Friday, July 26, 2019

Should Russian interference have been investigated? Why in the the world not?

Worries about the origin of the investigation seem to imply that somehow we shouldn't have investigated the Russian interference in our election and whether anyone whose candidate benefited from the interference had conspired with them. There was interference by the Russians, it was designed to help Trump, it did help Trump, Trump kept denying that it was happening and welcomed, and welcomed, and welcomed the fruits of that illegal interference.

 It's not an awful thing for there to be a "cloud" over a President's administration, it's called oversight. What Trump has endured is nothing compared to what Nixon had to deal with, or Bill Clinton, who faced an investigation that started with looking into land deals in Arkansas and ended up, well, you know where it ended up.

 I think the most important questions arising from Mueller have to do with the interference itself, and what we need to do about it. Republicans are implying by their actions that the interference was not disturbing, and even the continuation of that interference is not disturbing. (One has to wonder what they would say if the Russians helped put Hillary in, instead). I have seen people say that it's not such a bad thing so long as it digs up dirt on Hillary and the Democrats. That seems to be the view of Trump himself, and seems to be widespread in the Republican party, although they don't normally put it so bluntly. (Maybe it would be a good idea to force them to put it so bluntly). Or does this kind of interference endanger our very system of government? 

They hacked into voter rolls in all 50 states, for crying out loud. What if, next time they did it, they "unregistered" a bunch of people so they couldn't vote? In my view, the real issue isn't collusion (whatever that means), or even obstruction. It is what I call dereliction.

 If Bush, after 9/11, and resisted clear evidence that it was al-Qaeda that attacked us, and refused to do anything to keep it from ever happening again, would that not be upsetting if not impeachable (especially if we couldn't figure out whether Bush was somehow under the sway of bin Laden for business reasons), even if Bush is this behavior broke no criminal laws? OK, nobody died in the cyberattack, just as nobody drowned in Watergate, but do we care about the independence of our electoral system?

 In my opinion, the Democrats, and we as citizens, do best if we keep the cart and the horse straight. They have to start with Russian interference and the complete failure of the Trump campaign and administration to deter it or prevent it in any way. These are undeniable facts. After that, we can raise the question of conspiracy or obstruction.

204 comments:

1 – 200 of 204   Newer›   Newest»
Legion of Logic said...

Worries about the origin of the investigation seem to imply that somehow we shouldn't have investigated the Russian interference in our election and whether anyone whose candidate benefited from the interference had conspired with them.

The problem is that there is so much evidence that there were some shady practices going on in order to start the investigation and to begin and perpetuate the collusion narrative, it would be immoral to NOT look into it. And if there was no wrongdoing, then it shouldn't matter. The investigation will show it.

Of course, if you only watch CNN and NBC, you won't be aware of any of that evidence. Our media absolutely sucks.

Starhopper said...

"there is so much evidence"

Actually, no there isn't. There is much inference, conspiracy theorizing, and connecting dots that have no business being connected. And there's a reason such things aren't covered on CNN or NBC (neither of which I watch, since I don't have a TV). It's the same reason they don't give airtime to flat earthers, people who think the moon landings were faked, or 911 truthers. Responsible journalists routinely ignore the crazies, other than to expose them.

It'd be interesting to find out where various people on this website get their news from, and what they considerable reliable media. I'll go first: I get maybe 75% of my news from the Washington Post (I have a digital subscription). The remainder comes from either NPR (which is always on in my car), The Guardian online (which has no paywall), or C-Span (mostly through their radio re-broadcast of FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace). Except for the Guardian, I consider them all to be reliable.

SteveK said...

Political adversaries like Russia and China have been meddling in our business for decades. This stuff isn't new.

SteveK said...

If you're concerned about outside foreign influence voter IDs, proof of citizenship and a return to paper ballots would quite nearly eliminate all of it. I'd support these changes. Many have been asking for it.

Starhopper said...

"if you're concerned about outside foreign influence"

The three "remedies" you offer would do nothing to stop foreign influence on our elections, since that influence does not occur at the ballot box (i.e., on election day), but rather during the campaign itself. What needs to stop is not fraudulent voting (an almost nonexistent phenomenon, by the way), but rather dark money, spoofing, fake news stories (yes, they do exist - just not in the way Trump says they do), bogus social media accounts, hacking, and hostile leaking.

Victor Reppert said...

And now Trump really did it. He attacked the City of Baltimore. Are you going to take this lying down, Starhopper?

SteveK said...

He compared the living conditions within a SPECIFIC district in Baltimore to the living conditions inside government facilities at the southern border. It wasn't an attack of the City of Baltimore.

Starhopper said...

That does it - he has gone too far!

I actually live in Rep. Cummings' district. I say Trump ought to give us a visit. (I'll bet you Yankee dollars he's never set foot in it.) He'd see for himself what a wonderful place it is. I wouldn't trade the Maryland 7th District for any other in the country, nor would I wish for any other representative in congress. Keep in mind, Elijah Cummings won reelection the last time around by more than 75 percent of the vote! He must be doing something right.

I know of only 3 other cities in America as beautiful as Baltimore - Boston, San Francisco, and Saint Paul. And yes, we do have rats. Big ones! But that comes from being a port city. I'd wager to say that every port city in history, no matter when or where, has been "rat infested". Comes with the territory. (I've spent a lot of time in Boston. I've seen rats there too. Not in St. Paul, however. Too far inland, I guess.)

SteveK said...

Bernie said pretty much the same thing about the conditions in West Baltimore. No big deal.

SteveK said...

“Residents of Baltimore’s poorest boroughs have lifespans shorter than people living under dictatorship in North Korea. That is a disgrace.”

Bernie Sanders, May 5, 2016

Starhopper said...

The same could undoubtedly be said of the "poorest boroughs" of any American city.

SteveK said...

Yet everyone is worked up over what Trump said, because TDS is real.

Starhopper said...

"TDS is real."

Funny. I overheard an acquaintance at my last astronomy club meeting saying "Of course TDS is real. Anyone who still supports Trump at this point has to be deranged!"

SteveK said...

“What the hell? We should just take all this sh*t down. … Whoa, you can smell the rats. … Whew, Jesus. … Oh, my God, you can smell the dead animals,”

Baltimore Mayor Pugh touring the city in 2018

Legion of Logic said...

Those who froth at the mouth over Trump will read racism into the Baltimore comments. Those who do not can discover that Baltimore has poor health, a rodent infestation, a very high crime rate, even a high percentage of crappy drivers. It is indeed a very bad location, or at the very least boasts some of the worst statistics in the nation. Nothing racist about recognizing that fact.

But TDS will keep the dream alive.

Starhopper said...

Well, we (almost) agree on one thing. Baltimore does have more than its share of crappy... pedestrians. They will look you in the eye and walk out right in front of your car. It's almost like they're daring you to run them over.

