FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
User ID: 1175
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2hr ago
It belongs to us. It was meant to be a dedicated website for cataloguing quality contributions, but I think the mods eventually decided it was more hassle than it was worth and basically stopped updating it.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2hr ago
The even more obvious dissimilarity is that Digwa was clearly uninjured, while at the very least Nowak was obviously immobile and incapacitated. But I am nonetheless pleased that someone was able to find a case which fit the broad contours of a case like Nowak's with the racial valence reversed.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3hr ago
Yes, the brother and father have both appeared in court on weapons charges.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3hr ago
I thought that was traditionally used as a euphemism for a gay man.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3hr ago
I have a busy life with work and my kids
There it is, the Darwin tell:
It's in my queue, but I've gotten like 90 replies since yesterday and the long ones take a long time to do justice (and I do have a job and a family). At this point most comments aren't going to get a reply, realistically.
@ArjinFerman, just in case you were unaware, you are talking to one of Darwin's alts. (The last one was called @guesswho.)
The "first they came for the XYZ, but I did not speak out" rhyme breaks down when the XYZ are not merely a group to which I don't belong, but a group that I already considered enemies regardless.
Uhh... no it doesn't? This is the entire principle behind defending scoundrels. Just because X is currently oppressing group Y (a group you consider your enemies), doesn't mean they won't eventually turn on your in-group too.
The author of the "first they came" poem was an anti-communist priest who hated Jews, and yet two groups listed in the poem are communists and Jews. Your claim that the logic breaks down when the group is a group you consider your enemy is literally the exact reverse of the intended meaning of the poem.
Thank you, however, for giving me a presumably unintended insight into your worldview. The message you took from that poem was not "you must defend the civil rights even of people you consider your outgroup, because if you don't, there'll be no one left to defend your civil rights". The message you took from it was "you must defend the civil rights of groups you feel no animosity towards, because if you don't, there'll be no one left to defend your civil rights. However, if someone wants to trample on your outgroup's civil rights, that's 100% A-OK and not at all a cause for concern." By your logic, the priest who wrote this poem was right to look the other way when the SS were rounding up Jews and communists.
Thank you for saying the quiet part out loud.
Interesting. "Airhead" denotes a woman who's not very intelligent. "Bimbo" denotes a woman who's not very intelligent in addition to being physically attractive.
I'm not sure if either of these is quite the same as "manchild": I think the thing that makes "manchild" insulting is the accusation of immaturity, not idiocy. Some immature men can be intelligent, at least in a particular narrow domain.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
6hr ago
To which you're essentially preemptively objected that if that were so, then we should expect to see instances of this race-neutral bias affecting cases with a rational-seeming white attacker and a frantic POC victim. Which is sensible, though I don't think it necessarily suffices to defeat the argument.
My other objection to his explanation is that it's simply untrue that Nowak was panicked. Rather, he was incapacitated, not moving, and lying on his side (unlike Digwa, who was standing, lucid, talkative and uninjured), which should have immediately raised the police officers' suspicions that Nowak was severely injured and hence not the aggressor. Likewise, he was not incoherent: every factual statement he made with what little strength he had left ("I've been stabbed", "I can't breathe") was both true and articulated clearly enough to be easily understood via heavily compressed bodycam footage.
The police officers did not accept the word of a calm actor over a panicked and incoherent one. They accepted the word of a calm actor over one who was visibly on death's door, presumably for reasons of their respective races. That's what people are so enraged about.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
6hr ago
Thank you. Clearly, the Nowak case is not quite as unique as I had erstwhile believed.
This is what you asked for
It is not. I asked for an instance in which a white man attacked a brown man (though the sexes are irrelevant, and I would have accepted any person of colour), police arrived on the scene, immediately assumed that the visibly injured brown victim was the aggressor (perhaps because the white aggressor was acting "calmly" or cooperatively, as you claimed) and put him in handcuffs, while declining to put the white aggressor in handcuffs.
That's what I've been asking for all along. Read back through the comments I posted, you will not find a single instance in which I demanded an example of a white man killing a person of colour and the police declining to prosecute. That is a completely different situation to the one I asked for an example of.
I honestly cannot believe you have the nerve to accuse me of moving the goalposts. Is the idea just that if you tell an extremely brazen lie, you'll make me doubt myself enough that I'll accept that I was mistaken? Is your goal simply to gaslight me into submission?
Numerous people independently had their suspicions over the last year, I had my doubts, but at this point the pattern is just impossible to deny: give it a rest, Darwin. I don't know what the rules on using alt accounts are, but this is just tiresome, pathetic behaviour, and I wish you'd find a more productive use of your time than reflexively asserting "nothing to see here, folks!" whenever a conservative person voices an entirely legitimate grievance. Will you now announce that you're too busy with your job and family to provide the source I requested, abandon this alt, and come back in six months with an even stupider name? Surely you have better things to be doing with your life.
