hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
14d ago
This kind of hair splitting could apply to any instance of alleged 'hatred' in history. It's only being applied to whites by whites since the alternative makes them more uncomfortable.
I remember reading horror stories about youth training camps in Nazi Germany where they would sometimes bring the boy and girl groups together and have them do all sorts of activities with one another. The horrifying details of some of the girls coming home pregnant were a sign of the sordid nature of the Nazi regime and the people that organized these programs. The idea that there was a system in place that wasn't all that concerned with youth pregnancy and could be seen as functionally encouraging it was presented as lurid and practically evil from the perspective of the historians.
But from a naturalist perspective, what else is nature trying to have you do when your hormones are raging? When every emotional impulse is felt fivefold? Why should the bedrooms of teenagers in a coed training camp be monitored like prison cells or there is otherwise some great moral crime being committed? It's an odd juxtaposition with modern society where we have the same impulses but they are all intentionally neutered or directed towards childlessness.
To that extent, how bad is it that two young people with relatively high IQ's and neurotypical temperament create a family together early? Even if they are circumstantially encouraged by an adult matchmaker. Should they grow apart, they still have a chance at a second life before they turn 40. When many modern couples are having their first kid!
I keep thinking back to the idea of a genetic matchmaker of sorts. Even one as rudimentary as the infamous 'immune system smell test'. The notions that looks and personality compatibilities are impossible to study or roughly figure out seems stupid to me. You don't need a matchmaker with 100% or even 70% success rate. You just need to do better than the sexually liberated wild west we have today where apparently fewer people than ever are having sex and even fewer having children.
Like, is it completely impossible to just teach teenagers how to get along? There's an entire industry outside of schooling dedicated to just that, but it's reserved for adults who have already made all the mistakes. Feels like the entire thing is upside down.
hanikrummihundursvin
16d ago
Yeah. When I heard that the jury in Karmelo Anthony's case was 'all white' I could only imagine 12 obese Mexicans in buttoned up shirts with white cowboy hats sitting in the courtroom sweating profusely under the Texas sun.
I feel like the American identity isn't a comparable thing to say, Austrian, Dutch, Polish or similar. It's more like a gameshow competition where the last one to stop touching it wins. Though to be fair many European countries are moving in that direction.
hanikrummihundursvin
16d ago
The devils duo, Catholics and Jews. The KKK tried to warn us but we didn't listen. Now look at it.
The tradcaths on X do so much PR work by being miles to the right of their Church. And one has to believe they are sincere and genuine. Which leads one to ask why they present themselves as Catholic. My muslim coworker expressed a similar sentiment when he saw a normal family of four flying the rainbow flag. 'That is not for you. Why do you have it?'
hanikrummihundursvin
17d ago
I don't think you are disagreeing. The kids purpose is just to alleviate the emotional anguish of the parents in the most immediate sense possible, sure. But the actual problem is that there's no forethought, context or purpose that backs any of the emotional impulse the parents have.
To that extent parents having emotional impulses that drive them forwards isn't a bad thing. They would always be there in some context. But they should serve a higher purpose than keeping up with the Joneses.
hanikrummihundursvin
17d ago
The simple solution to multi language social spaces is that in any shared space where there is the potential for a person who doesn't know language X, you speak the universal language regardless of if they are there or not.
The idea that one wants to teach the kids a different language is fine. Teach them. But as soon as it starts creeping into situations where not everyone can understand you have a discipline problem. No swearing at the TV in Russian and no Chinese in the kitchen!
The problem of doing things this way is that the parents actually have to take responsibility. It's much easier to not have to put in effort, and just talk to your kids in this language whilst the other parent does it in another, rather than actively sitting your kids down every evening and doing some genuine teaching. But it's a recipe for negative social structures within the home, like you overview.
All in all it's a problem of low agency parenting in a low stakes environment. To veer slightly off topic:
Parents want 'good things' like their kids knowing multiple languages, being pitch perfect and doing well in school or sports, but they don't know why. You hit on this in portion III. It becomes harder and harder to justify teaching your kids a language or otherwise doing hard things when in practicality it is only used to impress grandma and grandpa, who might quickly turn to the universal language when they hear how poorly their studies have been going. There are no real stakes, no weight. This is because fundamentally there's no vision for the future. The kids don't actually have a purpose. The family doesn't exist in a serious context.