Jim S. said...

Trump's playing you. There is a documentary about Baltimore's rat problem scheduled to air tonight on public broadcasting in Baltimore. He got his critics to start yelling at him for daring to say what he said when it's a long-term problem that was about to be publicly aired on PBS.

"“Rat Film,” a documentary that takes the decades-long fight waged against Baltimore’s rat population and uses it as a lens through which to look at how the city has addressed myriad social issues over the decades, airs tonight on PBS."
-- https://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/movies/bs-fe-rat-film-20180226-story.html

bmiller said...

PBS is right wing....now.

Starhopper said...

Puh-leeeze! Rats are a feature of every port city in the entire world throughout all of history. I lived in Baltimore for several years, and saw rats all the time - especially after dark. (I now live in suburban Catonsville, which is still in Elijah Cummings' district.)

I have relatives in Boston, and when I visit them, I will occasionally see rats. When I was in the Army and stationed in California, I'd see rats in whatever port city I happened to be in. I saw rats in London, England, and in Lisbon, Portugal - both port cities.

Bottom line - if you're a port city, you've got rats. It's that simple.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

It's a PBS documentary. It's safe for you to watch.

Starhopper said...

"It's safe for you to watch."

But I won't. No TV, remember?

I do own all 7 seasons of Homicide on DVD, however. Love that Baltimore local color. Hmm... Haven't watched them for maybe 5 years now. Maybe it's time to do so again. After I finish season One of McHale's Navy.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
Yet everyone is worked up over what Trump said, because TDS is real.

Perhaps because Trump was using it to shame and silence Cummings in particular.

Starhopper said...

"Trump was using it to shame ... Cummings"

Trump "shame" Cummings? The very idea makes me laugh. He could no more shame Rep. Cummings than I could shame Mother Teresa. Elijah Cummings has more dignity in his little toe than Trump has in his entire bloated gasbag of a body.

SteveK said...

>> "The very idea makes me laugh"

TDS rewires the brain so that a person laughs at the idea that leaders should feel shame for not fixing problems that are within their power to fix.

Starhopper said...

Hmm... The Maryland 7th District is within the USA. That makes Trump the president of the Maryland 7th District. He publicly declared that only he could fix our problems (at the republican Convention). So, if there are any problems in Maryland's 7th District, why hasn't he fixed them?

The deranged people who still support this con man (because they are suffering from TDS) have had their brains rewired so they cannot recognize this.

SteveK said...

Unbelievable

Starhopper said...

Not at all, not at all. But whenever I hear anyone saying that a person who opposes Trump is "deranged", I will turn the accusation around.

I intend to do this each and every time I see a Trump supporter mentioning TDS.

SteveK said...

I wouldn't expect anything less

Starhopper said...

Glad to be of service.

bmiller said...

Now let's talk about Baltimore's stinky baseball team.

Legion of Logic said...

To be fair, both sides have some TDS. There are conservatives who refuse to criticize Trump, ever, which is rather reminiscent of how much of the left worshiped at Obama's feet. Then there are those who would be rolled up on the ground sobbing if they discovered Trump cured every disease known to man and distributed the cures to the poor first, because racism or something. Critical thinking 101: associated with Trump in any way = racist. No matter what.

I see Democrats have decided on the strategy of fielding nothing but absolute nutjobs to contend with Trump in 2020. Wonderful times we live in.

bmiller said...

Baltimore is only the 9th rattiest city in the US. But that doesn't include the politicians :-)

Even the mayor thought it was ratty, before she had to resign for corruption.

Starhopper said...

"Now let's talk about Baltimore's stinky baseball team."

NO-o-o-o-o-o-o-o !!!!!

Victor Reppert said...

ODS. Oriole disappointment syndrome.

TDS. Really refers to Trump Denial Syndrome, the irrational tendency to deny obvious damaging facts about 45.

bmiller said...

Oriole fans and Arizona Cardinal football fans all have good reason to be deranged.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
To be fair, both sides have some TDS. There are conservatives who refuse to criticize Trump, ever, which is rather reminiscent of how much of the left worshiped at Obama's feet.

As someone reading a lot of left-wing blogs at the time, I assure you they had their complaints with Obama.

bmiller said...

I wonder if that Baltimore mayor will run afoul of This Executive Order? It was the IRS and FBI that raided her office after all.

"(B) to be a current or former government official, or a person acting for or on behalf of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in:

(1) corruption, including the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, or bribery; or

(2) the transfer or the facilitation of the transfer of the proceeds of corruption;

(C) to be or have been a leader or official of:

(1) an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in subsections (ii)(A), (ii)(B)(1), or (ii)(B)(2) of this section relating to the leader’s or official’s tenure; or

(2) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order as a result of activities related to the leader’s or official’s tenure; or

(3) any entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in subsections (ii)(A), (ii)(B)(1), or (ii)(B)(2) of this section, where the activity is conducted by a foreign person;"



Trump sent $16 Billion to Baltimore in 2018 alone. And he's asking where the money went. Maybe he really is going to help the people of Baltimore by going after the political corruption.

Legion of Logic said...

Rats in the literal sense, rats in the political sense. My racism-o-meter is still registering nothing.

Starhopper said...

"My racism-o-meter is still registering nothing."

Did you spring for the extended warranty when you got that? It doesn't appear to be working.

bmiller said...

Maybe it needs more White Power :-)

Legion of Logic said...

This model has been trusted for generations. I notice the competition gets a lot of false positives!

bmiller said...

Apparently deforestation is the reason for so many "literal" rats in Baltimore.

Snopes is in the process of fact-checking now.

Legion of Logic said...

We can always count on Snopes to fact-check the obviously satirical Babylon Bee.

bmiller said...

Snopes is the most trusted fact-checker used by journalists

bmiller said...

Starhopper:

Is this accurate?

Starhopper said...

Accurate? Yes and no. Everything in the article is pretty much true for certain neighborhoods. But when I lived in Baltimore (I've since moved out to Catonsville), I would walk literally for miles around the city late at night without the slightest fear or incident. Especially in the hot summer months, I'd stay indoors most of the day, and not emerge until just before sunset, getting back home around 9 to 9:30 PM. I got to know various families and individuals (both black and white) who "hung out on the stoop" and stop for a chat. The neighborhoods were very friendly (yes, there were areas of the city that I steered clear of) and even when utterly deserted not the least bit "scary".

On nights when the Moon, Jupiter, or Saturn were out, I'd set up my telescope right next to the harbor's edge. People would come by and take a look. And I never had any discomfort about being there alone with 4 thousand dollars of optical equipment set up in the middle of the city.

So the article is largely spin - a focus on the undeniable bad, but without any context.

bmiller said...

It seems the article is about those neighborhoods that you stayed away from not about the ones you felt safe in.

