An inconvenient truth

Of course I have an idea what you think. Everyone could. All one need do is follow your little trail of "likes", or what you've posted yourself.

Clearly, your comment here was aimed only at those you don't like, or whose ideas don't gel with yours. You'd like to "get rid of them", to which I responded with a comment on the nature of what constitutes "them".
If you meant anything else, then by all means, please enlighten me. And spare me your moral indignation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

At this point, Bells, I think you should make it very clear what exactly you are referring to when you say I'm "making it up".
Because this entire thread has revolved more around the perception of events than those events themselves, which I have taken great pains to point out, many, many times, to no avail.

Ah, and here we go again. The toy gun thing.
I do hope it's becoming clearer over the course of this thread why "facts" are not something Bells has any right to demand.

Once again, Bells, asking you how'd you feel with one of these stuck in your face does not constitute a threat.
Asking you if you'd allow your own children out with one of these "toys" was not a suggestion that they do so. And, incidentally, had exactly the response I expected in order to reinforce the point about your continued reference to these as "toys".
Because your response to that, demonstrates more ably than anything else you've written, that it is in fact you attempting to convey a picture not exactly in tune with reality.
You know, in spite of everything you're trying to convey here, that someone carrying one of those around is likely to be perceived as a threat. You've admitted it.

A short transcript from the posted video:
Caller: "there's a guy holding a pistol, you know, like pointing it at everybody"
Caller: "its probably fake, you know, but it scared the fuck out of me"
Caller: "and he's pulling in in and out of his pants, you know..."

And later, from the police officer calling in the incident:
"and he's uh... about 20"

So apparently, those who were actually there, specifically making mention of the caller himself, were "scared".
And let us reiterate yet again that the comment on it probably being a toy was not relayed to the officers involved. And yet again that the orange tip these things have to show they're only a toy, was not in place.

Another interesting thing - when questioned whether the guy was white or black, the caller didn't appear to relate the question to race at all, at first. This goes back to something Photizon said about "whites having moved on", earlier, and to the extent to which the media tend to play up certain angles, but I despair at the thought of even touching that.
Those in control here already have him tarred and feathered, and are currently looking for a rail out of town on which they might place him. Bon Voyage, Photizon. You don't fit, 'round these parts.

If you're going to persist in painting the picture of a child with a toy gun, Bells, then I'm going to continue to
persist in my attempts to show you that that picture has nothing to do with reality.

Other than it's you who apparently needs a little of an assist, given your apparent emotional state at this point in time, I would ask - would this person or agency I'm supposed to seek help from, by any chance, be one duly authorised and approved of by yourself?

I'm reminded of young women being institutionalised in times past for being... well, a little too spirited, shall we say.
It would appear Bells herself wouldn't have had too many problems with putting away those who simply disagree with her notion of reality, under the premise that they're obviously insane or mentally ill.

Yes, you have.

Actually, I rather thought I was commenting mostly on you and yours running with it like a hot little potato.

Pointed it at every one else, though, didn't he, and was apparently reaching for it again when he was shot.
By police specifically warned they were on a "gun run".

Your image: 12 year old child holding a toy.
Police image: responding to a public call regarding a BN, BG.

Reality, she says.
Now, Bells, if you want to discuss "reality", then by all means please begin.
I use the word "begin" because you have not, at any point, been doing so.

Now, you'll note here I hope that I have not specifically made any comments on whether or not the officer should be prosecuted, or how that prosecution should proceed should it be deemed one is necessary.
My interest obviously lies more in the perception of those events, and how they relate to other events around the world and, indeed, to this very forum.
A point which you're doing everything in your power not only to avoid answering, but burying so deep in hysterical horsepucky it would need a shovel in order to once again see the light of day.

The title of this thread was "an inconvenient truth".
Pause for a moment, and reflect upon that.

I don't need news articles to reinforce my point, Bells. Nor do I need pictures, or videos.
You're doing a perfectly adequate job merely by presenting yourself here and writing what you do.
By all means... carry on.

