were based on the morals of those who passed them. Don't equate the two. It's often circular reasoning.
non sequitur.
botnets used to disrupt the network != unpopular political speech.
Yeah.. who defines what is objectionable?
Just don't visit sites of organizations you don't want to hear from. It's not that hard. There's no need to deplatform anyone with lame DoS.
Just as you have no right to not be offended by neo-nazis.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it -Evelyn Beatrice Hall/Patrick Henry/Voltaire et al