Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

You missed references to that very event on this page.

[SalmonGod]

The more accurate question is "what would you disapprove of a non-white person doing, that you would be fine with a white person doing?"

That's a really nice one-sentence way of putting it.  Just want to highlight it.  I see the cultural narrative tilting this way a lot in the last few years, especially with the different ways that police and the justice system treat whites vs non-whites.  But too many passively racist people fail to see it, and I'm sure it doesn't help that I never see anybody describe it so succinctly.

[Folly]

The more accurate question is "what would you disapprove of a non-white person doing, that you would be fine with a white person doing?"

That's a really nice one-sentence way of putting it.

I feel like putting it that way unfairly stigmatizes white people. Racism certainly is not restricted to whites vs non-whites.

[wierd]

It is.  Racism takes any form, where "Race (A) gives preferential treatment to Race (A), at the detriment of all other races."

Race (A) an be any race.

You see it with people of Indian (from india) extraction in tech jobs in the US (1) for instance.

The notion that it MUST be white people in order to be racism, needs to die in a fire.  It is ANY instance where one ethnicity gives preference to their own ethnicity over all others.  End of discussion.

[wierd]

Back to Epstein,

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-retweets-epstein-conspiracy-theory-claiming-clinton-connection-n1041146
(would have posted NYT coverage, but they decided that paywalls are cool. So, no linkage for them.)

Basically, Trump is being Trump, and going straight for wild-eyed conspiracy bullshit about how Bill Clinton had Epstein killed in max-security prison, because reasons.

[scriver]

Because Bill "I had an affair with the White House intern" Clinton is definitely the kind of criminal mastermind that could pull that kind of conspiracy off.

[bloop_bleep]

Yeah, clearly a max-security prison could catch and stop a murder easily! But not a suicide, while the person of interest has been placed on suicide watch, due to making a suicide attempt in the past week, and should by protocol be constantly watched by guards. Mishaps happen there all the time. Obviously the guard just looked away by accident! Like with Lee Harvey Oswald!

I'm not saying Bill Clinton was behind it. Maybe he was a pedophile too, who knows. But there are certainly some very powerful people to whom it would be mightily convenient for the most important potential source of information in the cases against them to just disappear.

[McTraveller]

I think I just had a realization - the type where you suddenly make a connection between thoughts.  The discussion above about "difference-ism" and the immigration "discussions", and the wealth gap, etc.

I think a major component of the sentiments many have in those areas is that microeconomics is zero sum, even though macroeconomics can be non-zero sum.  So when people see anyone, especially of an "outside" tribe (be it color, creed, origin, whatever) enter their community they fear that instead of adding to the community, that "other" will instead displace an existing member of the community.

This is in fact rational to first-order observations: If you have a town that only has enough demand to hire 100 people, and another person comes in town, then either the new person doesn't get hired or one of the existing people gets replaced by the new one.  This is almost always true, because a single new member of a community cannot - especially in the very short term - add enough demand to fully create an entire new job.  But what about if the new person comes in and just starts a new business, providing competition?  Let's say there were previously 2 suppliers of whatever the new person is selling, and the new one comes in.  This means that the total demand for that good or service is now spread among 3 suppliers, not 2; all else equal, this means the two existing suppliers would have an immediate, significant reduction in business: instead of having 50% of the market, each would now only have 33% of the market.  In a small market this is a huge effect.

What I have never seen is any kind of policy that addresses this kind of community impact.  It gets washed away by the "big city" effect of mass media, and I don't think a lot of the discussion related to border towns addresses this.  Maybe it does warrant federal assistance to border towns or something to mitigate this effect.

[Reelya]

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/second-amendment-debate-why-does-the-usa-struggle-so-much-with-gun-control

So, some guy waltzes into a Walmart wearing full body armor and toting a tactical rifle, and people naturally freak out and panic.

Then he has the gall to get all philosophical and question why the silly billies freaked out since he was only there to get groceries, and exercise his 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms.

Local police say the 20-year-old claimed he was at the business to buy grocery bags and did not intend to cause harm. The young man is reported to have also questioned why his community reacted in such fashion.

The gun was loaded BTW and he also called it a "social experiment". So I'm guessing he's pro-gun and thinks he should be allowed to dress like an active shooter and just run around with loaded assault weapons at all times. So, we shouldn't be allowed to take any preventative measures whatsoever, or even question what's going on, until the very second a heavily armored loonie opens fire.

Also, while there may be public laws allowing you to carry guns, a store is private property and there's no way in hell that the owner of private property is required to let you come onto their property with openly carried weapons if they don't want you to.

[hector13]

According to the Beeb article I read on it he asked his wife if it would be a good idea, she said he was a silly little boy or some such. He asked his sister to film it, she said it was a stupid idea.

Now he’s being prosecuted as a terrorist because he didn’t think people would freak out when a heavily armed man goes into the same brand of store that was attacked just days prior.

I think it’s this level of idiot that shows why we need better gun control laws. Perhaps if he went to safety classes he wouldn’t have done something so asinine.

[Kagus]

I think it’s this level of idiot that shows why we need better gun control laws.

Sometimes it helps with gun control.

Sometimes it helps with birth control.

[smjjames]

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/second-amendment-debate-why-does-the-usa-struggle-so-much-with-gun-control

So, some guy waltzes into a Walmart wearing full body armor and toting a tactical rifle, and people naturally freak out and panic.

Then he has the gall to get all philosophical and question why the silly billies freaked out since he was only there to get groceries, and exercise his 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms.

Local police say the 20-year-old claimed he was at the business to buy grocery bags and did not intend to cause harm. The young man is reported to have also questioned why his community reacted in such fashion.

The gun was loaded BTW and he also called it a "social experiment". So I'm guessing he's pro-gun and thinks he should be allowed to dress like an active shooter and just run around with loaded assault weapons at all times. So, we shouldn't be allowed to take any preventative measures whatsoever, or even question what's going on, until the very second a heavily armored loonie opens fire.

Also, while there may be public laws allowing you to carry guns, a store is private property and there's no way in hell that the owner of private property is required to let you come onto their property with openly carried weapons if they don't want you to.

Yeah, when I read that somewhere else, I mentally facedesked because for one, that's a severe lack of judgement. In all likelyhood though, he knew what kind of reaction he was going to get and tried to 'own the libs' in the worst possible (as in get yourself killed) way.

[sluissa]

This is just "Sovereign citizen" style bullshit taken to a new level. Some idiot who sort of might have heard of a law through a game of telephone thinking they know how the system works and deciding they might as well go out and try to make sure that nobody's intruding on their imagined rights.

Or they just wanted 15 minutes of youtube stardom.

Equally idiotic either way.

[scriver]

I'm baffled by the lack of sense

[Folly]

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/second-amendment-debate-why-does-the-usa-struggle-so-much-with-gun-control
So, some guy waltzes into a Walmart wearing full body armor and toting a tactical rifle, and people naturally freak out and panic.
...
Also, while there may be public laws allowing you to carry guns, a store is private property and there's no way in hell that the owner of private property is required to let you come onto their property with openly carried weapons if they don't want you to.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2019/08/08/walmart-mass-shooting-stores-removing-violent-video-game-displays/1962146001/
Walmart is now responding by removing violent video game displays from their stores. Their violent gun displays remain untouched.