RugbyRebels

Mikey.....easy on the internet memes....they will rot your brain.

There’s no response I can give that won’t sound like I’m being condescending to you for being so incredibly, unbelievably old. But point taken.

Here’s another grim read and then I’m done.

https://www.propublica.org/article/my-f ... nity-works

“Since the pandemic started, officers haven’t allowed CCRB to interview them remotely, meaning investigations have effectively stalled. The police unions had objected to doing it over video.

“We won’t do Zoom,” one union spokesman told The City. The CCRB is re-starting in-person interviews soon. It noted 1,109 investigations are awaiting police officer interviews.”

The impact this could have on any sort of accountability during the protests is surely a worry, especially if this is representative of other areas.

Old. That's what you've got. I need to make a cathartic entry in my personal journal now.

morepork wrote:Gentlemen,

the issue here is that black men are getting killed by the authorities with monotonous regularity. The issue of slavery is relevant to the movement on the ground because the country was built on the back of it and has pandered to a large segment of society that are upset at having lost the civil war. When the Civil Rights Act was passed, the country continued to accommodate apartheid in many states, and the majority of policing philosophy has been built around a foundation of domestic counter insurgency as a result of the response to civil unrest arising during that period. The police need to be demilitarised and fundamentally changed from the ground up to break this endless cycle of unnecessary extrajudicial killing by individuals granted immunity by this same organisation. When that happens, then we can focus on a few statues. The more you focus on the statues, the further from the solution you will be.

Well said.

Puja

Stom wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:thats some sidetrack digby

If you've an issue with the race to the bottom take it up with our current capitalist system and it's slavery to growth not with BLM protestors seriously

and yes i am completely opposed to the race to the bottom and never buy orimark etc.....thing is there's actual poor people who have to shop there

I don’t think you can blame someone being opposed to one thing and not thinking about another.

But yeah, that’s why I said the hypocrisy of capitalism. It pushes westerners into relative poverty, and they then have to rely on modern slavery to survive.

That’s why I feel we need a drastic culture change. Places like the US and China should be excluded until they change practices around modern slavery. Prison labor is terrible.

Modern westerners are pretty much the widest richest group in the history of mankind, sure the system has foibles but we've never seen or heard of a better system, I am though happy to be a fan of someone does lit upon a better idea. And many of the failings aren't actually down to capitalism anyway, most of not all our down to our regulation of the system and disbursement of the proceeds, and those are societal questions rather than about the nature of capitalism given capitalism isn't going to care.

And it's not much of a sidetrack to suggest people disgusted with the history of slavery and oppression that's led us in part to the very real problems we see today might want to look in the mirror and not enrich their own lives on the back of slavery and oppression. Which isn't to day we can't take some actions right now in response to BLM, whether 8 can't wait or similar, we don't need every protestor to acknowledge they might be getting things badly wrong before we try to take some positive steps forward. BLM aren't wrong to ask people to look at their own lives and behaviour, but they're part of that rather than simply getting to ask other people. Poor people who have to shop there sounds like the defence of I don't want to have slaves but it's the only way I can afford to make my business work, it's just not good enough.

No it doesn't sound like that, it sounds like there are poor people that rely on public transport living in areas where those shops are the only option. It's either that or go naked, homeless, and starve. Again, the issue is acute.

morepork wrote:No it doesn't sound like that, it sounds like there are poor people that rely on public transport living in areas where those shops are the only option. It's either that or go naked, homeless, and starve. Again, the issue is acute.

There might be some tiny % where that's true and there are no other options, It simply isn't going to be the majority.

Though there isn't a quick easy fix to this, and I'm not insisting come tomorrow morning nobody buy a t-shirt for less than $5. More that there's a request to have a conversation about how oppression has led us to this place, and entering into the conversation that many are still oppressed doesn't seem inappropriate. Indeed it would seem likely that lifting people up so they have and can identify more choices is part of the progress needed

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:No it doesn't sound like that, it sounds like there are poor people that rely on public transport living in areas where those shops are the only option. It's either that or go naked, homeless, and starve. Again, the issue is acute.

There might be some tiny % where that's true and there are no other options, It simply isn't going to be the majority.

Though there isn't a quick easy fix to this, and I'm not insisting come tomorrow morning nobody buy a t-shirt for less than $5. More that there's a request to have a conversation about how oppression has led us to this place, and entering into the conversation that many are still oppressed doesn't seem inappropriate. Indeed it would seem likely that lifting people up so they have and can identify more choices is part of the progress needed

Tiny percentage? What would be the common space on the venn diagram occupied by individuals fitting into this tiny percentage and those of an ethnicity getting disproportionately executed by police?

