FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
User ID: 1175
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3d ago
This is a tedious diversion. I'm not criticising anyone for being too busy to reply to comments. I was pointing out a commonality in language and phrasing which strongly suggest to me that you are a Darwin sockpuppet: specific language and phrasing that I don't recall anyone other than another Darwin sockpuppet using. You know exactly what I meant, stop pretending otherwise.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3d ago
No, it doesn't. Not every post made here is a reply to a comment specifically addressed to me. Do you know how "threads" work? You made a top-level post less than 24 hours ago. That was not a reply to anyone.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3d ago
That's why I said "(perhaps not immediately)" in the paragraph immediately below the one you're quoting. Do you have attention-deficit disorder or something?
These seem to imply that you do not respond to every comment because of "times in which I was so occupied" and "routinely having more important things".
They don't, actually. I said "(I routinely have more important things to do than to be posting here)." I did not say "I routinely have more important things to do than to reply to comments here." Your reading comprehension is profoundly lacking.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3d ago
They inherently did when they took the self defense claim from the shooter legitimately (despite what we know now, it was not legally legitimate).
The responding officers did not take the self-defense claim from the shooter legitimately. The individuals responsible for prosecuting him did. The responding officers brought the shooting victim to the hospital as soon as they arrived on the scene. Why are you pretending not to understand this extremely simple distinction?
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3d ago
No. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever posted a comment here which I intended to reply to, but which I didn't have time to because "I have a job and family and stuff".
Either I reply to a comment (perhaps not immediately), or I don't bother replying because I have nothing to contribute.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3d ago
My other issue is that, by talking about how Drejka wasn't charged until after public outcry, you're completely missing the point of my request .
In the Nowak case, I and others are criticising the conduct of the police officers who arrived on the scene. Those first responders bear no responsibility for determining whether Digwa should be prosecuted and, if so, for what offenses. That responsibility falls to the director of public prosecutions. From what I can see, the people responsible for prosecuting Digwa did their jobs perfectly: they charged him with murder, they collected evidence with which to mount a case against him, and they presented that case to the jury, who were persuaded.
In the McGlockton case, you are criticising the conduct of the people responsible for prosecuting Drejka. By all accounts, the police officers who arrived on the scene of the shooting did their jobs perfectly: they correctly identified McGlockton as in need of urgent medical care and brought him to the hospital, and also brought the cooperative perpetrator to a police station for questioning.
So, to bring it back to that phrase "vaguely analogous": what I'm specifically looking for is a violent crime with the racial valence reversed in which the responding police officers behaved poorly in a manner similar to the Nowak case. I am not looking for a violent crime with the racial valence reversed where any member of the criminal justice system behaved poorly. I am specifically looking for a case in which the responding police officers behaved poorly.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3d ago
I pity the poor children whose father thinks that sophomoric word games like this are a productive use of his time.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3d ago
Oftentimes because I have nothing to contribute in reply.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3d ago
More specifically:
- They didn't treat the victim as a criminal; and
- They immediately took the perpetrator to a police station for questioning
so it doesn't count.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3d ago
I don't do that either, except in the specific situation where someone asked me why I don't reply to everything like their comment.
"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.
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.
3d 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.
3d 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.
3d 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.
3d 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.
3d 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.
3d 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.
3d 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.
3d 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.
3d ago
Yes, the brother and father have both appeared in court on weapons charges.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3d ago
I thought that was traditionally used as a euphemism for a gay man.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3d 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.)
There's the flounce, awesome.
More options
Context Copy link