So, let me check that I've got this straight. Are you saying that the way to deal with the issues of inner city ghettos, gang violence, gun crime, drugs and police brutality is to ban rap music?
As I recall, hip-hop/rap music sprang out of a need for disenfranchised youth of low-income areas to have a "voice" and speak out about the social, economic and political realities of their lives. However, it appears that rap music doesn't agree with your sensibilities and you somehow think that it's the music that the issue rather than being a symptom of a major problem in the U.S.
I wonder how you would want "Black" people to respond to negative outside influences? Maybe tip their hat and say "Yes Masser"?
Your attitude reminds me of the Christian right back in the late 70s when they were complaining about backwards satanic messages in rock music. The problem isn't the music and trying to ban freedom of expression is part of the problem.
I don't think I can play a Race card as I'm not a member of a minority. So, assuming that I wish to subscribe to your views, what would you suggest? Maybe ban rap music? Also, we could introduce segregation so that rap fans have to sit at the back of the bus and aren't allowed to use the same toilets as non-rap fans.
I don't dispute your opinions (opinions are like arseholes - everyone's got one and they all stink).
You may have got your cause and effect mixed up. Maybe it's that people who are placed at a distinct disadvantage by "greater society", (not to mention a greater risk of violence by the police) have chosen to participate in a sub-culture as a way of dealing with the inequities.
Anyhoo, whether you're right or wrong, your opinion sounds racist and is not a helpful sentiment to be expressing (unless you enjoy belittling minority cultures).
Hmm, not sure if I'm replying to a troll, but here goes.
Your comment could be applied to any counter-culture (e.g. 60's long haired hippies), but the way that you're applying it here makes you sound like a racist fuck.
Just to fill you in - my first response in this series of posts was to refute an Anonymous Coward who claimed:
The EU is a police state, far more than the US.
I'm glad to have proved your point (although you only just mentioned it, so I don't know how anyone else was supposed to work out what the hell your point was), but I'm afraid that your assertion of
The US has it's issues. Only we don't act like we don't have any, while constantly accusing Europeans of them.
is ironic given the nature of the post that prompted my replies.
So, can you please point me towards the "evidence" you mention so that I can educate myself and not have my facts so clearly wrong in future?
P.S. I wasn't alive in either World War, so I do apologise for any wrong-doings, but it was somewhat beyond my control.
Did I miss a memo? Moscow is in Europe now? I'd better run and tell Putin as he seems to be wanting to start a war with Europe - how he'll laugh when he finds out his mistake!
Honestly, here in the UK, police violence tends to get newspaper headlines as there's been history of institutional racism in a lot of police forces. It's not something that typically get brushed under the carpet, but instead is used more as a political bargaining chip.
Thank you for joining this discussion. However, you seem to be trying to devolve this into a "the land-mass I live on is better than the land-mass you live on" debate.
I assume you're referring to the whole Nazi Germany thing and yes, I imagine that the situation in the U.S. is somewhat better than Nazi Germany. Well done in setting yourself a high standard there.
I'm not sure who you think I am, but I'm not aware that I'm doing anything with/for/against the "will of the people". You do realise we're posting on Slashdot, right? Are you having one of your delusions where you're a member of the secret world council again?
With just a brief checking of facts, it appears that you are flat out wrong about "much of Europe abolished the death penalty as part of European integration". Have a look at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html/ for the official banning of the death penalty by country.
You seem to have a strange, paranoid view of Europeans, so I'd guess that you've never travelled very much. I'd recommend going to other countries as travel really does broaden the mind and gives you a better perspective. (You also learn that people are really the same everywhere and cultural stereotypes are just that - stereotypes).
I think you're deluding yourself if you think that hundreds of people get shot by police in Europe and it's just not reported. That's simply not the case and I defy you to show me any evidence that the press ignore police shootings.
I personally think it's wrong to kill people over mere property and I don't believe that the average person is a good judge of when to use "deadly force". Higher rates of killing is definitely wrong no matter what excuses are presented, but then there's such a huge cultural difference between the U.S. and Europe that we think that capital punishment is barbaric.
If you get a chance to view any of the articles (there's plenty more to be found, by the way) then you'll see that the difference is large enough to make your distinctions moot. I'm not saying that the statistics can't be distorted (as almost all stats are) but when you're 70x more likely to be shot by the police in the U.S. than any of the "1st world" countries, then it devalues accusations of Europe being a police state when it comes from a U.S. citizen (assuming you are).
I don't have easy access to the raw stats, so here's some relevant news stories that do quote some stats. I doubt that the stats are cherry-picked as there's such a clear difference between the US and the rest of the world:
The right to anonymity is an essential part of freedom/free speech. Deciding whether to sign in or not should not have any bearing on the validity of any arguments espoused. Just because you feel safe enough to post comments under a username does not mean that everyone has that same luxury.
Maybe, but there's a lot less gunning down of civilians by the police in Europe compared to the U.S. (I don't know whether that's down to less racism or less guns or some other socio-political difference).