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:No it doesn't sound like that, it sounds like there are poor people that rely on public transport living in areas where those shops are the only option. It's either that or go naked, homeless, and starve. Again, the issue is acute.

There might be some tiny % where that's true and there are no other options, It simply isn't going to be the majority.

Though there isn't a quick easy fix to this, and I'm not insisting come tomorrow morning nobody buy a t-shirt for less than $5. More that there's a request to have a conversation about how oppression has led us to this place, and entering into the conversation that many are still oppressed doesn't seem inappropriate. Indeed it would seem likely that lifting people up so they have and can identify more choices is part of the progress needed

Tiny percentage? What would be the common space on the venn diagram occupied by individuals fitting into this tiny percentage and those of an ethnicity getting disproportionately executed by police?

I had understood the movement to be about a push for equality in addition to some much needed measures to arrest certain police actions. Either way there's a chance to develop a conversation about slavery and I'd be happy to see that, if others want to shut down a conversation about slavery to advance the cause of fighting injustice so be it

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:thats some sidetrack digby

If you've an issue with the race to the bottom take it up with our current capitalist system and it's slavery to growth not with BLM protestors seriously

and yes i am completely opposed to the race to the bottom and never buy orimark etc.....thing is there's actual poor people who have to shop there

I don’t think you can blame someone being opposed to one thing and not thinking about another.

But yeah, that’s why I said the hypocrisy of capitalism. It pushes westerners into relative poverty, and they then have to rely on modern slavery to survive.

That’s why I feel we need a drastic culture change. Places like the US and China should be excluded until they change practices around modern slavery. Prison labor is terrible.

Modern westerners are pretty much the widest richest group in the history of mankind, sure the system has foibles but we've never seen or heard of a better system, I am though happy to be a fan of someone does lit upon a better idea. And many of the failings aren't actually down to capitalism anyway, most of not all our down to our regulation of the system and disbursement of the proceeds, and those are societal questions rather than about the nature of capitalism given capitalism isn't going to care.

And it's not much of a sidetrack to suggest people disgusted with the history of slavery and oppression that's led us in part to the very real problems we see today might want to look in the mirror and not enrich their own lives on the back of slavery and oppression. Which isn't to day we can't take some actions right now in response to BLM, whether 8 can't wait or similar, we don't need every protestor to acknowledge they might be getting things badly wrong before we try to take some positive steps forward. BLM aren't wrong to ask people to look at their own lives and behaviour, but they're part of that rather than simply getting to ask other people. Poor people who have to shop there sounds like the defence of I don't want to have slaves but it's the only way I can afford to make my business work, it's just not good enough.

I'm not going to criticise someone for standing up against systemic racism directed against them and people close to them and failing to stand up for modern slavery in far flung countries. It's human nature.

But I agree, it's not capitalism, it's neo-capitalism. And there was a better system...

Capitalism! What we had in the 90s and early 2000's, before Blair and Bush. Back when the worst thing a President did was get sucked off in the Oval office.

The advancement of the "free market" over everything else has led to the dismantling of human rights across societies. That needs to be stopped.

But you cannot use it as a stick to beat protestors with. BLM are in the absolute right.

It's like saying someone protesting a new runway at Heathrow shouldn't be allowed because they're anti-vaxxers. Yes, we might vehemently disagree with their point of view on one, but that shouldn't stop their right to protest, especially when they're protesting something important.

Like this is.

You don't stop systemic racism by trying to take action on causes in far flung lands. You won't get public opinion on your side. You take care of it at home, and as a side effect, you take care of it abroad, too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigford_v._Glickman

Thick cunt farmer's get their thick cunt cousins in the bank to screw black people

Nog sure what point I'm making with the above......just black people get fucked over by whitey , and then finished off by poverty, drugs or a racist thug who's supposed to be protecting them, anything else is bollocks at this point

paddy no 11 wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigford_v._Glickman

Thick cunt farmer's get their thick cunt cousins in the bank to screw black people

Nog sure what point I'm making with the above......just black people get fucked over by whitey , and then finished off by poverty, drugs or a racist thug who's supposed to be protecting them, anything else is bollocks at this point

The more you dig, the angrier you will get. But, you know, those poor statues

Fuck your statues.

Stom wrote: BLM are in the absolute right.

I don't tend to think in absolutes. And for me part of what they're asking for is a conversation about how we have been and we are getting so many things wrong, and then they're a part of that conversation not a purer than pure group who can be distinct from that conversation. I'm expecting the details of said conversations to be problematic, to cause resentment, and for solutions to come over time and to often come with contradictions, and for a lot of people on all sides to continue to rationalise their behaviour because they see themselves as a decent sort or the lack empathy so the conversation will be ongoing.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote: BLM are in the absolute right.