People like to blame the 'economy' for the downwardly mobile, but it's practically always the parents that failed. They were disinterested in securing a prosperous future for their children because they themselves are not serious. There's no identity, no ego, no belief, no nation and no border. It's all up in the air, to be discarded at whatever convenience.
hanikrummihundursvin
17d ago
It's hard to imagine any coherent conception of a nation with borders that can be infinitely exploited by any person who manages to give birth within them.
hanikrummihundursvin
17d ago
So the establishment is widening a rift in their own party because... The evil Palestinian regime would otherwise behead every American if given the chance? Which would somehow be more likely to happen if the dems stopped bending the knee for Israel?
I can see the vague emotional outline for 'Palestinians are radical muslims and that flies on the face of lefty progressivism' but trying to connect that to any genuine geopolitical reality feels like a real stretch.
hanikrummihundursvin
17d ago
Yeah, there was a lot of stuff that could be said that I didn't to not get banned. But it's a very interesting dynamic compared to on the right.
See you on the other side king.
tl;dr: the left is in an existential crisis because of Israel.
I wanted to write a post on the recent shifts in lefty rhetoric. The big one is 'This isn't Woke 1.0 anymore'
To define a few terms for convenience sake. The 'base' is the politically active far left portion. The 'establishment' is the more 'moderate' one. Popular examples of viewpoint representatives of the 'base' online are Vaush and BadEmpanada. Popular examples of the establishment are Contrapoints, PhilosophyTube and Destiny.
The big shift from the base can be described thusly: Performative woke stuff is out. You can no longer signal that you are in favor of soft social causes that are otherwise irrelevant to broader critiques of capitalism and colonialism or similar lefty theology. This might hold interesting connotations for transgenders as an untouchable priestly class in leftism. But in practice this just means that there have been some genuine changes at the grass roots level. And they are putting Palestine first as a purity test. The base is making this adjustment due to a series of genuinely devastating political losses.
You can say it begins with the Biden admin not standing up to Israel after Oct.7. The base got to feel what it's like when their representatives and institutions don't go along with them. This was a thing the base really cared about. But the establishment ignored for, at the time, seemingly no good reason. Come election season, Harris doubled down on this 'don't ask don't tell' position on Israeli overreach. This made the base even madder. If folks remember a few weeks back, the infamous 'Election Autopsy Report' that the DNC didn't want to release, the base was projecting whole heartedly that they lost because Harris was soft on Israel-Palestine. So not only was the base getting ignored, they also believed they were losing because of it.
To make matters worse, Trump started doing things this term. DOGE, along with the USAID thing happened. It was the first sign that the left as a whole was starting to lose grasp on just what was going on. The first symbolic defeat they've felt in a long time. The right was genuinely running a victory lap waving around all the ridiculous lefty causes that had been receiving millions of dollars. Hating Musk and lighting Teslas on fire was, as far as political activism goes, ineffective at actually achieving anything, even if just rhetorically or cathartically. Alongside this ran legislative defeats like the passing of the OBBBA and the ICE apocalypse alongside Trump admin actions against colleges and campuses. Those were principally establishment defeats, but the base got to pay the price.
Lets put ourselves in the shoes of the base. After having been gassed up through propaganda that Trump was going to make the sky fall down, there are now people from their ranks that are dead. Some jailed for a long time, and others permanently damaged, either physically, mentally or professionally from participating in lefty activism, with nothing to show for it. At the same time the base has not just been losing internally to the establishment, but they've also been watching the establishment lose externally to the right.
What's worse, they're now competing for space online against the likes of Theo Von, Tucker Carlson and similar, who have been filling the moderate 'I like healthcare and dislike Israel' void on the right/center. At the same time they have no leverage over the more extreme right wingers that occupy X and alternative streaming sites. This is a far cry from the 2017-2020 years where the left could exert pressure on the media landscape at will. A clear example of their loss of power.
Now, why can't the establishment just mend things with the base? Why are they huffing and puffing about the extremists in their own backyard? Why can't they give them institutional cover like they once did? Outside of the right genuinely becoming stronger due to a lack of censorship, there is a one word answer: Israel. The establishment can't compromise any more on Israel. They have to vote yes when Israel asks for arms. They have to stand up and clap for Netanyahu. And the base is redefining itself around the singular cause of Israel bombing children in Gaza being a bad thing.
