covfefeAnon
1yr ago
If I understand correctly, your argument is that forced segregation and requiring blacks to sit in the back of the bus was actually just because without those measures, blacks are criminals who make cities unliveable?
Breaking it down into specific rules which are questioned on the basis of the justice of the particular rule changes the framing of the question from one that is fundamentally about results - "we care that we have cities that don't drive whites out through targeted robbery, rape and murder" to one about process and procedure - "the most important thing is that our procedures be found valid by a cabal of people - but those people aren't responsible for the results of the system as a whole". Yes, without a framework of many rules - none of which is individually necessary or sufficient - blacks wage a continual war of aggression against whites. Stopping that is more important than the details of the rules. Having to sit in the back of a bus is a small price to pay to live in society where order hasn't broken down entirely such that someone on the bus is smoking meth which is the end result of subjecting every particular rule to scrutiny and finding an exceptional case where that rule seems unjust.
You may believe that blacks should be treated differently based on your moral or social principals, or you may believe blacks are extra-prone to criminality and this justifies treating them as such, but that's not a legal principal that can be found under the Constitution.
I could say that this is just as much found in the Constitution as any of the things that the Regime has found in it in since FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court and Earl Warren decided to totally re-write American law but instead I'll be honest - I don't care at all if it's "a legal principle that can be found under the Constitution" because I have observed that my enemies don't care about that either and they don't care about having a functioning society either. Turning the legal system into a game of who can lie most convincingly about what is found in a document when it plainly isn't there has run its course - the incentives for playing such a game are nothing but bad.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
I admire the skillful tap dancing you are doing, but this is merely using a lot of circumlocution to avoid stating your premise explicitly. If you believe that forced segregation and unequal treatment is the only practical way to avoid "cities that don't drive whites out through targeted robbery, rape and murder," then you need to make that argument explicitly, you don't get to handwave in the direction of "results" and therefore claim that forced segregation and unequal treatment was justified based on what you perceive to be the downstream effects of not doing that.
There's no "tap dancing" going on here. Segregation and "unequal treatment" (we have equal treatment now? you sure?) aren't "the only practical way to avoid" [ethnic cleansing and people getting pushed in front of subway trains by "serial random assaulters"] but they are a way of doing so - certainly one that produced demonstrably better results. You seem to be operating under a very strange impression that what matters is that the proper procedure must be followed with zero concern over whether the procedures produce good results. This is an outgrowth of the mindset implanted by operating in a society run on the ideology of the bureaucrat - no one can be faulted for anything as long as proper procedure was followed. Though this seems normal to many people today, it is actually quite insane.
Actually, no, it isn't, because that's an infinitely generalizable argument. "Stopping rape and murder is more important than the details of the rules." "Stopping terrorist attacks is more important than the details of the rules." "Stopping narcotics trafficking is more important than the details of the rules."
Sure, all those things are true technically.
Stopping rape and murder - more important than any societal rules because these are of the highest priority of men to stop and if you society does not stop them then you make an enemy of all capable men who will quietly step out of society which then make it impossible for your society to do anything as you lose all forms of cooperation.
Stopping terrorist attacks is more important than the details of the rules - plainly obviously true. Preventing military attacks on civilians is the most basic of government functions so it can have a prosperous society.
Stopping narcotics trafficking - this is only a problem that's downstream of about a zillion things that the current bizarre government we have does.
you are arguing for a position that can only be defended and implemented through the laws in existence.
There are no laws in existence - there's only who / whom. That's not a reflection of the only possible state of affairs but it is a correct description of what we have now and I'm not going to pretend that it isn't.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Do you think we should reimpose racial segregation or not?
We have racial segregation and it's ever more competitive as the legal system more and more reflects the progressive view that blacks are not subject to anything as mundane as "law".
Legal segregation would be an improvement over that system; do I think that's what should be imposed? Not necessarily - an Ottoman-style millet system would work as well as would Singaporean style legal environment - loads of workable options but they have to begin with the clear reality about the vastly different evolutionary backgrounds of the different species involved.
Segregation and "unequal treatment" (we have equal treatment now?
Yes.
you sure?)
Yes.
This does not match up with reality. The sheer volume of evidence that there's an entirely separate legal system for blacks where cops are sent out to arrest them when they make too much trouble but then they're let out vs the legal system for non-blacks where there are massive penalties for criminal conduct and downright glee on the part of prosecutors for getting to finally prosecute someone who isn't the usual was old enough to be described by Tom Wolfe in the 80s as the "hunt for the great white defendant". Almost every crime story you read about on the New York Post's twitter feed includes lines about how the latest perpetrator of a horrible crime had been "arrested 37 times before on felony charges". There are dozens of whites murdered by blacks every month with no spectacular media coverage and in fact, often times no charges filed in totally egregious cases like a firefighter defending a woman in a convenience store who gets executed by the attacking woman's boyfriend and wasn't charged - or the gas station robber in California who killed a clerk and wasn't charged because it was self defense when the clerk shot at him. Contrast that case to...