Now if a person wanted to, it'd be easy to accuse you of racism for avoiding the "bad" areas of town (you don't have orange hair do you?) and also the article since it focused on the "bad" areas of town. But it doesn't help the residents of those areas to ignore the problems they're having by calling people who point out their problems as being racist.

The article's thesis is that Baltimore's current problems stem from a law enforcement crisis. Is it a racist article because of this? Or is it not racist since it's from the NYT?

Legion of Logic said...

Racist Elijah Cummings said back in 1999 that Baltimore was drug infested and that citizens were walking around like zombies, obviously racist statements. Why do Democrats support racists like Elijah Cummings?

If you recognize this as satire (something "fact-checker" Snopes can't do with Babylon Bee), then you recognize how seriously conservatives regard the majority of accusations of racism flooding out of the left.

Starhopper said...

I've learned over the years that the most insidiously racist persons in the world are those who:

1. Deny they're racist
2. Protest that "Some of my best friends are [fill in the blank]"
3. engage in tu quoque ("No, you're the racist!")
4. Say "I don't see color"

but most especially

5. Anyone who says, “I’m the least racist person there is anywhere in the world.”

(As for that last one, even if they're not the biggest racist, they are demonstrably the biggest fool.)

bmiller said...

So you're admitting you're racist then. ;-)

Starhopper said...

Face it. We all are. It's just a matter of degree.

bmiller said...

I'm not sure I agree, unless you mean most people prefer to hang around with those that share a similar background.

But if you really think everyone is racist why is it that I've only seen you accuse your political opponents of it? Like we see the MSM doing on a daily basis.

Legion of Logic said...

If everyone is a racist, then not only is the term meaningless but it's hypocritical to accuse others of it.

Starhopper said...

Not really. We're all sinners. Does that make being a sinner meaningless? Of copurse not! As i said, it's a matter of degree.

On a scale of 1-10, when it comes to racism most people are down there around 2 or so. I guess the saints among us are into fractional values below 1. Some people sadly hit the 5 mark (like my otherwise very sweet neighbor who worries obsessively about "caravans" headed for our border). Klansmen and White Supremacists are maxed out at 10. Our current president goes to 11.

Legion of Logic said...

If we assume the premise that all are racist, and we accept the premise that racism is bad, then there needs to be a baseline metric where we cross the line from "Everyone is racist but can't help that" to "This person is a racist bigot".

So where is that line? Treating a minority group like a monolithic block based on skin color, rather than as individuals? Advocating different treatment for someone based entirely on their skin color? Viewing it as a problem if there are no "people of color" in a given influential group?
Calling someone names like Uncle Tom or race traitor if they are conservative while black? Calling any criticism of a black (left wing) person racist, which is treating them like helpless children defined by their skin color and not their character? Sending representatives to the funeral of a criminal who got killed attacking a police officer and completely ignoring that officer who has had his entire life and career turned upside down simply because of skin colors involved?

Or maybe saying things like "They want to put y'all back in chains" to black people, referring to Republicans, in order to take advantage of events over 150 years ago to foster fear and animosity, thereby securing a voting demographic? Things like that? I do find all those things quite abhorrent, to be sure. Just wanted to make sure we agree.

Yes We Can...make America great again!

Starhopper said...

Alls I can say, Legion, is you've got some interesting filters there.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
If everyone is a racist, then not only is the term meaningless but it's hypocritical to accuse others of it.

On the other hand, it's not hypocritical to remind others of it, as long as we are reminding ourselves of our own state at the same time.

bmiller said...

So where is that line?

It's pretty obvious isn't it?

If you're a Democrat and say that Baltimore has rats you're not a racist.
If you're a Republican and say that Baltimore has rats you are a racist.

That's what the TV says so it must be true.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
The article's thesis is that Baltimore's current problems stem from a law enforcement crisis. Is it a racist article because of this? Or is it not racist since it's from the NYT?

The NYT refers to a consent decree in 2016 in response to an event in April 2015. However, the homicide rate was already up in 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Baltimore

I don't see any claims that the city's black residents are responsible for the crime rate, but I only skimmed the article, so I may have missed something. So, it would be low on the racism scale.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
We can always count on Snopes to fact-check the obviously satirical Babylon Bee.

Only when the articles start get passed around as being real. They also do this for liberal sites, like America's Last Line of Defense.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
But if you really think everyone is racist why is it that I've only seen you accuse your political opponents of it? Like we see the MSM doing on a daily basis.

One side of the political aisle has actively sought out the support of overtly racist people using dog-whistles since the late 1960s.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
That's what the TV says so it must be true.

I love the read of white whiners in the morning. It's so easy for them to pretend there is no context to various comments or meaning behind them, as long as they can focus on key words.

Legion of Logic said...

I love the read of white whiners in the morning.

I love the read of black whiners in the morning. Let me guess, what I said is racist and what you said isn't.

It's so easy for them to pretend there is no context to various comments or meaning behind them

The left has proven itself incapable of identifying actual racism and differentiating it from things they simply disagree with. Conservatives recognize this, which is why we call the left out on its BS so often. "Meaning behind" and "dog whistle" these days are synonymous with "I will accuse you of racism no matter the facts because I will read racism into anything you say or do".

BS.

Legion of Logic said...

Starhopper,

Obviously I picked out common racist behaviors on the left for my comment. If you disagree that those things are racist, then I truly believe you have no idea what racism actually is beyond what Democrats tell you is racist, which of course is whatever Republicans do. And you will continue to support the blatant racism of the Democratic party, completely blind to the harm they do.

Dare I say it? Sad!

bmiller said...

Dead white European males invented logic. Ergo logic is racist.

Legion, your name literally tells everyone you're racist.

SteveK said...

The public cries of "Racist!" are nothing more than finger pointing designed to isolate and destroy someone for political gain (power). Sane people usually attempt to resolve their grievances in private rather than invite the Twitter mob to bash the other persons teeth in.

bmiller said...

I posted an argument online and a leftist called me a racist.
I said I wanted another opinion.
He told me I was ugly too.

It's the leftist state of the art for argumentation.

Starhopper said...

Well... be honest now. We are all ugly (with the exception of Catherine Zeta Jones). It's just a matter of degree.

bmiller said...

I didn't say he was lying, just that it was irrelevant to my argument 😉

bmiller said...

Attention: This is a Public Service Announcement.

Accusing countries other than the US of wrongdoing is racist.
Russia in a country other than the US.

All comments will be duly considered.








OK.....it's really a test ;-)

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
I love the read of black whiners in the morning. Let me guess, what I said is racist and what you said isn't.

Not at all. Whiners of any race are annoying.

The left has proven itself incapable of identifying actual racism and differentiating it from things they simply disagree with.

White guys who hate the idea this country is racist are usually not the best people to identify when racism happens.