There's no more intersectionalism. There no more 'sit down a black woman is speaking'. The base has slowly realized that organizing around words and ideas is stupid. You need something concrete as a barometer. And they are slowly enforcing that the actual program is not gay sex, protesting for black criminals or men in womens sports, but dead children in Gaza. And if you don't get with the program, regardless of who you are or identify as, you can be dismissed on those terms.
Will this last? I don't know. The establishment has usually managed to reign everything in come election year. But it might be that with changing demographics on the ground, and the reckless actions of Israel, that the American left is genuinely swirling down the drain of a third world communist toilet because they can't say no to infinity immigration and Israel.
hanikrummihundursvin
18d ago
I don't doubt you have sincerely held positions about a variety of things and I don't think you're lying in a malicious way to me, more that you are lying to yourself. The voice sounding like AI is an excuse you are giving yourself to not engage with a subject matter.
I've had this experience before when broaching uncomfortable topics. As an example, a Swedish friend of mine and I got to arguing about immigration during the height of the refugee crisis. At the time there were not a lot of resources with data on the matter, and the subject was not mainstream at all. But there was one website called something along the lines of muslimrapestatistics.blogspot.com. I linked it without thinking much of it, but to my friend the name of the blog was too much. Despite being relatively well presented and including a host of Swedish government sources, he took a stand that it was impossible for anything on such a webpage to be true and bailed on the discussion, as I had shown myself to be disreputable for linking it.
Now, maybe I am mistaking your principled stance towards AI voiceovers for what I've just described. Hell, maybe my Swedish friend had a principled stance on believing what's being said on internet blogs. But I can only ask you to appreciate that it's impossible for me to tell the difference, and the end result is the same.
I just listened to this video. It's 17 minutes and I think it's one of the best videos he's made. If you can't stomach 17 minutes of genuine and thought provoking material locked behind a high quality AI voiceover, but can stomach the ocean of garbage that is the internet, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on what counts for hygiene.
This does not feel like a good faith interaction. You asked me a question, I gave a detailed answer. If you can't watch videos you think are AI, then I don't care. I don't need to qualify anything to you at all and you can remain ignorant on whatever topic you want for whatever sake you choose. But honestly, I don't believe what you are saying right now since the videos don't sound like AI to me. It just sounds like you're erecting an arbitrary hurdle to shield yourself from earnest engagement. I don't know why and it feels like a shame. The videos are well made and cover an interesting topic.
But I'm not sure why this is especially relevant to the point you were originally making.
I was not sure if the person I was responding to was a serious or just a troll. So it felt right to include video material to figure out what level of engagement I was actually getting from them. People generally have opinions on film more readily available than opinions on 18th century anthropology and studies on racism in jury trials.
It's also very relevant to the prescriptive position that person was taking about how media should serve a role in shielding whites from information that would otherwise allegedly cause them to lash out in racist furor. The sentiment reminded me of the monkey tied down in front of TV's in 28 Days Later, as explored in the video. Showing the monkey violent imagery of mob justice and riots made the monkey crazy with rage. Very similar to what that person believed would happen to whites.
hanikrummihundursvin
20d ago
I did not ask you to watch the video to understand that the very explicit theme and plot of Gattaca is about an an alleged genetic inferior proving genetic determinism wrong. When I say subtext and you say subtext we are not talking about the same thing. Which is why I implore you to watch the video. I know it's 25 minutes and I know the guy has a depressing delivery. But it hits on all the notes, especially by the end where the effect of the subtext is contextualized. They're not making movies about Germanic ubermench heroes named Richard Europson who belong to the majority and dab on the minority, after all. Well, outside of Uwe Boll.
As for 28 Days Later, it's about a zombie outbreak and the stories of our main characters and side characters. That's what the movie is about. There's no secret. There's no hidden agenda. But there is subtext!
In case you won't watch the Gattaca video, let me put my definition of subtext to you this way. I don't believe the directors, screenwriters or anyone else were necessarily intentionally making an explicit commentary on how much they hate white people and think they are all one move away from dooming everything through racism and are otherwise beyond saving outside of a baptism through fornicating with brown people. But I am telling you that it's nevertheless the subtextual end result of their work.
The rage virus and those who have it are obviously not good. They are represented by white actors in nigh every dramatic scene. At least until a slave presenting black person uses it to take revenge on his white captors. Then it is good! There's subtext there. Coincidental enough to be intentional? Slavery bad? Revenge justified? Hmm.