Of course I understand, Bells. You run up, scream at me, storm off in a huff and then when I respond, I'm told I "don't understand you want nothing further to do with me".
And then, you do it again.
Make up your mind, woman, for pity's sake.

No, Bells, I expect you (well, no, actually I no longer do) to actually consider the possibility that those Muslims should have a good hard look at themselves as well as demanding that "someone do something".
You dismissing this out of hand as being drunken stupidity and calling it a "rant about Muslims" is yet another example of your particular... argumentative style.

As is this:

And as for this:

I'm not even sure what this is in response to. it was posted immediately after quoting me as saying
"After all... those charged with the upholding of law are in some way expected, demanded, according to you and those like you, to be more than human.
So you do that. Be the paragon of virtue you demand those charged with enforcement are expected to be.
Or give the job to someone more capable. How about it Bells, do you think some more training would help?"
So I suppose it was probably addressing that, but.... I'm not clear exactly how.

.... hoping to be the victim of big bad Bells?
Oh, my.

Yes, you've said that, more than once. I suppose you're still trying to find that exit condition under which you can ensure you get the last word? I've already mentioned the only actual option you have.

By all means, Bells, ignore me. Many do.
In your case, recently, it would actually come as quite a relief.

For some reason, the Mindless Bugblatter Beast of Traal is currently rampaging through my mind. That, at least, is making me smile this morning.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course, you think you know many things. Maybe someday you'll know the difference between assumption & knowledge. I didn't say or imply getting rid of anyone.
I don't think you can be enlightened. Or want it.
Spare me trying to tell me what to do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The allegation that Conservatives support terrorism is rather strange, coming from a left winger. Why aren't left-wingers condemning the violence, arson and looting that occurred during the Ferguson riots? They are up in arms about a (violent) black man being shot by a white police officer in self-defense, but are strangely silent about the violence being perpetrated against innocent citizens by people who have no respect for the judicial system. What about the left-wing media who perpetrated falsehoods that inflamed the violence? Why aren't they being condemned by their liberal drones for pushing their agenda, instead of simply reporting the facts?

While liberalism isn't necessarily a religion of hate, I find that left-wingers tend to be very spiteful. We've already had one colleague state that 'if they weren't a pacifist', they would endorse the wholesale slaughter of the police force (without any sort of trial, naturally). I've noticed that liberals tend to create both racial and religious division where-ever they go. And nothing upsets a vile person more than having a mirror held up to their face, so that they can see their own grievous flaws objectively. That's precisely why certain colleagues in this thread have spat the dummy and threatened posters with moderation.

Isn't it ironic that liberals are supposedly progressive and in favour of 'free-speech', but are often the first to threaten people (either with administrative or actual violence) over having an opinion contrary to their own? I mean, free-speech is all well and good in their eyes, until you disagree with them. But how on earth can a left-winger believe that they are in favour of free speech, when they go around censoring everyone? That's where some crafty double think comes in. In order to avoid cognitive dissonance, they feel that they can still be 'pro free-speech', while prohibiting 'bad' speech. 'Hate-speech', 'dishonest speech', 'bigotry', 'racism', 'sexism', 'woo-woo'. Oooh, I think we all agree that those things are nasty stuff, and we can't have that, right? So in liberal double-think world, one merely needs to attach one or more of the above labels to opinions contrary to their own, and they can then feel justified in censoring them. This is precisely why left-wingers are so quick to use the above labels, even when they are not deserved. It's no different than calling enemy combatants 'terrorists', so that you can strip away what few rights they have left.

 

To the one, you seem to be trying to have an opinion without making any affirmative case for it. To the other, do you understand how the legal process works in the United States?

Where's the incident report? Where are the documents showing what say-so the law offered?

Are you aware that people who pay attention to legal issues are already wary of Utah, since there are parts of the state where there is a weird, incestuous network of good ol' boys visiting the wrath of the law on younger competition for teenage wives?