Conservatives recognize this, which is why we call the left out on its BS so often.

Unfortunately, you put your fingers to far into your ears on the subject it's hard for you to recognize anything.

"Meaning behind" and "dog whistle" these days are synonymous with "I will accuse you of racism no matter the facts because I will read racism into anything you say or do".

I understand that you don't get this, and that you don't want to get it. No skin off my nose, ultimately. You can't stop people from wallowing in ignorance when they love the feel of it.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
Obviously I picked out common racist behaviors on the left for my comment.

You don't understand enough about, or care enough about, social inequality to make such an identification.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

You don't get it. Only white guys can be racist.
You don't understand enough about, or care enough about, social inequality to make such an identification.

Legion of Logic said...

Not at all. Whiners of any race are annoying

Glad we agree on that.


White guys who hate the idea this country is racist

A country being "racist" does not mean that most people in said racist country are racists.


Unfortunately, you put your fingers to far into your ears on the subject it's hard for you to recognize anything

You're the one with recognition issues. I suggest branching out on news sources, etc. You might learn some of how things actually are.


You can't stop people from wallowing in ignorance when they love the feel of it.

No I can't, but hear I am trying anyway.


You don't understand enough about, or care enough about, social inequality to make such an identification.

Absolutely I do, which is why I did. Educate yourself please.

Starhopper said...

bmiller,

Did you mean for your last comment to be directed to One Brow? Otherwise, I do not understand it.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

I was just trying to bring attention to your theory that everyone is a racist. Only white people can be racist according to leftists.

Legion seems to agree with you, but somehow only he is the one who "doesn't get it".

Just trying to be more *inclusive*. ;-)

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
You don't get it. Only white guys can be racist.

Incorrect. Anyone can support, by action or expression, the system inequality of society. Anyone can be racist.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
A country being "racist" does not mean that most people in said racist country are racists.

These would be the non-racists who are immune to being affected by the culture they are raised in?

You're the one with recognition issues. I suggest branching out on news sources, etc. You might learn some of how things actually are.

Let me ask you a question, which may illustrate our difference here. Is it possible for a person to advocate for the return of Jim Crow legislation and not be a racist? From your previous posting, the only consistent answer I can see from your point of view is 'yes'. So, if the answer is in fact 'no', how do you connect that with you view that you can participate in the racism in our society and not be a racist?

bmiller said...

Time for another Public Service Announcement.

People with a university education should know that racists can only be white.

"Racism: The systematic subordination of marginalized racial groups (Indigenous/Native American, Black, Chicanx, Asian, Pacific Islander, and non-white Latinx people, non-white Middle Eastern people, etc.) who have relatively little social power in the United States, by members of the agent/dominant/privileged racial group who have relatively more social power (white)."


An interesting side note is that this glossary mentions "the Brotherhood of Bears". I first thought it was referring to a Native American animated movie. Boy was I wrong!

bmiller said...

Andrew Klavan:
Was a Jew, an agnostic then an atheist, then not. And a liberal that was taught that Republicans were Nazis.

Some consider him a cranky old guy (that automatically qualifies him as worthy of listening to in my book) but he's also pretty entertaining.

Is being a Jew who is now a Christian a change in race? I'm confused.

Starhopper said...

"Is being a Jew who is now a Christian a change in race?"

The nazis would have said no, since they murdered thousands of Catholic Jews (such as Edith Stein, a.k.a., St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross) as Jews in the Holocaust.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
Time for another Public Service Announcement.

People with a university education should know that racists can only be white.


I would disagree that you need to be white in order to be racist. Anyone can participate in the systemic subordination of marginalized racial groups.

bmiller said...

What a surprise.

Dishonest leftists rolling their own definitions under existing words in an attempt to fool people.

The word racism was first defined as the belief in the superiority of one race over another. Now, since the progressives who pushed eugenics in the first place discovered most people find it repulsive, they have simply decided to redefine so it will apply to anyone who disagrees with them.

Some people will swallow anything.

Starhopper said...

"Some people will swallow anything."

Careful now. That statement can work both ways. That is exactly what "leftists" (whatever that means) say about Trump apologists.

bmiller said...

Since leftists consider anyone that votes right of Chairman Mao a racist, we should take them seriously why?

Starhopper said...

We may debate the precise meaning of the term "racist", but at least it has a meaning.

But "leftist"? A term without any meaning whatsoever. Semantically null.

bmiller said...

Guess that's news to self-proclaimed leftists.

Starhopper said...

I've been politically aware since the late 1960s, and I have yet to see or hear a coherent definition of the label. When disparate individuals such as Dorothy Day, Woody Guthrie, Cesar Chavez, Daniel Berrigan, Walter Mondale, Josef Stalin, Norman Thomas, Chairman Mao, Howard Zinn, Chris Matthews, Pete Seeger, Barack Obama, Eugene Debs, and Elizabeth Warren are all described using the same word, then that word cannot possibly have any useful meaning.

bmiller said...

Nothing about the left is coherent.

Starhopper said...

If you truly believe that, then why label people using a meaningless word?

bmiller said...

People give themselves the label. Go tell them to stop. I'm just an innocent by-stander.

Starhopper said...

It adds nothing to the conversation In fact, using the term might possibly be a form of ad hominem.

And please don't even try to rebut with "Well, then so is calling somebody a racist." Apples and oranges. "Racist" has a universally understood meaning (even if it is not exactly well defined). What is generally under debate is who falls under its umbrella, not what it means to be one.

But just what the heck does it mean to be a leftist (other than someone whom bmiller disapproves of)?

Legion of Logic said...

These would be the non-racists who are immune to being affected by the culture they are raised in?

Abortion is legal in this country. I am not pro-abortion despite being a citizen. Laws and legal systems are not a reflection of any given member of the population.

Regarding the two major political parties, since they cover such a huge umbrella of topics of varying degrees of importance to different people, it is also very difficult to cast a vote that will not result in policies of which the voter disapproves. Not to mention the difficulty of finding a politician without personal failings. Which personal failings each of us chooses to tolerate will be different.


Is it possible for a person to advocate for the return of Jim Crow legislation and not be a racist?

No.

Jim Crow laws were intended to enforce racial segregation. As far as I know, racial segregation can only be supported if the supporter does not want to be around other races. (A lesser modern version has emerged in certain universities with the demands for "safe spaces" that often exclude whites. Same attitude, even if the consequences are negligible compared to Jim Crow.) And if you judge someone based on his or her race, that is racist behavior.


So, if the answer is in fact 'no', how do you connect that with you view that you can participate in the racism in our society and not be a racist?

"Participating in the racism of our society" is ill-defined.

