FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
User ID: 1175
Let's recap. In the Nowak case, a brown man stabbed a white man. When the police came, they assumed that the mortally wounded white man was the aggressor, and went to arrest him, putting him in handcuffs and reading him his rights, rather than attempting to render medical care. I and many others think that this is outrageous. The essence of what makes it outrageous is that the victim was treated like a criminal.
You would have us believe that there's nothing "unique" about this case, and that things like it happen all the time with the racial valence reversed. I asked you to cite a specific example thereof, and the best you can come up with is a case in which a black man assaulted a white man, the white man shot him, and when the police arrived on the scene they immediately realised the black man was in urgent need of medical care and raced him to the hospital.
Henry Nowak: Mortally wounded. When the police arrive on the scene, they immediately move to read him his rights and put him in handcuffs. When he tells them that he's been stabbed, they tell them he hasn't. They only realise the gravity of their mistake when it's too late.
Markeis McGlockton: Mortally wounded. When the police arrive on the scene, they immediately recognise that he's been mortally wounded and race him to the hospital. At no point do they put him in handcuffs, read him his rights or arrest him.
darwin/guesswho/magicalkittycat: OMG, these two cases are exactly the same! It's like I'm seeing double here!
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1mo ago
Woah, you are a Darwin alt. Your pattern of behavior claiming you have other things to do is just what he did! Holy shit.
Poor reading comprehension in addition to being obnoxious (yet another thing you have in common with @guesswho – what a coincidence!). Go through my entire comment history and you will never, not once, find an instance in which I claimed the reason I could not reply to someone's comment was because I was too busy with my job and family. There have been times in which I was so occupied, but I never announced it in the sneering tone of dismissive condescension which is your favourite. That specific tic is a dead giveaway. So too is your defensive shit-slinging when you realise your subterfuge wasn't quite as convincing as you thought it was.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1mo ago
I still find it a more natural and coherent reading of the text that the strife he perceives in Britain's future is the political oppression of white racists by an electoral majority of brown anti-racists.
I can't find any point in the speech where Powell claims that white Britons will ever be outnumbered by brown migrants or their descendants. He specifically predicts that, by the year 2000, one-tenth of the UK will be Commonwealth immigrants or their descendants. (The 2001 census found that 8.6% of the UK was Asian*, black or mixed.)
I don't actually think there's any textual evidence that he was envisioning a plague of acts of personal brown-on-white violence like Digwa's.
In the speech, he describes the experiences of a lady living in Wolverhampton which has recently become much more ethnically diverse:
The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out. The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door... She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant.
The clear implication of this anecdote is that Wolverhampton is becoming vastly more dangerous and unpleasant to live in (to the point that an old woman who has lived there her whole life now feels afraid to leave the house) as a direct consequence of its recent influx of immigrants, and that Britons across the country can reasonably expect the same to happen to their communities should contemporary trends in immigration continue. I don't think you can remotely accuse him of being a "mealy-mouthed coward" when he includes the anecdote above to illustrate his point.
I think you actually have a much better case in the other sub-thread when linking his doomsaying, not to modern crime statistics, but to the rise of anti-free-speech legislation, which can legitimately be seen as a slippery slope from the concerns he voices.
And he explicitly voiced this specific concern in the speech itself:
When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.
Need it hardly be said that her concern was well-founded? White Britons have been sent to prison for "racist" offenses far less serious than refusing to rent out rooms in their house to immigrants.
*Which, in the British context, primarily refers to people from the Indian subcontinent.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1mo ago
I agree, that's why I was saying I don't think "spinster" is the female equivalent to "manchild".
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1mo ago
I am a well-adjusted individual with an active life. I was pointing out that you and @guesswho (if we're still maintaining the pretense that you are separate individuals) have an eerily similar tic where you have seemingly limitless time to expound on your opinions (seriously dude, you post an average of 2.5 comments per day here, you're in no position to throw stones), but the second you get any significant amount of pushback, you instantly claim to be far too busy with your other responsibilities to reply to them. I'm not criticising you for not replying to every comment (I routinely have more important things to do than to be posting here). I'm pointing out that the pattern of behaviour is so uncannily similar that I would be flabbergasted if you aren't yet another Darwin alt/sockpuppet. And I really, truthfully, do not understand this weird urge you feel to periodically flounce off, only to reappear some time later under a new username. It's just such phenomenally strange behaviour. I wonder what your next username will be.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1mo ago
What goalposts am I moving? Compare the first request I made to you:
Show me an example of a white Briton (or hell, let's make it easier for you: a white person from anywhere) stabbing a brown man, the police arriving on the scene to find the white aggressor clearly uninjured and the brown man visibly incapacitated, the white man claiming to have been attacked first, and on his word alone, the police handcuffing the visibly incapacitated brown man. If you can show me that, or even something vaguely analogous, I will consider the possibility that there are no real CW aspects to this awful case.
with the most recent one:
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.
You realise that the example you provided does not meet that description, right?
The victim was dead then! Your only nitpick here is that the victim was too dead to be put in handcuffs so it didn't count?
It's not a "nitpick". It's the exact thing I was repeatedly asking you for, which you have yet to provide.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1mo ago
I find it profoundly petty that, when someone makes a prediction which, decades hence, is soundly vindicated, you rap them on the knuckles for not showing their workings.
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.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1mo 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.
1mo 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.
1mo ago
Yes, the brother and father have both appeared in court on weapons charges.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1mo ago
I thought that was traditionally used as a euphemism for a gay man.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1mo 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.
1mo 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.
1mo 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.
1mo 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.
1mo 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.
1mo 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.
1mo 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.
"I don't do that thing either, except on those occasions when I do."
Thanks for spelling that out for me dude, really appreciate it.
More options
Context Copy link