Okay, so a case in which
- a black man starts an altercation with a white man (captured on CCTV)
- which escalated to the white man shooting the black man
- the white man patiently waited for the police to arrive, was cooperative when they did so, and admitted what he'd done
- the police immediately took the white man to the station for questioning when they arrived on the scene
- the police did not put the black victim in handcuffs when they arrived on the scene, but instead had paramedics rush him to the hospital
... what exactly do you think this case is meant to illustrate regarding the non-uniqueness of the Nowak case?
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
12hr ago
I fail to understand how the claim "police officers are sometimes unsure of who to arrest in domestic abuse calls" somehow proves your contention that there's nothing remarkable about police officers only arresting a clearly incapacitated man while making zero effort to arrest the man who stabbed him in what was not a domestic abuse situation. They are entirely unrelated claims.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
12hr ago
an absolute no-brainer would be to cancel the religious exemption to the laws forbidding knives.
Reform UK have pledged to do exactly that if they achieve a majority in the next election. Strange that Labour haven't scooped them.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
12hr ago
Okay – so if it's not so rare, it shouldn't be difficult for you to find an example which is at least broadly comparable to this one, but with reversed racial dynamics. It doesn't have to be an altercation between two strangers: surely it shouldn't be difficult for you to find an instance in which two male friends of different races (or even two female) got into a fight, the non-white one was clearly more severely injured, but the police arrested him rather than the visibly less injured white party. There must be tens of thousands of hours of publicly available bodycam footage out there, and I'm confident that woke people would be screaming the house down about racial profiling if an event like this had transpired. But despite claiming that Henry Nowak's case isn't especially unique, you can't come up with even one example with the racial dynamics reversed. How strange.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
13hr ago
It barely happens in any racial direction!
So, you can't cite an example of the thing I requested? You mean (contrary to what you earlier claimed) this case is unique?
You don't think that one of the most common forms of violence regularly having this exact issue is even "vaguely analogous"?
When I said "vaguely analogous" I was referring to the white aggressor/brown victim component of my request. I would have accepted, for example, an instance in which a white aggressor non-lethally assaulted a brown victim, and the police arrested the brown victim while leaving the white aggressor alone. But it seems you can't even produce one of those.
Yes, cops do that pretty often.
If it's the case that cops arrest the wrong party pretty often, show me one. Show me a case where the cops arrested the wrong person, and that person was non-white while their aggressor was white. Otherwise I don't even know what we're doing here.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
13hr ago
I don't see the point in debating the ethics of child labour with an admitted nonce. The inferential distance is just too wide. Best of luck to you.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
13hr ago
It's like saying using the word noncey sounds extremely British-prole.
This is literally not even a grammatical sentence. If you're going to go full what-if-the-child-consents-tho, you could at least do me the courtesy of doing so in a semantically accurate fashion.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
13hr ago
Are you trying to claim there's a widespread epidemic of white victims being left lying on the ground while colored attackers are left alone?
No: I asked you for a specific example of the reverse, wherein a brown victim is handcuffed while the white aggressor is left alone. I don't know why you brought up domestic abuse calls, as that doesn't seem remotely relevant to my request.
Of course not! This sort of issue being rather common is exactly why some more experienced and smarter officers and departments started doing dual arrests.
Okay, but again – why are you bringing this up? What does that have to do with this case?
"This man got stabbed, and when the police came they put him in handcuffs without bothering to cuff the man who stabbed him."
"Yeah. Sometimes when responding to domestic abuse calls, police will arrest both parties just to be safe."
That has literally nothing to do with this case. I don't know why you're bringing it up. It's completely irrelevant. We're not talking about police arresting both parties out of an excess of caution. We're talking about the police arresting one person, and it being the wrong one.
In my original comment I gave a whole category of this, domestic abuse victims.
Are there really so many domestic abuse cases in which the aggressor is a white man and the victim a brown man? I had no idea there were so many interracial gay couples.
When police have trouble determining the identity of the primary aggressor, they may also arrest the true abuser along with the victim, in a dual arrest.
Which, you'll notice, is not what happened here. They put the victim in handcuffs despite him clearly being immobile and incapacitated, and didn't put the aggressor in handcuffs, even though he was standing, lucid, talkative and showing no signs of visible injury at all. If they were unsure of how the altercation had gone down and decided to cuff both parties out of an abundance of caution, that would be one thing. Only cuffing the party who clearly poses no threat, claims to have been stabbed and is acting in a manner entirely consistent with that claim, while declining to cuff the other party? Inexcusable, and you know it.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
14hr ago
One last comment before I stop talking about this because it's making me too angry and depressed.