Who is good in the movie? What do they represent? Who are they represented by? Is the bad guy called Judas Israel or Henry West? These questions have answers. Decisions were made. What emotionally perturbs the decision makers? What drives them to make the decisions they make? A million different things, of course. But this is what we ended up with.
These stereotypes aren't just racial, they're not just gendered or whatever else. But they are there. Black frizzy hair really is not accepted like straight blonde hair. This is true, at least in many peoples minds. There are also those who want black frizzy hair to be accepted. What kind of decisions would they make?
You could argue, as is often done, that the only subtext to be gleamed from any of this is from the racist who noticed because they are irrationally emotionally perturbed by any positive depiction of a brown person. But by the same token AdLand does exist. The creative output of artsy UK shitlibs being anti-white coded shouldn't be a shock to anyone, and the video linked demonstrates plenty of evidence to that being the case much better than I could ever do with words. It's a visual medium, after all.
hanikrummihundursvin
20d ago
Really? The bad guy is called Major Henry West. I thought it was kind of on the nose.
But yeah, I get it. It's a point that's hard to explain to those who're not big on film in the more pretentious artsy sense. The idea that screenwriting can be intentional in this way goes over most people's heads unless directly pointed out. And even then the concepts here are esoteric and dramatic enough that most don't want to entertain them regardless of anything else.
On top of that '28 Days Later' is 'entertaining' enough and the subtext is marginal enough that you could say it's not intentional at all in isolation. But if we recognize that screenwriting, including subtext, allegories and foreshadowing via various means in film are often intentional, even if they are not always tied to a subtext or narrative, then these things warrant explanation. Even if only to entertain the notion that, by coincidence, we can gleam this out of the film.
A better and more undeniable demonstration of explicit racial subtext in film is the Gattaca review by the same person. There are names and shots that only make sense in that context.
As far as I can tell these are generally 'inspired' by Mark Brahmins work. I find these to be more accessible and less pretentious than the blogposts though.
hanikrummihundursvin
21d ago
Yeah, I know that was your point. I'm just not buying the premise that whites are significantly more racist than other races. In fact the opposite seems to be the case. Along with everything I mentioned in my previous comment, I don't understand why whites, if they were so racist, would ever bother to create a system to curb their racism.
But then again, we might just be running into a problem of how we are measuring racism. I'd measure it as the intensity of your ingroup and outgroup bias expressions. I have a feeling you are measuring it as ability to carry out acts of destruction. In which case I'd argue that's not a function of racism but capability. Whites would in a similar sense be more dangerous than blacks, but not because they are prone to random acts of violence, but precisely because their violence is organized.
Regardless of that, I'm not terribly interested in hearing you simply restate a claim I already addressed. I'd rather you support and expand on it if you feel something is going amiss.
hanikrummihundursvin
22d ago
Well it's obvious to German censors.
Aside from that, you're not engaging with the contention. Sure, the hero kills all the stock villains, who come in all shapes and sizes, but that does not mean the villains were depicted as victimizing whites. Taken is a great example, there is a wide range of villains depicted, so there is no avenue for direct racial animus.
Another example would be Sicario. The bad guys are explicitly Mexican. The good guys are not. Except that one guy who is Mexican and gets a very specific and dramatic victim narrative. Would the movie code the same without him? No. Now if we look at movies being made and expand on this, what does the pattern look like?
I think your unwillingness to engage earnestly with the topic reveals more about you and how you view the world than it does the movies. You being a whatever you are would explain a lot.
It's the same thing that been going on in Sweden and France for a long time. Just to name examples I know of.
Reporting on crime increases ethnic tensions. The role of media, as dictated by the state, is to decrease ethnic tensions. (Ethnic tension translates to white people being angry they are being robbed, raped and killed by foreigners.)
Solution? Stop reporting on crime. But some media outlets don't play along. There's now a market for ethnic tension news. So the state swoops in and stops recording stats. The natives are no longer capable of expressing their anger at being raped and murdered. As their emotions can not find any external resonance in society. Liberal representative democracy has solved the problem!
hanikrummihundursvin
22d ago
Been a while since I saw the movie. The scene that stuck in my mind was this one. They all look whiter than the French director of the film. Tack on top of that a bunch of bad white guys who are pulling some strings. It was a very not brown coded affair in my mind. With a multiracial bad guy mix in the finale.