If you think this case is important enough, make that point. Why are Utahns okay with this? Why do they elect judges and sheriffs who create such circumstances? Who appointed the federal judges for Utah? Whose blue slips? Sometimes based on those two points it is possible to determine how the federal judges will respond.

Additionally, what you're doing is a bit like those who want to turn a conversation from misogyny to a version of "what about the men?"

I think you'll find that in the annals of police shootings of unarmed people, the body camera footage showing Dillon Taylor refusing to to obey police and reaching into his waistband will convince any trial jury that Officer Cruz had a reason to shoot. What do we need to know beyond that? And that's a straightforward question: On what are you basing the claim of injustice?

What, specifically, is the claim of injustice in the killing of McGee? Has TBI finished its investigation report? I can't find that record at this time.

Document the problems. That's the first thing. What is the specific claim of injustice?

Police brutality is a human issue, just like rape is not specifically a women's issue but a human issue. However, just like rape, the statistical outcomes also demand specific focus. There is a mythopoeic argument suggesting that in the case of racism and police brutality, "White people did this to themselves", which doesn't really help anything, but history will tell us how things got so far out of hand, and part of that will be the drug war and concomitant militarization of police departments, various approaches to optimizing public resources, and generally cynical politicking. Indeed, there is a high probability that the history of this time will identify a number of these processes. The human circumstances, whereby what we visit on despised minorities comes back to haunt the empowered majorities, have reached a particular nexus where what happens next will only be predictable in hindsight. That is, occasionally circumstances manifest in a way that puts the necessity and possibility of change within line of sight.

So: Who else gets the process Darren Wilson got?

I suspect you know the answer and understand its implications. What I don't get is why you would be so anxious to avoid that part of the discussion.

Why does this person get extraordinary protection under the law?

You have asserted explicitly that, "Due process was followed in this case". This point has already been addressed in this thread: One can establish an abstract justification for the process followed by the state of Missouri, but who else gets this process? Because due process requires equal protection under the law, and this case describes a statistically extraordinary process.

Why are you trying to evade that consideration?

 

I would have thought it was quite clear, with regard to the OP.
That justice is as subject to the whim of the mob as it has always been, fuelled by the media and social commentary. That the law, in this case (and due process) could not have resulted in justice for either Michael Brow nor Darren Wilson.
It could only have satisfied one perception or another of what justice, in this case, might actually entail.

Yes, they do. The problem lies in where you demand we place that focus.
I think Wellwisher might have put it best, early on in the piece:
"Liberalism makes this easy to pull off, since it is all about emotions and not hard data."

I'd take that a step further and say that any hard data presented is as subject to perception as anything else. Like those little news articles Bells presented, which upon closer examination were little more than opinion pieces themselves, but what actually constitutes hard data was, at least in part, actually the point of the thread.

Not what data you're presenting in support of one side or the other.

I'll take the time to remind you once again, Tiassa, that this topic was started by someone who posted an article in support of what he regarded as "inconvenient truths". That article was actually quite interesting, and deserved discussion on its own merit.
But once again, we see you both climbing up on your podiums to harangue the crowd, to discuss something you wanted to discuss. In this case, as in so many others, the discussion immediately devolves into trivial sideshows.
So rather than establish any discussion on the topic, which was, to whit, those "inconvenient truths" those like you prefer to ignore in favour of turning the whole thing into something only vaguely resembling the issue supposedly under discussion, but you then make statements like this - that it is in fact others who refuse to acknowledge something.

To put it simply, neither you nor Bells have any right to tender accusations against anyone else for refusing to discuss points under consideration, because it is in fact the both of you who time and time again refuse to do so. And you'll continue to refuse to do so until everyone else has fallen asleep or wandered off in search of something better to do. Personally, I have a habit of drinking myself under the table in reaction to the pure horror of it all.