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
For this to be true, you would have to explain why so many blacks are in prison. You can't have it both ways and claim that the black incarceration rate demonstrates that blacks are more criminal but also they aren't subject to laws.
Because they commit an absurd amount of crime - most of which is "unsolved", a good portion of which is unreported. The famous 13/57 understates it because that only counts solved murders and there are massive numbers of unsolved murders in places where every single unsolved murder is committed by a black person.
The rest of your post is progressive nonsense.
Scott wrote an article about this that is still valid.
Scott is a conscious, aware liar and has never written an article that is "still valid" - much less one which fell to a very simple rebuttal in the comments.
If we’re really concerned about media bias, we need to think about Chinese Robber Fallacy as one of the media’s strongest weapons. There are lots of people – 300 million in America alone. No matter what point the media wants to make, there will be hundreds of salient examples. No matter how low-probability their outcome of interest is, they will never have to stop covering it if they don’t want to.
You can use this same logic to disprove the narrative on a bunch of issues.
If every campus rape case that gets publicized is a hoax or a fraud, then the campus rape narrative is a lie.
If every time a black man is killed by a white man it turns out the black guy was in the middle of committing a felony and had a track record of committing felonies then the “racist whites murder black bodies” narrative is a lie.
After all, since it’s such a large country if the phenomena were real then real examples could be found, right?
He knows his argument is demolished here so he backs into "toxoplasmosa of rage - they pick bad cases on purpose because it's a better loyalty test" - which doesn't fit at all (which he almost certainly knows) because there are simply no cases where the progressive narrative fits. You can see every day blacks getting away with crimes, you simply never see that with whites. Turns out it's actually really easy to catch criminals but the justice system doesn't do it for blacks because we don't have "equal protection".
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
But no, you can't because then you have a dispute between progressives who say "the law is so unfair because mostly blacks get arrested" and a pathetic side who says "the law is even handed" - which concedes the frame that if the law was somehow unfairly applied, they'd concede and just allow the progressive pro-crime position. Of course, progressives are able to find some case that they convince themselves is unfair and GOPe types cuck on it as is their job.
On the other hand, if a society has an attitude of "we don't care if you find some specific unfairness, things happen and massive amounts of crime are way way more unfair" then the progressive gets shut down.
You'll note that crime did get driven down in the 90s and this low crime drove progressives into a frenzy and they desperately reversed it as soon as they were able.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
and avoid addressing any of the counterarguments I and others have made.
Blatantly false.
An example - your argument:
For this to be true, you would have to explain why so many blacks are in prison.
Addressed here:
Because they commit an absurd amount of crime - most of which is "unsolved", a good portion of which is unreported.
If you want to ask for evidence for this then you run right into progressive "manipulation of procedural outcomes" - progressive academics straight up lie so you have to go to anecdotal evidence that nonetheless contains valuable statistical information and that shows that, yes, blacks are basically immune to the law. An example elsewhere in this thread was a black guy who killed a few people in a home invasion who served 4 years of an 8 year sentence then killed someone else when released. You can find dozens of examples on the NY Post twitter feed of "this person was arrested 47 times on felony charges previously". To which you rebut "Chinese robber" but the argument implied there is one that assumes the conclusion. "You can find examples of anything because there are a lot of people" is the general argument but it's simply impossible to find examples "arrested 47 times, committed a newsworthy crime" where the perp wasn't black - certainly you can't find dozens of examples of this. You can't find videos of whites behaving the way blacks do such that there's a joke "new Street Fighter level just dropped" when you can watch a new video on a daily basis of blacks having mass brawls in public.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Except that progressives hated that Bloomberg's policies worked and only Bloomberg's persistence in the face of progressive opposition (rare) and the level of power he was able to exercise as mayor (also rare) allowed them to continue. Bloomberg would even point out when asked about stop and frisk "disproportionally" targeting blacks that blacks weren't stopped and frisked disproportionally compared to the population of felons.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Things like blacks pushing people in front of subway trains don't happen randomly or in a single step. It takes years of wearing down the barriers that used to be in place to keep behaviors like that in check - even lifting those barriers didn't immediately result in the things in this thread (any item in there is a thousand times worse than the dreaded racially assigned bus seating):
https://twitter.com/GodCloseMyEyes/status/1414619671056297984
First you attack the cultural confidence which is reinforced by things like bus seating, then people test the new limits to see what's actually permitted (as people do when the rules are uncertain) and when the new rules turn out to be "everything is permitted as long as you're attacking enemies of the Regime" then you get an orgy of violence.