Between this, the Southport stabbings and the grooming gangs, it's becoming increasingly difficult for me not to believe that Enoch Powell was the most prescient English politician of the twentieth century. Nearly sixty years later, it's remarkable how little the progressive script has changed when dealing with conservatives voicing uncomfortable truths about immigration:
The Labour MP Ted Leadbitter said he would refer the speech to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe spoke of a prima facie case against Powell for incitement.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
14hr ago
I remember reading a satire article (which I'm unable to find now) where the title was something like "'What Are You Looking At?!' Says Man Who Has Been Trying to Get Your Attention for the Last Fifteen Minutes".
I routinely encounter ferociously angry and frustrated people like this who are clearly spoiling for a fight and actively looking for any pretext, no matter how feeble, to start a fight with someone smaller than them. My guess is that Nowak said something utterly innocuous that a more level-headed person would have responded to with good humour, but he had the poor fortune to pick the most mentally unstable young man in Southampton.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
15hr ago
Yeah, I'd say that's the least they could do.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
15hr ago
In that part I was referencing the Weinstein scandal for the most part. AFAIK non of those women claimed to be underage when they allegedly had sex with him.
I have absolutely no idea why you're bringing up adult women who claimed to be the victims of sexual misconduct when my post was specifically (and very explicitly) about child actors of both sexes.
McCurdy was around that age during her iCarly career so, I guess it would apply to her too.
The pilot was filmed in January of 2007, when she was fourteen. I have no idea what "scientifically consent" is supposed to mean, but it sounds extremely noncey. California's legal age of consent is eighteen.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
15hr ago
It would involve his community turning on him, condemning and outcasting him.
In fairness, Digwa had already been barred from his local gurdwara at the time the stabbing took place, and in response British Sikh leaders are revisiting their policies around ceremonial blades:
Gurmel Singh, chief executive of the Supreme Sikh Council UK, told The Telegraph that community leaders would meet on Saturday and in coming weeks to “review safeguards” in the religious training of Sikhs and ensure that such an incident was “never repeated”.
Under the faith, Sikhs are permitted to wear a kirpan only if they have been baptised and had the required spiritual training. The curved knife is meant to remain on a Sikh’s body until their death and is cremated with them.
Responding to [Reform UK's] proposals, Mr Singh said: “We extend our deepest condolences to the family of Henry Nowak, who was tragically killed. Our thoughts are with them during this devastating time.
“The Sikh community unequivocally condemns the actions of Vickrum Digwa. His conduct represents a grave breach of our values and code of conduct, and has brought disrepute to a community that stands for service, justice, and peace.
“Wearing the Sikh articles of faith is a sacred responsibility, not a symbol to be misused. Any act that violates the principles of Sikhi will always be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
“Community leaders are meeting to review safeguards and ensure that such isolated incidents are never repeated. We are committed to internal accountability and will be launching a strengthened education campaign on the responsibilities that come with the articles of faith.
“While we reject reactionary political statements that use this tragedy for populism, we fully embrace our own responsibility to act. The Sikh community will not excuse wrongdoing, and we will continue to uphold the integrity of our faith through action, not just words.”
Maybe nothing will come of it and these are just empty statements made under the advice of a lawyer until the case leaves the public imagination. But I've been legitimately impressed by the Sikh community's response, and think they've handled this a lot better than Britain's Muslim community would have done.
Well, the reason I think Powell's speech was so prophetic was that he understood perfectly the kind of slippery slope the UK had begun toboganning down. You are entirely correct that, at the time of writing, no one was calling for the execution (or even imprisonment) of white Britons who don't want to rent out rooms to black people. But in modern Britain, plenty of people have been arrested, convicted and even imprisoned for vastly less severe "infractions" than this, "infractions" which amount to thoughtcrime against the prevailing regime.
Maybe you think that a woman who doesn't want to rent out rooms in her boarding house to black men is just a racist and if she doesn't like it, tough. But you don't have to sympathise with her in particular to recognise Powell's broader point: if you think it's going to stop there, you are staggeringly naïve. And he was absolutely right – it did not stop there.
As I mentioned in the above links, a man was jailed for eight weeks for the "crime" of sharing a meme depicting Pakistani men armed with knives arriving to the UK in boats, with the caption "coming to a town near you". In my view, he should have not been sent to prison, and the fact that he was is a grotesque, unconscionable violation of his civil rights. Maybe you think forcing women to rent out rooms to black people doesn't inevitably lead to white Britons being arrested and imprisoned for any and all criticisms of diversity, immigration etc. Maybe it doesn't lead "inevitably" to police officers handcuffing a white stabbing victim while his Indian murderer gloats about how he done a racism. But at this point, whether the one "inevitably" leads to the other is sort of academic. Powell predicted that, at least in this case, one would lead to the other. He was right and it did. That's why it's called the "rivers of blood" speech, because Powell felt a great foreboding: not that the anecdotes he described are bad in and of themselves (they are, as you put it, almost quaint), but that they bode extremely ill for the direction the UK would take in the coming decades.
More options
Context Copy link