Someone advocating for Jim Crow laws was a racist because his intended targets were racially motivated. Someone against illegal immigration, often accused of being a racist belief, is not racist for doing so, even if the majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic, so long as his motivation is not against Hispanics, but rather people who perform the action of entering the country illegally. Both are participating in legal systems that affect races differently, but one is racially motivated and the other is not. One is a racist, the other is not. A disproportionate impact on a particular demographic is not in of itself proof that it is the result of racism.

Basically, my position is that motivation is key. If a person's action or belief is not racially motivated, then he is not racist for performing that action or holding that belief. Someone who vandalizes a black church might be motivated by racism, but he also might be motivated by anti-Christian sentiment, or he might simply want to cause a public headache.

So yes, support of racial segregation is racist because it judges others based on their race and not their character. But so are all the things I listed regarding Democratic behavior. Race simply should not matter to anyone, ever.

bmiller said...

It adds nothing to the conversation In fact, using the term might possibly be a form of ad hominem.

"Racist" has a universally understood meaning (even if it is not exactly well defined).

If there's one thing that is obvious about this conversation is that "racist" means one thing to you (apparently), another to One Brow, another to UC Davis and so on.

I'm sorry you don't understand what people mean when they call themselves leftist. But why would you think it's ad hominem for me to call the people I'm talking about the exact label they use for themselves?

Starhopper said...

"But why would you think it's ad hominem for me to call the people I'm talking about the exact label they use for themselves?"

Because you use the label itself as your argument. Many of your comments boil down to "Well, leftists believe this, therefore it is nonsense (or even evil)." No refutation of the idea itself. Just "It's a leftist idea," and that settles it for you. (And for three or four others on this blog.)

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
Dishonest leftists rolling their own definitions under existing words in an attempt to fool people.

What a surprise.

Dishonest god-bots pretending their own desired, unmanifested lack of individuality is manifest in other groups.

One Brow said...

Starhopper said...
"Racist" has a universally understood meaning (even if it is not exactly well defined). What is generally under debate is who falls under its umbrella, not what it means to be one.

Legion of Logic and I strongly disagree on what racism is, and what it means to be a racist. He looks to a personal definition, I to a sociological one.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
These would be the non-racists who are immune to being affected by the culture they are raised in?

Abortion is legal in this country. I am not pro-abortion despite being a citizen. Laws and legal systems are not a reflection of any given member of the population.

Which has pretty much no connection to what I said above.

Regarding the two major political parties, since they cover such a huge umbrella of topics of varying degrees of importance to different people, it is also very difficult to cast a vote that will not result in policies of which the voter disapproves. Not to mention the difficulty of finding a politician without personal failings. Which personal failings each of us chooses to tolerate will be different.

Undoubtedly. More realistically, people tend to tolerate more from a politician closer to their political leanings.

Is it possible for a person to advocate for the return of Jim Crow legislation and not be a racist?

No.

You rebut this answer below.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
Jim Crow laws were intended to enforce racial segregation. As far as I know, racial segregation can only be supported if the supporter does not want to be around other races.

In the areas where Jim Crow laws where prevalent, it was much more common to be around people of different races on a daily basis. There is no point in segregating bus seats if you don't ride the same buses. There is no point in forcing school segregation if your neighborhoods are already segregated. Northern segregation resulted in much less contact between the races than Jim Crow.

(A lesser modern version has emerged in certain universities with the demands for "safe spaces" that often exclude whites. Same attitude, even if the consequences are negligible compared to Jim Crow.)

Something that can only be considered true by a person who has the privilege to not be oppressed by the surrounding culture.

And if you judge someone based on his or her race, that is racist behavior.

All you have to do to justify that statement is prove that 'separation' implies 'judgment'. Many supporters of Jim Crow went to great lengths to assure people that there was no judgment at all.

"Participating in the racism of our society" is ill-defined.

What's the part that you find ill-defined?

Someone advocating for Jim Crow laws was a racist because his intended targets were racially motivated. Someone against illegal immigration, often accused of being a racist belief, is not racist for doing so, even if the majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic, so long as his motivation is not against Hispanics, but rather people who perform the action of entering the country illegally.

Can we determine motivation from action? This is probably the central question of this disagreement.

For example, if a person actively seeks out Mexicans to deport, but not Canadians, can we consider that fact in evaluating whether there is an animus against Mexicans behind his actions?

Both are participating in legal systems that affect races differently, but one is racially motivated and the other is not. One is a racist, the other is not. A disproportionate impact on a particular demographic is not in of itself proof that it is the result of racism.

Is the pursuit of enforcement against one demographic, but not the other, proof? How about a legal structure set up so one demographic can perform an action legally and easily, but the other can not?

Basically, my position is that motivation is key. If a person's action or belief is not racially motivated, then he is not racist for performing that action or holding that belief. Someone who vandalizes a black church might be motivated by racism, but he also might be motivated by anti-Christian sentiment, or he might simply want to cause a public headache.

By this metric, since we can never know what is in a person's heart, we can never say we know someone is a racist. The fiercest Jim Crow supporters would have said segregation was good for both black and white people. Even the very rare people who claimed to be racist may have been lying. Rather than define the word out of existence, I prefer to retain it as a useful description of how people behave, not just their motivations.

So yes, support of racial segregation is racist because it judges others based on their race and not their character. But so are all the things I listed regarding Democratic behavior. Race simply should not matter to anyone, ever.

Perhaps it should not, but the reality is that it does, and that we know it does. Knowing that race does matter, especially to those who claim it does not (on average, no doubt you are the virtuous exception), I don't see how acting to recompense based on this discrepancy is wrong.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
Since leftists consider anyone that votes right of Chairman Mao a racist, we should take them seriously why?

What makes you think we exclude people who vote like/left of Mao?

bmiller said...

Because you use the label itself as your argument.

Then you have simply ignored my argument.

My argument is that someone (self-proclaimed leftists) want(s) to redefine a word describing a loathsome progressive ideology in such a way that it applies to anyone who opposes progressive ideas. I'm just pointing out that this is a dishonest move and frankly I don't understand how anyone could fall for it. In this context complaining that I'm using the exact term leftists use to describe themselves makes no sense to me.

I suspect that if leftists start to think that being called a "leftist" is a bad thing, they'll start to call me one and erase all evidence they ever were one. "We've always been at war with Eastasia" don't you know.

Legion of Logic said...

Which has pretty much no connection to what I said above.

Looks like it does to me.


You rebut this answer below.

Everything I said was consistent.


In the areas where Jim Crow laws where prevalent, it was much more common to be around people of different races on a daily basis...Northern segregation resulted in much less contact between the races than Jim Crow.

Are you suggesting that people who supported Jim Crow laws did not want to have separation between themselves and other races, particularly blacks? If not, then I fail to see the relevancy.


Something that can only be considered true by a person who has the privilege to not be oppressed by the surrounding culture.