Even asking the question of "did this specific change produce that specific result" is asking the wrong question. The motivation for that change was ostensibly because the old rule wasn't permitted in the legal framework. On a technical level that assertion is absurd - "oh that rule was there but no one knew it for 50 years" - but even that's not important; grant for a moment that this wasn't just a transparent power grab - did it produce good results? This wasn't an isolated change and it wasn't made as one or thought of as one - it was a cultural revolution to change the way of life of a lot of people. Was it a positive change? Was it such a positive change that it justifies the crimes detailed in one single town in that thread above? Why? Just to live more in line with what a document says when no one who signed that document would even have understood it to imply the rules imposed? Absurd.
The fact that it wasn't actually justified by holy document is just the cherry on top of the disingenuousness sundae.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Link?
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
The question is: would NATO accept to lose to Russia in a war of attrition, with all that means for its credibility and for viability of major land grabs, or would it rather accept some upfront cost to de-mothball military production lines
Because the actual enemy of USG and it's satrapies are the people who would gain wealth by producing things such as arms. Deindustrialization of the west wasn't an accident and it wasn't the result of "economic forces" - it was the result of a series of deliberate choices. Reversing that trend after the Regime has gone mask off would be very high risk.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Based on some recent discussion in the CW thread (I believe), it seems like a lot of the specific issue of "pushing people in front of trains" is schizophrenics going off their meds. Their behavior is not based on a logical reasoning process and therefore cannot be influenced by a cultural more that (allegedly) allows some people to get away with such behavior.
Yet somehow it happens now and didn't happen 10 years ago. "He was arrested 36 times for violent assaults and let go each time" has something to do with it as well as noticing that "deranged men" (euphemism used in one of the news reports by the only source willing to actually notice these things happening) are sane enough to shove smaller, less dangerous people in front of subway trains. Oh look, there is a logical reasoning process going on there related directly to cause, effect and consequences. Calling the person "schizophrenic" doesn't remove that and if it did then that's all the more reason to immediately execute those people as an uncontrollable danger to everyone around them.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Amazingly "optimistic" of you to think they didn't do any due diligence rather then that they did it and didn't care at all.
They had to watch the video to edit it down to what they showed.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Micheal Bloomberg demonstrates that you cannot allow progs any power or voice because they actually hate good governance because it's good governance.
Here's the cycle:
Traditional methods controlled crime pretty well
Progs wanted to undermine traditional methods and had a broad spectrum attack on them - legal about "rights" mainly (case clearance rates drop precipitously after the Warren court inventions)
As a way to head off a reaction to their attack, they create nonsense social science where they claim that crime cannot be solved without addressing "root causes" - the root causes being lack of programs. You see echos of this with the modern "trained deescalation personnel instead of police"
Progs win, crime skyrockets throughout the 60s and 70s, plateaus in the 80s and jumps in the 90s
Over time progs come to believe their own lies about "root causes" - that's what they're taught in universities and what trickles down from there
Giuliani / Bratton introduce the idea of addressing crime by addressing crime - Giuliani won in NYC due to support from more blue collar whites and progressives didn't go full out against him because they knew addressing crime by addressing crime couldn't work - it didn't solve the "root causes"
It did work, gets copied in lots of places - progressives are horrified by the decline in crime and pretend that concern over racial injustice is the reason they object to doing things that actually do lower crime - these objections escalate over time
Bloomberg is able to hold out against these objections because he's more entrenched but progressives elect the next mayor who basically undoes it all
Ultimately the problem is that their objection to enforcing the law isn't based on anything that they say it is - the racial unfairness angle falls apart under inspection - their objection is to anything effective. That's the only way to make sense of their behavior because every single thing done was done still under the framework they set out as being within the rules. No executions, no speedy trials, no executive authority vested in cops, no approval of men defending themselves, etc. - just very PMC style "dispatch the cops who follow proper procedure and protocols that follow every explicit progressive rule". There are no crime control measures that are effective that they will support and if they support it and it turns out to be effective, they'll withdraw support when it's shown to be effective.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
The obvious exception is South Africa, which had much earlier settler colonialism as opposed to the later and more popular extractive model. Looking at the societies that have emerged post-decolonisation, a really striking fact is how much more violent South Africa is than any other country in the continent, even those that have experienced recent military conflict. I'm talking specifically here about murder rates, by far the most reliable measure of violence even in extremely badly-run societies (ie most of Africa). South Africa is notably more violent than almost any other African country; in some cases up to 30× more (note that oppression is colourblind, and SA's only large competitor in the murder stakes is Nigeria, anothe country cursed with intense ethnic conflict, and jockeying, alternating subjugation of the Yoruba by the Hausa historically, and the inverse now).