I mean, yeah. I exemplify Taken in my post as a movie that does not code against foreigners despite it's theme explicitly being about evil immigrant foreigners victimizing white people and then being brutally murdered by a white man.
The topic being explored here is: If the bad guys in Taken were coded brown, would it be the same movie? Obviously not. And that's an interesting affirmation that everyone understands and acts on racist phenomena. And that this song and dance is being actively played in the productions of nigh every movie. As when this song and dance is not played and whites are allowed to take revenge on the brown outsider, it sticks out like a sore thumb.
FSK ratings in Germany even take intentionality of violence into account when handing out ratings. Brutal depictions of whipping a slave in Django Unchained are not bannable, since they are, in their terms, necessary to build empathy with the victims and a disgust towards 'slavery', which translates into disgust for a white character so we can later celebrate their brutal murder. So the regulating bodies take political deliberations into account when deciding if something is verboten or not.
Well, what about disgust towards brown foreigners raping white girls? What about disgust towards activist judges that let them go free? We can celebrate a black man brutalizing 'evil whites' but not a white man brutalizing evil browns?
hanikrummihundursvin
23d ago
Maybe to an American? When I saw the movie the entire concept felt a bit far fetched and cheap.
In reality the ones 'taken' are usually young eastern European women forced into commercial rape, i.e. 'sex work'. But in the movie it's evil eastern European men taking an American girl? Not to say that there aren't a lot of evil eastern European men driving up western European crime, there are. But the movie felt like a sanitized version of that reality.
Regardless of that, calling the foreigner a foreigner or an immigrant like is done in the movie is different from actually depicting him as a foreigner. The distinction is best exemplified via depictions by Cleon Peterson.
Depends on what you mean by scientific racism. From my understanding of the term, White people didn't 'invent' 'modern science' because of racism, I would argue. It's because of other factors we generally associate with intelligence, industriousness, agreeableness and so forth. Scientific 'racism' is just a byproduct of that. So whilst there is some racist expression to be found in old 18th century anthropology, I'd argue most of that was also refuted by the better scientists at the time, who could make fact based observations about human population differences.
To clarify the point: Noticing that groups can differ on objective metrics free of 'group bias' is a very not racist thing to do. Even if those differences are 'racist'. Whilst ignoring or arguing against objective reality, based on 'in or outgroup bias' is a racist thing. So ironically, most people who are against 'scientific racism' are acting out a very base racist impulse, since they are not capable of parsing reality past it looking like a slight against their ingroup.
To that extent I'd argue most whites are less racist than other groups. As they are more capable of parsing reality and more capable of entertaining abstract concepts. A good example of this are mock jury trials.
On top of that, a lot of research into the topic drives at a similar conclusion:
On the other hand, there is evidence from the social psychological literature that the self-concept of ethnic minorities may be more dependent upon perceptions of race than the self-concept of the ethnic majority. For example, Clark (1985) reported that Black participants’ self-concept was related to their ratings of Blacks, whereas the same relationship was not found with White participants. Grier and Deshpande (2001) further reported that Black participants placed a higher importance on race than did White participants, and that this racial importance predicted consumer decisions. It is possible that group identity may be stronger among minorities than among majority race individuals, making minority jurors more likely to exhibit an own-race bias.
The study linked above also highlighted that in mock jury trials, the whites are a minority in their racial fairness. At least when compared with American blacks. Who are a lot more prone to racial bias in their decision making.
Considering all of that, I'd say it's clear whites are not being protected from their own racist tendencies, a concept explored in the movie 28 Days Later but are being marginalized, otherized and attacked precisely because they are not racist. This is easily proven by simple logic. If whites were racist, they wouldn't be in this position in the first place.
hanikrummihundursvin
23d ago
It's an interesting affirmation that everyone understands and acts on racist phenomena.
"Taken" doesn't code 'the outsiders are harming us' i.e. whites, but this movie does. So the almonds of some German bureaucrat got activated and the movie is a no go.
It's probably the most ubiquitous and interesting dynamic in western media production and no one talks about it. But the incredible dance around never having the outsider victimizing whites is the greatest commonality all modern movies share. And if that is ever a theme, it's explored in such a way as to demonstrate that whites feeling victimized and acting on those emotions are wrong in some way.
On the flipside there's no shortage of 'brown person victimized by cruel evil white folk' movies.