If you want to bring people into line, discuss that which is on the table, then by all means, do so.
But not only when you deem it pertinent that it's only your own points not being acknowledged.
If there is anyone setting a precedent here, it is both you and Bells. One might expect, as I noted earlier, that if you demand that those involved in the enforcement of law should be held to a higher standard than those breaking those laws to begin with, then it would probably be best if you adhered to that demand yourselves.

Of course, I do have to make allowance for the thought that there is every chance you don't even understand the thread topic to begin with.

The maid has just informed you that a kid scratched himself on a nail while playing outside. So she cleaned it up and put a band aid on it.
But rather than going outside to try to find the nail, you start delivering lengthy speeches on the particular brand of band aid she used.

This, of course, is probably the primary reason the greater philosophical issues are something you assiduously avoid.
The root issue this topic presented was that the wider application of law is often overly subject to perception, rather than fact. But there is no "incident report" for this idea. And the documentation of it lies solely in the hands of those preoccupied with either psychology, or even simple social commentary.

In order to present your opinion, you demand that documentation, those incident reports. But rather than empowering the topic, that approach rapidly devolves it into a discussion not addressing the subject of perception itself, but rather one perception or the other. Yours, Bells, Mine, Photizons.

As we have so obviously seen here. 14 pages or thereabouts, nearly all of it arguments about how far Brown ran, whether or not Wilson should have simply driven away, it wasn't a toy gun... and of course, lengthy diatribes on due process.

You've even said it yourself, but as usual under the implied caveat that it is only your comments deserving attention:

That one earned a snort on my part, I have to admit. Not due to it being untrue, but due to it being said by you, after reading through what you've presented here.

 

While this wasn't addressed at me in particular, I do find the hypocrisy of the above rather mind-blowing. As soon as the shooting occurred, mob rule came into effect. Threats were made by certain individuals for the police department to reveal the name of the shooter, even though he had yet to be arrested or charged with an offense. Once the name was revealed, a trial by (liberal) media occurred. Lies and hearsay were trumpeted as fact. For example, some said that Officer Wilson shot Brown in the back, while has was running away. However, others claimed he was shot while his hands were raised begging the officer not to shoot. Hell, the cop-hating left wing couldn't even come to a consensus on how Wilson brutalised Brown.

Then Wilson went before a grand jury, and the eyes of the nation were upon those jurors, waiting for the outcome. It was suspected that a failure to indict would result in racial strife and rioting in Ferguson, and this hung over the head of every juror. Wilson waived his 5th amendment right, and submitted himself to questioning by a grand jury of 12 individuals for *4 hours*. The prosecution had *25 days* to present his evidence. And in spite of all this, the jury failed to indict.

So perhaps you ought to answer your own question, and tell us who gets the process Wilson got? How many suspects have their names revealed to the media before even being arrested? How many suspects are condemned in national media before being tried? How many suspects waive their 5th amendment rights and submit themselves to questioning for four hours? How many suspects have to endure a 25 day indictment? And how many suspects have their proceedings tainted by the very real threat that a finding of innocence will lead to violence and looting?

It's really disgusting the lows to which you will sink to condemn Wilson. I mean, Bells and yourself take issue with the fact that Wilson washed blood (an infectious biohazard) off his hands after the shooting, as if anyone is disputing the fact that he shot Brown. Look, I get it, you have a chip on your shoulder in regards to police brutality being (allegedly) practiced disproportionately against blacks citizens. But you're choosing this case scenario to champion your cause? I mean, seriously, are you that desperate to support your bigotry? Why not find another example where the facts actually support your ideology, instead of attempting to manipulate and invent facts to fit your pre-conceived notions about the police force.

 

I suppose that's the crux of it, really.
It is after all a very real possibility that the Grand Jury being used in ways it isn't, normally, is an indicator that the question of whether or not to prosecute Wilson - for murder, no less - was, in the minds of many, not even a question; and they would much rather to have seen things proceed under that assumption.

Tiassa does not want to see Wilson proven innocent. He would far prefer to see him proven guilty.
"Due process", such as it is, and given the hype surrounding the case, would have almost ensured that.