Sub-Saharan Africans in RSA aren't native to the region and so don't even have traditional African levels of crime control. That's what you're seeing the effect of.
An interesting counterfactual for you is this; what do you think would be the state of the US today if reconstruction of the slave regions had been completed in earnest and totally?
Detroit but with hot weather - the same results as you got when progressives actually did get to use their pets to enact their violence revenge fantasies on their class enemies.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Great, it's technically criminal.
Now lets see if the paper that the law is written on will enforce that prohibition.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
The Soviets having the bomb soon afterward was also directly due to the efforts of a network of spies that were predominately Jewish.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
because he assumed that the press would not believe anything he had to say
"Believe"? The theory is that they're part of the conspiracy.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Other than CNN telling you that it's so, is there actually any post-1991 evidence that Russia is, in fact, our "long-term adversary"
They don't have gay pride parades.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Thanks for the link - this person is easily recognized as having significant SSA ancestry.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
There was some such overlap during WW2, but I imagined they somewhat purged themselves for obvious reasons after the break with USSR?
Why would you think that instead of the opposite?
There were communists in the OSS and CIA when the US was supposedly in a conflict with the USSR - IOW, when there would have been pressure on them to hide that fact.
After the collapse of the USSR there's been a CIA director who voted for CPUSA - any pressure to hide radical left wing affiliations is long gone.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
They put him in a position where any move was a losing one.
Cover it up, get him on the cover-up and then it becomes (stupid) conventional wisdom - "the cover-up is what gets you" (which doesn't apply when you're (for example) Sandy Berger who only got two years probation for removing and destroying classified material from the National Archives). If he doesn't cover-up then they get him on the crime and never mention this floating hypothesis that "the cover-up is the real crime".
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
The implication here is that we mainly have an epistemology crisis.
Most people aren't going to be as competent and trained in argumentation to spot these evasions but a big problem our society has is that even our "elites" can't spot them when the evasions are done as long as they're being done for reasons the NYT would support.
Implicitly their epistemology is "believe the implication of the NYT - don't look for the missing factual content or added non-factual content".
Very few people can reason out an epistemology on their own - most need to be educated in it. At the very least almost everyone needs to read about it and to do that one would have to find the right reading material. This means there's a lot of power in getting to set the ground rules of evaluating claims and installing a faulty epistemology - look at wikipedia and how it launders progressive claims through the "reliable sources" rule. The wikipedia rules are rules for deciding what should get printed on the site which implicitly makes them rules about discerning truth.
Progressives want to install rules like "trust the NYT" (which wikipedia has as a literal rule) because progressives known that other progressives control those institutions. Progressives still have a back door of "ignore the NYT when it says things we don't want to hear", of course.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Yet somehow it happens now and didn't happen 10 years ago.
Do you have a source for this claim?
No, there aren't newspaper reports from 10 years ago saying "today no one got shoved in front a subway train".
On the other hand, there are videos of it today.
This is an amazingly disingenuous request intended to both shift the burden of proof away from you - not great but part of the jockeying - but also to set yourself up as the arbiter - "sorry, just not proven to my satisfaction - maybe they were covering up all those subway deaths" and should actually result in a banning if people want this place to have good norms of discussion.
...what the fuck? How the hell is this a reasonable response? Most of these people are fine as long as they are on their meds
I don't care at all about the hypothetical situation where a subway murderer might be fine. If you want to argue "well, he's not responsible for his actions - couldn't help himself - schizophrenia and all" then the appropriate response is "well then obviously he must be executed and very quickly because a man who can't understand cause and effect who enjoys hurting people is basically a rabid dog".
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
The thing they're not lazy about is making sure they have ownership of a clip before they play it on air since the system of who/whom that we call a legal system actually recognizes media ownership claims as important (for now at least) so they would have obtained rights to the video before playing it.
Because the rest of your framing is wrong.
Rosa Parks was one person but her case ended up helping the many not-sympathetic individuals who were kept in check by broad rules. If you want to assert that the system that produced order was "unjust" you also have to own what Detroit and Newark and Camden and Gary look like without that "injustice".
That's the problem with test cases - they present an implicitly false case intentionally designed to confuse people and play on sympathies. The legal principles would have been the same if the case was about Corner Man and it would have been much less deceptive.
More options
Context Copy link