Yes, music typically does have a political slant, but it's very unlikely that you could blackmail someone for their taste in music. e.g. Someone running for political office and you try to bring them down by pointing out that they're fans of Chumbawamba or Billy Bragg? I can't see that it would be that effective.
I've seen reports of them filming demonstrations etc, but I think the facial recognition is relatively new to them. Reminds me, where did I leave my Scramble Suit?
In my experience of music festivals in the UK, the police tend to have relatively low profile and are there to stop any major problems rather than hassling the people who are just there to enjoy themselves. They've even been known to turn a blind eye to the occasional illegal intoxicant (but you'd better not rub it in their faces).
I'd prefer to have cops at music festivals as otherwise the criminal element get a bit gung-ho with stealing tents and stabbing rival drug gangs etc.
I'd be more concerned about facial recognition used at a political rally rather than an innocent music festival as there's not much blackmail material therein.
So, you're happy to believe that Russia/China can decrypt our strongest encryption (unless you think Snowden just ROT-13ed the files) and have chosen to go after Snowden's files (despite the fact that they could just use rubber-hose cryptanalysis instead) rather than infiltrate live systems?
If a foreign country can decrypt anything we've got then you'd expect them to be able to keep it reasonably secret and they'd especially try to keep it secret when Gov'ts are hunting round for reasons to snoop on everything.
It's far more likely to be a political ruse that's completely made up just for the purpose of rail-roading the public.
It amazes me that most places don't have organ donation as the default option when you die. That way, it increases the number of available donors as a lot of people don't particularly care about what happens after they're dead and haven't bothered to register/carry a donor card. It would mean that people who have strong feelings about it could register/carry a card to ensure that their body remains intact.
I'm not sure I agree with compensating families for donated organs as it equates their grief to a cash payout which strikes me as insulting. Maybe some kind of donation given for the funeral of the deceased would be more appropriate as a thankyou, but ideally the family would welcome a way for their loved one to live on in some fashion.
Slashdot Mirror
So, let me check that I've got this straight. Are you saying that the way to deal with the issues of inner city ghettos, gang violence, gun crime, drugs and police brutality is to ban rap music?
As I recall, hip-hop/rap music sprang out of a need for disenfranchised youth of low-income areas to have a "voice" and speak out about the social, economic and political realities of their lives. However, it appears that rap music doesn't agree with your sensibilities and you somehow think that it's the music that the issue rather than being a symptom of a major problem in the U.S.
I wonder how you would want "Black" people to respond to negative outside influences? Maybe tip their hat and say "Yes Masser"?
Your attitude reminds me of the Christian right back in the late 70s when they were complaining about backwards satanic messages in rock music. The problem isn't the music and trying to ban freedom of expression is part of the problem.
I don't think I can play a Race card as I'm not a member of a minority. So, assuming that I wish to subscribe to your views, what would you suggest? Maybe ban rap music? Also, we could introduce segregation so that rap fans have to sit at the back of the bus and aren't allowed to use the same toilets as non-rap fans.
I don't dispute your opinions (opinions are like arseholes - everyone's got one and they all stink).
You may have got your cause and effect mixed up. Maybe it's that people who are placed at a distinct disadvantage by "greater society", (not to mention a greater risk of violence by the police) have chosen to participate in a sub-culture as a way of dealing with the inequities.
Anyhoo, whether you're right or wrong, your opinion sounds racist and is not a helpful sentiment to be expressing (unless you enjoy belittling minority cultures).
Hmm, not sure if I'm replying to a troll, but here goes.
Your comment could be applied to any counter-culture (e.g. 60's long haired hippies), but the way that you're applying it here makes you sound like a racist fuck.
I always thought that Moscow was in Russia
***runs off to check an atlas***
Yep, it's still there.
Okay, so you're not happy with specific examples of UK and Germany (for some strange reason), so here's a link to a Guardian article comparing various other countries (for you to arbitrarily discount) http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries/.
Apologies for using facts against you like this.
I'm glad to have proved your point (although you only just mentioned it, so I don't know how anyone else was supposed to work out what the hell your point was), but I'm afraid that your assertion of
is ironic given the nature of the post that prompted my replies.
So, can you please point me towards the "evidence" you mention so that I can educate myself and not have my facts so clearly wrong in future?
P.S. I wasn't alive in either World War, so I do apologise for any wrong-doings, but it was somewhat beyond my control.
Not that I'm aware of. I'd say it's pretty far from being a police state despite the many transgressions of our police.
Did I miss a memo? Moscow is in Europe now? I'd better run and tell Putin as he seems to be wanting to start a war with Europe - how he'll laugh when he finds out his mistake!
Here's some stats for the UK https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/298435/Police_use_of_firearms_Commons.pdf/ and here's a German report http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/polizei-schoss-2011-seltener-im-dienst-a-832037.html/ although you'll need to translate it (or read a summary http://gawker.com/5909283/german-police-really-dont-like-shooting-at-people-used-only-85-bullets-last-year/ ).