The modern proliferation of information serves more often to obscure fact, rather than reveal it.
In the USA, this is becoming more obvious than it is elsewhere.

Perhaps it is in fact time for the USA to examine its own dearly held assumptions, for it is becoming obvious that while those assumptions are as relevant as they always were, they are increasingly becoming less applicable.

 

Please start making sense.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That is fuckin' hilarious coming from you.

Both Tali89 and The Marquis are quite impressive. Bravo!

Wow, so that’s a leftist, eh, Tali? What are they, though, Bells and Tiassa, ultra-left? It’s similar to pseudoscience, isn't it? Gibberish…lots and lots of gibberish.

I had never heard of the Sokal affair before, have either of you? It was pretty interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/

"Sokal's essays - and his hoax - achieve their purpose of reminding us all that, in the words of the Victorian mathematician-philosopher William Kingdon Clifford, ‘It is wrong, always, everywhere and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.’”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_Hoax

 

The physical evidence may not have matched perfectly with his testimony, but that is very common with critical incidents for police officers, victims, and eyewitnesses. That in and of itself does not indicate intentional deception. However, the physical evidence does dispute dozens of eyewitness accounts of alleged horrific acts that never occurred. For instance, the multiple accounts of eyewitness, who claimed that Brown was shot in the back while running away, or surrendering with his hands up. All three independent autopsies did not show any injuries to his back. Why are you only focusing on the inconsistencies in the officer’s testimony and not the multiple eyewitnesses? Are you an anti-authoritarian?

Perceptual and Memory Distortion During Officer Involved Shootings

 

Probable cause is measured by a totality of the circumstances and does not require proof as high as a preponderance of the evidence. What I’m against is a criminal trial when a grand jury could not find probable cause to charge the officer with any crime. If you’re truly an attorney you’d know that probable cause is a very low standard to be met when charging a crime. Being charged with a crime and being convicted are two very different standards of proof. No one should ever be taken to trial absent probable cause for the mere purpose of fact finding.

Attorney General Eric Holder has instructed the Justice Department’s Civil Rights division to launch a civil rights investigation, but the burden of proof for bringing federal civil rights charges against Wilson will be much higher than it was in the criminal case.

I’m sure that a civil action against Wilson will be filed because no mother should have to fear for her son’s life every time he robs a store.

 

Sssh. Hush now. Close your eyes.
It will all be over soon.

I wonder if Bells would also support the notion of cameras in all public places, or if her solution only applies to law enforcement. Perhaps then we could look at placing them in private places, as well. It's only logical, after all. Crimes are plotted behind closed doors. Revolutions, too.

It does rather seem that, in her eyes at least, the police are in fact subject to different rules than apply to the general public. Which does rather contradict nearly everything Tiassa has said thus far.
It would appear that the application of their particular idealism is still something being hashed out, even among supposed allies.
I suppose the strategy is to defeat Germany first, and then argue about the division of it later.


Curious, isn't it, this particular brand of left-wing politics.
When pressed, it begins to exhibit the vary same traits often deplored in the right... for the good of us all, of course.
Ah, history. You poor neglected creature.

............
Now, on an unrelated/related matter, can we please shut Bells down now?
After all, and with particular reference to another topic rather recently shut down under the same premise, she is only repeating herself and not contributing anything new to the topic at hand.
Or perhaps due process, in this case, should not be followed... for reasons best known only to those with authority over it?

And as for you directly, Bells, it would appear that "all forms of communication" does not include shouting insults over the fence. Should I consider that, then, a heretofore unmentioned caveat on your earlier position?

Fascinating little microcosm, this is.

 

No, "the real problem is" the behaviors of black people...the chaos ensuing as a result of those behaviors evidenced by the quality of life found in their 'communities':

From wikipedia: "A community is a social unit of any size that shares common values. The word "community" is derived from the Old Frenchcomunete which is derived from the Latincommunitas (from Latin communis, things held in common), a broad term for fellowship or organized society.[1] One broad definition which incorporates all the different forms of community is "a group or network of persons who are connected (objectively) to each other by relatively durable social relations that extend beyond immediate genealogical ties, and who mutually define that relationship (subjectively) as important to their social identity and social practice."