I don't tend to think in absolutes. And for me part of what they're asking for is a conversation about how we have been and we are getting so many things wrong, and then they're a part of that conversation not a purer than pure group who can be distinct from that conversation. I'm expecting the details of said conversations to be problematic, to cause resentment, and for solutions to come over time and to often come with contradictions, and for a lot of people on all sides to continue to rationalise their behaviour because they see themselves as a decent sort or the lack empathy so the conversation will be ongoing.

They're not after a conversation, there after the stop to racial injustice by the police in the US. Their movement has highlighted many other issues that need solving, but that's not their intention. Hence the name. They are a single issue group and when it comes to that issue, there is no denying they are absolutely right.

Don't go into tactics or abstraction here. This is a simple issue: end systematic racism in the police force (in the US primarily).

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote: BLM are in the absolute right.

I don't tend to think in absolutes. And for me part of what they're asking for is a conversation about how we have been and we are getting so many things wrong, and then they're a part of that conversation not a purer than pure group who can be distinct from that conversation. I'm expecting the details of said conversations to be problematic, to cause resentment, and for solutions to come over time and to often come with contradictions, and for a lot of people on all sides to continue to rationalise their behaviour because they see themselves as a decent sort or the lack empathy so the conversation will be ongoing.

They're not after a conversation, there after the stop to racial injustice by the police in the US. Their movement has highlighted many other issues that need solving, but that's not their intention. Hence the name. They are a single issue group and when it comes to that issue, there is no denying they are absolutely right.

Don't go into tactics or abstraction here. This is a simple issue: end systematic racism in the police force (in the US primarily).

They're not a single issue group, even if I didn't know it before I was on a conference call last week about their activity and fundraising agenda (which was very annoying as the first 15 minutes was listening to people I don't care about announcing their pronouns which I don't care about) and they've got quite a bit they want to address. Again this isn't to say they aren't looking for some immediate actions, but it does them quite some disservice to suggest they're a single issue protest movement.

For me that's a good thing, as the problems are complex and intertwined, and they're looking to get after that with a focus on the following areas in 2020:

Racial Injustice
Police Brutality
Criminal Justice Reform
Black Immigration
Economic Injustice
LGBTQIA+ and Human Rights
Environmental Conditions
Voting Rights & Suppression
Healthcare
Government Corruption
Education
Commonsense Gun Laws

I'm all for that sh*t - they even covered your modern slavery concerns under economic injustice....all good

You could argue any one of those things is a logical area of focus because of the negative impact it has on black people’s lives. But it’s valid either way.

Digby wrote:I was on a conference call last week about their activity and fundraising agenda (which was very annoying as the first 15 minutes was listening to people I don't care about announcing their pronouns which I don't care about).

Slightly off-topic, but I'd just like to note two things about this sentence:

1) Saying, "He/him" takes literally less than 2 seconds. If you want to land in the spotlight and say, "My pronouns are he/him" and really talk slowly, that's 4 seconds at absolute maximum. So the extra time you lost to a very simple accomodation to people who aren't you was an absolute maximum of a minute for every 15 people.

2) All conference calls are bullshit and annoying. Your one would not have got any better if they hadn't shown inclusive behaviour. Because it's a conference call.

Puja

If you're happy to listen wank off about their pronouns that's fine, I find it annoying and in this instance they're after my time and money, that they're making themselves feel good about the way they're asking me (well me and others) I find an interesting take on how to make a pitch

also it's he/him/his or she/her/hers, you've curtailed 1/3 off with your innocent take on just how long it takes to grind through the fecking pronouns

It does seem a coming trait, people under the age of 23 seem to expect it, I don't expect it and I'm not interested whether I'm speaking to men or women on such calls. This could be at an individual level I'm not interested in people, there is no chance I could have a career in TV like Michael Palin because he starts with being far more interested in people, I'm sure he's a far more empathic and indeed better person for it, none of which 15 minutes into a call (and yes there are some technical issues and people explaining what they do that also takes up time) does't mean my reaction isn't ffs stfu

So, back on topic after that little diversion:

Republicans: Of course, Trump was only joking about reducing testing; it was only a joke. Clearly he didn't actually mean...



Puja

I've just seen this. That is a ludicrous decision. We will never have a cogent picture of the situation now because everything will be covered up and this will drag on for years. What a pack of complete dead donkey fucking shit eating cunts.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/st-lo ... 3X?ocid=st

Christ. What a fucking cunt. What a state.

Jesus. That is next level irresponsible. Just how far on the wrong side of history does she want to be? No grasp on the relevant issues, just a salute to the minority of the public that oppose reform.