Honestly, here in the UK, police violence tends to get newspaper headlines as there's been history of institutional racism in a lot of police forces. It's not something that typically get brushed under the carpet, but instead is used more as a political bargaining chip.
Thank you for joining this discussion. However, you seem to be trying to devolve this into a "the land-mass I live on is better than the land-mass you live on" debate.
I assume you're referring to the whole Nazi Germany thing and yes, I imagine that the situation in the U.S. is somewhat better than Nazi Germany. Well done in setting yourself a high standard there.
I'm not sure who you think I am, but I'm not aware that I'm doing anything with/for/against the "will of the people". You do realise we're posting on Slashdot, right? Are you having one of your delusions where you're a member of the secret world council again?
With just a brief checking of facts, it appears that you are flat out wrong about "much of Europe abolished the death penalty as part of European integration". Have a look at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html/ for the official banning of the death penalty by country.
You seem to have a strange, paranoid view of Europeans, so I'd guess that you've never travelled very much. I'd recommend going to other countries as travel really does broaden the mind and gives you a better perspective. (You also learn that people are really the same everywhere and cultural stereotypes are just that - stereotypes).
I think you're deluding yourself if you think that hundreds of people get shot by police in Europe and it's just not reported. That's simply not the case and I defy you to show me any evidence that the press ignore police shootings.
I personally think it's wrong to kill people over mere property and I don't believe that the average person is a good judge of when to use "deadly force". Higher rates of killing is definitely wrong no matter what excuses are presented, but then there's such a huge cultural difference between the U.S. and Europe that we think that capital punishment is barbaric.
I agree. My replies about "police state" were in reply to the post stating "The EU is a police state, far more than the US."
If you get a chance to view any of the articles (there's plenty more to be found, by the way) then you'll see that the difference is large enough to make your distinctions moot. I'm not saying that the statistics can't be distorted (as almost all stats are) but when you're 70x more likely to be shot by the police in the U.S. than any of the "1st world" countries, then it devalues accusations of Europe being a police state when it comes from a U.S. citizen (assuming you are).
I don't have easy access to the raw stats, so here's some relevant news stories that do quote some stats. I doubt that the stats are cherry-picked as there's such a clear difference between the US and the rest of the world:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-kill-citizens-70-times-rate-first-world-nations/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/08/armed-police/
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-do-us-police-kill-so-many-people-2014-8/
http://mic.com/articles/105036/here-s-the-shocking-tally-of-how-many-americans-die-from-police-shootings/
The right to anonymity is an essential part of freedom/free speech. Deciding whether to sign in or not should not have any bearing on the validity of any arguments espoused. Just because you feel safe enough to post comments under a username does not mean that everyone has that same luxury.
Maybe, but there's a lot less gunning down of civilians by the police in Europe compared to the U.S. (I don't know whether that's down to less racism or less guns or some other socio-political difference).
Yes, music typically does have a political slant, but it's very unlikely that you could blackmail someone for their taste in music. e.g. Someone running for political office and you try to bring them down by pointing out that they're fans of Chumbawamba or Billy Bragg? I can't see that it would be that effective.
I've seen reports of them filming demonstrations etc, but I think the facial recognition is relatively new to them. Reminds me, where did I leave my Scramble Suit?
In my experience of music festivals in the UK, the police tend to have relatively low profile and are there to stop any major problems rather than hassling the people who are just there to enjoy themselves. They've even been known to turn a blind eye to the occasional illegal intoxicant (but you'd better not rub it in their faces).
I'd prefer to have cops at music festivals as otherwise the criminal element get a bit gung-ho with stealing tents and stabbing rival drug gangs etc.
I'd be more concerned about facial recognition used at a political rally rather than an innocent music festival as there's not much blackmail material therein.
We generally refer to them as 'wankers'.
There's also the Coventry Blitz conspiracy.
Better yet, hack the fingers that type the keystrokes (i.e. rubber-hose cryptanalysis).
So, you're happy to believe that Russia/China can decrypt our strongest encryption (unless you think Snowden just ROT-13ed the files) and have chosen to go after Snowden's files (despite the fact that they could just use rubber-hose cryptanalysis instead) rather than infiltrate live systems?
If a foreign country can decrypt anything we've got then you'd expect them to be able to keep it reasonably secret and they'd especially try to keep it secret when Gov'ts are hunting round for reasons to snoop on everything.
It's far more likely to be a political ruse that's completely made up just for the purpose of rail-roading the public.
It amazes me that most places don't have organ donation as the default option when you die. That way, it increases the number of available donors as a lot of people don't particularly care about what happens after they're dead and haven't bothered to register/carry a donor card. It would mean that people who have strong feelings about it could register/carry a card to ensure that their body remains intact.
I'm not sure I agree with compensating families for donated organs as it equates their grief to a cash payout which strikes me as insulting. Maybe some kind of donation given for the funeral of the deceased would be more appropriate as a thankyou, but ideally the family would welcome a way for their loved one to live on in some fashion.