I want nothing to do with such 'communities' characterized by lawlessness and DISorganization, and I don't want those from such 'communities' bringing their 'common values' to mine. There is nothing racist or white supremacist about such thoughts/feelings which desire "durable social relations" in the communities in which they live. I want my family safe first and foremost. It is you who accuse and label me racist and white supremacist. When you point a finger, there are three pointing back at you. Is all this crusading for virtue and righteousness compensating for some lack on your part--or hiding some fault in yourself? Hmmm.

First, when you purposely destroy the economic base of your communitity, what is that is that except stupid and violent? Such activities happen in two ways (physical violence and 'philosophical violence') and both ways happen to be MO's of blacks in general and leftists in particular of whatever color.

Second, The division is not based upon race, but an individuals choice. Voluntary association. The last category you mentioned misrepresents what I said. The last category would be for those individuals who desire to live in a mixed society (White, black, whatever). You might be surprised to know that given a mutually agreed upon set of laws that reflect zero tolerance for the kind of lawlessness exhibited in the communities in question, I would probably opt to live in the diverse state. Living in any state would be voluntary, not groups forced to live together because of the intervention of some leftist social engineering experiment.

No, bravo to the Marquis for holding up a mirror to both of you and showing the egg on your collective faces. Your pathological dishonesty is NOT a virtue! A society founded upon such dishonesty will not yield the utopia you think it will...such a place would be in fact be dreadful. You are not the moral exemplars for humanity, indeed precisely the opposite especially considering the fact you seek to impose your twisted understanding of reality upon everyone. The truth of the matter is you are malicious tyrants who stoop to any means to malign those who resist and refuse to comply with your utopian ideals. Utterly ironic...the lot it.

Indeed.

 

It was explained to you why that link was posted.How many times does this have to be explained? That article was not posted on behalf of white supremacism; it was posted to point out the fact that "white supremacism has little or no influence in society and in fact such groups who think like that are a small minority among society. Conversely, blacks constitute a minority in society yet their influence far outweighs their numbers. That was the point of the article which was countering the false idea being pushed that white supremacism was somehow running rampant. If anything a question mark at the end of "on behalf of white supremacism" might have helped clarify my intent.

I stand by those comments, and point you to the definition of community and my subsequent comments after that definition.

Excuse me, NO. They are the ones singling themselves out for criticism because of their own pernicious ways i.e. glorifying thuggish mind sets and behaviors (again, note the definition of community posted above ). Beyond that, they are the ones who think of/label themselves collectively. To refer to them in the collective (blacks) is to be consistent with their own manner of defining themselves. Indeed, these incidents are not reflective of single individuals who have issues but are symptomatic of what is clearly a collective problem in the black community. As a side note, labeling themselves in the collective is never thought as racist or somehow dangerous as it is for whites...it is however, okay/common practice for whites as a whole to be broad brushed as racists but if whites refer to themselves in a collective sense so as to stand up for themselves, that cannot be allowed for some strange reason--despite every other group being encouraged to do so...truth be told,whites are the true minority on the planet. Anyway, the cumulative burden arising on account of those same collective problems ought rightfully be borne by THEM (blacks) i.e. the need of solutions originating from within. That burden should not be passed off onto whites by blaming them and who are then expected to find solutions based upon faulty misunderstandings of the problem in the first place. That can hardly be labeled as just.

"Coloured folks" are not those I object to being forced to associate with. If they happen to be "coloured", well that's just incidental to the overall problem which should be clear to you at this point. My immediate family consists of white and black. I have mixed race grandchildren--and we all live together just fine.

 

I think we've wandered a bit off topic... wait... what was the topic? Something about something... hate crime? I dont' even know anymore...