Or by someone who judges stated beliefs and actions of an individual, which are not defined by race. If you want to exclude a person due to his skin color and not his behavior, you are a racist, unless you are leading a clandestine night operation and ran out of face paint. Bye whitey!


Many supporters of Jim Crow went to great lengths to assure people that there was no judgment at all.

I'm sure they told themselves that, too. I'd be curious to hear their justification.


What's the part that you find ill-defined?

"Participating in the racism of a society" is too broad a description to be useful when examining the actions of an individual, particularly when taking personal motivations into account. If I get gas from a station that happens to be owned by a KKK member, technically I'm "participating in the racism of a society".


Can we determine motivation from action? This is probably the central question of this disagreement.

Sometimes, depending on the information we have at our disposal.


For example, if a person actively seeks out Mexicans to deport, but not Canadians, can we consider that fact in evaluating whether there is an animus against Mexicans behind his actions?

Absolutely.

Legion of Logic said...

Is the pursuit of enforcement against one demographic, but not the other, proof? How about a legal structure set up so one demographic can perform an action legally and easily, but the other can not?

In the former, I'd say so if talking equal circumstances, like a law-abiding Mexican family with a teacher, a nurse, and two kids being deported while a law-abiding Canadian family with a teacher, a nurse, and two kids not needing to worry about it. However, if a particular demographic happened to be responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime or problem behavior compared to another, relative to their respective populations, then it would logically follow that more enforcement would occur against that demographic by necessity. Not racist in that case.


By this metric, since we can never know what is in a person's heart, we can never say we know someone is a racist.

Indeed, people should not be so keen on throwing the term around when they don't know what they're talking about.


The fiercest Jim Crow supporters would have said segregation was good for both black and white people.

Rationalization is a terrible thing sometimes. I suppose someone completely ignorant of the effects Jim Crow laws had on the black population could theoretically have some sort of pseudo-justification for convincing themselves there was no racism involved, but by definition separating people based on race and not behavior is racist. I see no way around that.

At best, they might try arguing that this particular breed of racist behavior was actually beneficial to both sides, but there would be no denying the racism itself.


Even the very rare people who claimed to be racist may have been lying.

Not something I worry about.


Rather than define the word out of existence, I prefer to retain it as a useful description of how people behave, not just their motivations.

And I do not want to falsely accuse someone of such a negative thing. False accusations are damaging.


Perhaps it should not, but the reality is that it does, and that we know it does. Knowing that race does matter, especially to those who claim it does not (on average, no doubt you are the virtuous exception), I don't see how acting to recompense based on this discrepancy is wrong.

Of course it matters to too many people. Never denied that. But, having given you absolutely no reason to think so of me, you make your little "no doubt you are the virtuous exception" statement which, as offered, can't be taken literally. It's not difficult to have my points proven online. If it's that easy for you to make such judgments of people you don't know, maybe you should examine your own heart. Is it because you yourself can't fathom not judging people differently based on race, so you can't believe it of me?

Depending on what you mean by "recompense based on this discrepancy", I could either agree or disagree. But accusing someone of being a racist is not my go-to strategy like it is among the Democratic party and their supporters.

One Brow said...

Blogger Legion of Logic said...
Looks like it does to me.

Primarily due to your consistent refusal to acknowledge the pervasive effects of implicit bias.

Are you suggesting that people who supported Jim Crow laws did not want to have separation between themselves and other races, particularly blacks? If not, then I fail to see the relevancy.

Jim Crow laws were much more about domination than separation. They were about making sure people 'knew their place'.

Or by someone who judges stated beliefs and actions of an individual, which are not defined by race.

Safe spaces are not created for protection from individuals.

I'm sure they told themselves that, too. I'd be curious to hear their justification.

I'm sure your search abilities are up to the task.

"Participating in the racism of a society" is too broad a description to be useful when examining the actions of an individual, particularly when taking personal motivations into account. If I get gas from a station that happens to be owned by a KKK member, technically I'm "participating in the racism of a society".

Technically, that would be 'supporting', not 'participating'.

Sometimes, depending on the information we have at our disposal.

For example, when we see behaviors directed to members of one race as a group, and not to members of a different race as a group, even you would agree that's racism?

For example, if a person actively seeks out Mexicans to deport, but not Canadians, can we consider that fact in evaluating whether there is an animus against Mexicans behind his actions?

Absolutely.

Did you know about 5% of our illegal immigrants come from Europe and Canada? Meaning our current system that focuses on Hispanics, and does not deport these Europeans/Canadians, is racist, by the your agreement above.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
In the former, I'd say so if talking equal circumstances, like a law-abiding Mexican family with a teacher, a nurse, and two kids being deported while a law-abiding Canadian family with a teacher, a nurse, and two kids not needing to worry about it.

So we agree.

However, if a particular demographic happened to be responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime or problem behavior compared to another, relative to their respective populations, then it would logically follow that more enforcement would occur against that demographic by necessity. Not racist in that case.

On the other hand, if one group were disproportionately blamed for causing crime or problem behavior when compared to another group, that would also be racism, correct?

Indeed, people should not be so keen on throwing the term around when they don't know what they're talking about.

Perhaps, since you would define the term into uselessness, that is why people have chosen a different definition for it.

Rationalization is a terrible thing sometimes. I suppose someone completely ignorant of the effects Jim Crow laws had on the black population could theoretically have some sort of pseudo-justification for convincing themselves there was no racism involved, but by definition separating people based on race and not behavior is racist. I see no way around that.

Yet, SCOTUS did, in Plessy vs. Ferguson. That's why when people talk about racism, they look more to actions than to motivations. Humans deceive themselves on motivation regularly and easily.

And I do not want to falsely accuse someone of such a negative thing. False accusations are damaging.

As long as you use the term to describe behaviors, rather than motivations, this is only a concern when you are not carefully looking at behaviors.

Of course it matters to too many people. Never denied that. But, having given you absolutely no reason to think so of me, you make your little "no doubt you are the virtuous exception" statement which, as offered, can't be taken literally.

Of course it was not literal. You can't control your implicit racial biases anymore than any other human, and to be aware of them at all, you would have to acknowledge they exist. The first is not a flaw in you more than any other human, and the second is more likely a lack of understanding rather than determination.

It's not difficult to have my points proven online. If it's that easy for you to make such judgments of people you don't know, maybe you should examine your own heart. Is it because you yourself can't fathom not judging people differently based on race, so you can't believe it of me?

Who said I was talking about judgment? I'm discussing human nature, and the biases that inevitably result from the combination of nature and culture. Nothing I said was about your conscious motivations/feelings, your intentions, or your judgement.

Depending on what you mean by "recompense based on this discrepancy", I could either agree or disagree. But accusing someone of being a racist is not my go-to strategy like it is among the Democratic party and their supporters.