Everyone understands this. Everyone knows. The only difference is whether ones brain can see the patterns or if it can and chooses to ignore it because 'evil white people' codes as real on some level in ones brain.
tl;dr: Trump was told to jump higher than he could. His knees buckled on the landing and now he's crawling around telling the zionists that he's sorry he can't stand up to Iran. The zionist response when he asks for a hand is to spit on him for being weak. Genuinely, even the antisemites are shocked.
I feel like there was an old white nationalist 2.0 cope around the time where ISIS was at its peak about AIPAC and Israel that ran somewhere along the lines of: AIPAC has a better grip on America than America has a grip on the middle east.
I think the truth of that observation is unfolding in front of us to a certain extent. The weakest link in the Israel/AIPAC dynamic is Israel. AIPAC can still unseat elected representatives at will. Most recently demonstrated with Massie. American politicians still dance to their tune. It's Israel, whose actions became incoherent after Oct.7, culminating with this Iran ordeal, that's the problem in this dynamic.
I think the only interesting answer to the question can come from zionists and adjacent folk. Nigh every other group that's not zionist, from progressives to regressives, wants to dump the Israelis tomorrow. The entire world is getting sick of Israel and its behavior. So from a zionist perspective: What ever was the plan here?
Like, zionists have this iron grip on US foreign policy. What did they want the US to do? Unless the plan is to literally genocide every single Arab via US military might so that Israel can do whatever it wants in the region, then US involvement stops making sense very quickly. The US can bomb things. They can do economic coercions, they can occupy big buildings in cities, build FOBs in valleys and patrol roads in Humvees. But they can't do much else. As Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated.
Americans have thousands of their soldiers dead, tens of thousands if you count the suicides, trillions spent, and nothing to show for it. And now we are reading that Israel, not just the 'Netanyahu government' but a sizeable portion of the Israeli public and America based zionists, wanted America to commit to another middle East war effort with no explicit end goal, no theory for victory, and no discernable US gain outside of rank delusions that Iran intends to nuke Huston and Vienna if ever given the chance. We don't even have the pretense of regime change anymore.
The cost of this war, however, would be enormous. Not just in direct military spending, but with every economist (spit) sounding the alarm bells that this would prove catastrophic for global markets. Countries most affected, including some US allies, have already started rationing programs. Meanwhile Russia, US's geopolitical enemy, has been making bank month over month due to this war and the oil/gas market disruptions.
This comes across as incoherent lunacy. Destabilizing the middle east? Eh, on some level that makes sense, even if I oppose and abhor it and the negative consequences it has had for not just the middle east but Europe. But if this is the continuation... What's the plan, where's the big picture everyone's missing? I can't even put together how zionists are pretending to be allies with the US at this point. That they even attribute a theory of mind to Americans.
In defense of the zionists, AIPAC is still so strong they can be forgiven for thinking less of Americans. So if there is any weight behind these events, it will come down on Netanyahu first, Israel second, AIPAC a distant third. So long as the Israeli lobby holds the keys to a plurality of public offices in the US, they will remain strong. But Israel needs to find some stability fast. Maybe Netanyahu is playing the role of a future sacrificial chicken perfectly. Sin as much as you can before the head goes off.
To that extent the answer to the question is clear. Let Netanyahu take as much as he can before we give the Western cattle a new shepherd.
Nuclear AI drones, the news is taking Facebook by storm.
But you raise a very good point. The resolution of this war doesn't do anything to resolve the conflicting interests that caused it. Something has to give.
Men generally have a strong instinctive response to what constitutes fair use of violence. Sucker punching, 2 against 1, all this sort of stuff invokes strong feelings. In a sense this might even be worse PR for the police than the Nowak murder. It shows the police as a willing participant in an unfair use of violence. And its an instance of violence that the police didn't even instigate. So they are coming along as a secondary participant after the unfair use of force was observed and are siding against the victim. And its a woman officer that then relies on the mercy of the person she is participating in unfairly victimizing.
The left was ultimately correct. ACAB. There's no sense in ever subjecting yourself or anyone you care about to the whims of these lunatics.
The one thing that will come of this, as is the trend with all this stuff, is an increased harshness in society. Brutality of violence goes up. People stop seeing the human behind the eyes. Every instance like this chips away at the moral code of conduct in society. The next time there are riots there will be more people closer to the edge of throwing a bigger rock with more intent to cause serious harm.
More options
Context Copy link