It's not a strategy, it's a reality.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
My argument is that someone (self-proclaimed leftists) want(s) to redefine a word describing a loathsome progressive ideology in such a way that it applies to anyone who opposes progressive ideas

Racism is not an ideology at all. The willingness, or refusal, to recognize it is.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-culture-of-public-mass-shootings.html

culture of mass shootings: Metacrock's blog

bmiller said...

For those who never knew:

Progressive institutes such as the Carnegie Institution and the Rockefeller Foundation actually financed the racist eugenic ideology. Literally Hitler.

SteveK said...

Joe
>>> "Especially perplexing is the attitude that still treats gun ownership as though it is a God given right, and a divine mandate, (the new version of Gensis 1:28 in addition to “be fruitful and multiply” we should say “be violent and armed”)."

In this country it's a right guaranteed by the US constitution. People get their attitude on that basis so it's not the least bit perplexing as to why most have it. What's perplexing to me is that some people think the people have no right to own a gun. Anyway, just wanted to say this attitude has nothing to do with God. It's a uniquely American attitude. People know the constitutional right to own a gun can be undone because we see that in other countries. In those other countries people have a similar attitude toward owning some other object that will allow them to protect themselves and their family. I support them having that attitude.

Starhopper said...

I personally do not think much of efforts to tighten gun laws, not because I wouldn't like to see such laws passed (I would), but because I believe they would be rather futile. The horse has left the barn.

What I DO support (and am actively involved in) is anti-gun education. As a US Army veteran with extensive knowledge of and skill in firearms of all sorts (I qualified "expert marksman" while in the service), I have taught everyone in my immediate family and most of my extended relatives to not want to own a gun (and most of them do not). My grandchildren already know that guns are intrinsically evil, and to immediately flee any house where they learn one is present. (I had given the same instructions to my own children decades ago.) I man a Veterans for Peace table at a nearby Baltimore farmers' market, handing out, among other things, anti-gun literature and debating the issue with passersby. Some people are not convinced, but I'm reasonably certain that many walk away pondering the fact based arguments I present. I am all too aware that there are way, way too many homicides in Baltimore (mostly using guns), and wish to do my part to combat the plague.

The equation is simple: less guns equals less gun-related homicides. The key to getting there? Education.

SteveK said...

>> "The equation is simple: less guns equals less gun-related homicides."

Except when those in power are the only ones to own them. That equation has been proven to be true again and again. If you want less guns and less homicide you'll need to force the government to abandon theirs too. Good luck.

SteveK said...

>> "The key to getting there? Education."

You think shooters don't know that guns can kill people? You think they don't know it's illegal to murder people? Of course they know.

What on earth are you educating people about that they don't already know? Serious question.

SteveK said...

Here's how I imagine the education process going:

A: Hello sir. Please take a look at these gun/homicide facts compiled by unbiased sources. Clearly, guns are evil. You should get rid of your guns

B: Okay, thanks for the facts. I don't question them at all. It's horrible that guns are used to kill people but I don't plan on killing anyone.

A: Guns are dangerous. The facts prove it.

B: They can be. Cars are dangerous. Knives too. Hammers also. Anyway, I keep mine locked up and I don't plan on killing anyone.

A: You're ignoring the gun facts. Guns kill people. If we get rid of guns, deaths will go down.

B: I'm not going to use a gun to kill anyone. I've never killed anyone. I'm keeping it.

A: It's a fact that guns kill people. You're endangering others.

B: I'm not endangering anyone.

Starhopper said...

"Of course they know."

You'd be amazed at what people do not know. They do not know that, statistically speaking, the most likely person to be killed or injured by a gun in the house is not some bogeyman intruder but the owner himself, or a member of his family. They do not know that carrying a gun in public does not result in diffusing situations, but rather escalates them. They do not know (and the police back this one up) that Baltimore shooters overwhelmingly aim for other gun owners and not for what they term "civilians" (i.e., unarmed persons). It's considered "bad form" and lowers your street rep. They do not know that responding to a criminal with a gun by pulling out your own exponentially increases the chances of yourself being killed, while not increasing the odds for the criminal at all. They do not know that the number of times a child in a house has been killed by a gun that the owner was certain was not loaded literally cannot be counted. They do not know that it is damned hard to hit anything with a handgun without extensive training and practice. I know this from personal experience. The first time I went out on the firing range with a pistol, I couldn't even hit a target 50 meters away. (This, despite being a competition winning expert marksman with the M16.) It took many hours of practice and hundreds of rounds fired before I would end up with a reasonably tight shot group

"Except when those in power are the only ones to own them. That equation has been proven to be true again and again."

Really? Kindly name me just ONE tyrannical government which was overthrown by an armed populace, where the military did not support the uprising. I'll make it easy for you. The number is ZERO.

Starhopper said...

Ha! That should have been "defusing", not "diffusing". Oh, well.

SteveK said...

>> "Kindly name me just ONE tyrannical government which was overthrown by an armed populace, where the military did not support the uprising."

Huh? I never said anything about this one way or the other.

Starhopper said...

Isn't that what you were referring to in the quote I was answering? That's the way I read it.

SteveK said...

>> "You'd be amazed at what people do not know"

Your list of educational points are about gun safety and proper gun use. That's all good information to pass along. People can decide for themselves if owning a gun is right for them. That's a far cry from educating people that "guns are intrinsically evil".

SteveK said...

>>> "They do not know that, statistically speaking, the most likely person to be killed or injured by a gun in the house is not some bogeyman intruder but the owner himself, or a member of his family."

I had to chuckle at this. Statistics without context are meaningless. Did you know that statistically speaking you're more likely to die from a medical error than you are a gun.

Legion of Logic said...

My grandchildren already know that guns are intrinsically evil

You taught your grandchildren that inanimate objects have a moral status?

I know a woman who is alive because of her use of a firearm. She would disagree that she used evil to ward off evil.

bmiller said...

It seems there's a hard push against not just the 2A but the 1A also.
Coincidence?

Legion of Logic said...

Primarily due to your consistent refusal to acknowledge the pervasive effects of implicit bias.

What I refuse to do is blame anything on any sort of bias unless it can be demonstrated that it was actually because of bias. I'm not interested in accusations or broad generalizations. I want specific behaviors or people identified and solutions suggested.


Jim Crow laws were much more about domination than separation. They were about making sure people 'knew their place'.

Even better for my position, then. There is absolutely no justification for claiming that treating black people like garbage was somehow beneficial to them.


Safe spaces are not created for protection from individuals.

So a white person could join their group/area?


Did you know about 5% of our illegal immigrants come from Europe and Canada? Meaning our current system that focuses on Hispanics, and does not deport these Europeans/Canadians, is racist, by the your agreement above.

If we don't count number of criminal deportations and instead focus on those whose only issue is being here illegally, then if Europeans and Canadians are five percent of the illegal immigrant population but are not five percent of the deportations, then sure there could be an issue of racism there, assuming no other factors involved.

On the other hand, if one group were disproportionately blamed for causing crime or problem behavior when compared to another group, that would also be racism, correct?

You're saying if one group is perceived to being responsible for a lot more problems than they are actually responsible for? Yes, that would likely be a racist attitude.


Perhaps, since you would define the term into uselessness, that is why people have chosen a different definition for it.

The way I use it is not useless, unless "usefulness" is defined as its convenience as a weapon to use against the left's political opponents as a way of demonizing them, stoking resentment and division among different races, and morally posturing.

The way I use it requires actual thoughtfulness and caution, not simply spewing it out at everyone who disagrees with a Democrat.


Yet, SCOTUS did, in Plessy vs. Ferguson. That's why when people talk about racism, they look more to actions than to motivations. Humans deceive themselves on motivation regularly and easily.

And people falsely accuse others of evil motivations regularly and easily. The conversation should include both.


As long as you use the term to describe behaviors, rather than motivations, this is only a concern when you are not carefully looking at behaviors.

But non-racists can commit racist actions. Racist actions can be made in complete ignorance. It's completely unfair to lump such a person in with a hood-wearing KKK nut who actually disdains non-whites.


Of course it was not literal. You can't control your implicit racial biases anymore than any other human, and to be aware of them at all, you would have to acknowledge they exist. The first is not a flaw in you more than any other human, and the second is more likely a lack of understanding rather than determination.

I certainly no problem with informing people about how they might have preconceived notions that they aren't even aware of, and for them to stop and think how that might be affecting their interactions and relationships. That's good education that can only improve things. But since everyone possesses such biases to some extent, then they are not useful in a conversation about whether a given person is a racist.


It's not a strategy, it's a reality.

Well yes, the reality is that people just throw around accusations of racism like a ritual chant these days. But that is not a sensible or healthy strategy for anyone.

Starhopper said...

"You taught your grandchildren that inanimate objects have a moral status?"

Absolutely! A hydrogen bomb, an inanimate object, is objectively and intrinsically evil. As is a child pornography magazine.

SteveK said...

Do you teach your grandchildren to run away from Police carrying evil objects? If not, why?

SteveK said...

Starhoppper:
"Gather around grandchildren for today's lesson. If you're ever in trouble, don't seek out a police officer. They carry guns and as I've been teaching you, guns are evil. Statistically speaking, you're more likely to be shot by a police officer with a gun than you are if you just stay away from guns altogether. Beat the odds and just run away."

Starhopper said...

Idiots.

(That's right, that's no argument. Some things are so stupid, they're not worth responding to.)

SteveK said...

I've responded to you. Why not return the favor?

bmiller said...

Should white people tell black people they shouldn't own a gun? The Klan was all in. Somehow I don't think the Klan was interested in preventing black people from accidentally shooting themselves.

I wonder why a black person would trust white folks telling them to disarm.

Starhopper said...

"I wonder why a black person would trust white folks telling them to disarm."

But they do, when you demonstrate how it is to their demonstrable advantage to do so.

By the way, what are you doing to reduce the level of gun violence in our country? I am out there every day (well, every week), in the worst neighborhoods of Baltimore, calling for disarmament. What are you doing? Commenting on internet blogs?

bmiller said...

I'm trying to stop abortion.

bmiller said...

But I'm admittedly bad at it since I can't even convince Catholics that they should spend their time fighting it.

bmiller said...

Oh and by the way.

All you guys who vote Republican are no longer racists. You are now all white supremacists.
Racist was so August 3rd.

Legion of Logic said...

You are now all white supremacists

Eminent scholar Rosanna Arquette said it best: "I’m sorry I was born white and privileged. It disgusts me. And I feel so much shame."

Well said, Rosanna. Well said.

Legion of Logic said...

I for one do not believe that self-defense, and being prepared to defend yourself and your family, is evil. Which is why a gun is not intrinsically evil, as it can be used for virtuous purposes in the hands of good people.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
Progressive institutes such as the Carnegie Institution and the Rockefeller Foundation actually financed the racist eugenic ideology. Literally Hitler.

Why do you think these organizations were progressive at that time?

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
Except when those in power are the only ones to own them. That equation has been proven to be true again and again. If you want less guns and less homicide you'll need to force the government to abandon theirs too. Good luck.

Because the French, German, Swedish, etc. governments are so rapidly killing off their citizens?

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
I had to chuckle at this. Statistics without context are meaningless. Did you know that statistically speaking you're more likely to die from a medical error than you are a gun.

We have laws and procedures in place designed to reduce medical errors. Let's also reduce guns.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
It seems there's a hard push against not just the 2A but the 1A also.
Coincidence?


More like fever dream. About the only push against the First Amendment is Trump's continual demonizing of the press, and I don't think that really qualifies.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
What I refuse to do is blame anything on any sort of bias unless it can be demonstrated that it was actually because of bias. I'm not interested in accusations or broad generalizations. I want specific behaviors or people identified and solutions suggested.

Most accusations of racism I have seen address specific phrases or actions. They will point to a specific tweet, expression, treatment under arrest, etc.

Even better for my position, then. There is absolutely no justification for claiming that treating black people like garbage was somehow beneficial to them.

Yet, they did.

So a white person could join their group/area?

If they were their to interact under the terms of the group in the space, most of the time yes. Do you understand what these spaces are being safe from?

You're saying if one group is perceived to being responsible for a lot more problems than they are actually responsible for? Yes, that would likely be a racist attitude.

So, for example, the comment that Mexican immigrants are more likely to be drug dealers or rapists than either 1) American-born citizens, or 2) Mexican who stay in Mexico, would be racist?

The way I use it requires actual thoughtfulness and caution, not simply spewing it out at everyone who disagrees with a Democrat.

Maybe you've missed where Democrats also get corrected on these issues.

And people falsely accuse others of evil motivations regularly and easily. The conversation should include both.

My preference would be neither. Leave motivations out of it entirely.

But non-racists can commit racist actions. Racist actions can be made in complete ignorance. It's completely unfair to lump such a person in with a hood-wearing KKK nut who actually disdains non-whites.

I firmly agree with every sentence in that paragraph. I fully acknowledge I have engaged in racist behaviors, despite my best efforts. My intentions to not be racist don't undo the harm of any racist actions I may have unintentionally engaged in.

But since everyone possesses such biases to some extent, then they are not useful in a conversation about whether a given person is a racist.

However, they are useful in discussing whether certain beliefs and policies can be based in this implicit racism.

Well yes, the reality is that people just throw around accusations of racism like a ritual chant these days. But that is not a sensible or healthy strategy for anyone.

You say "accusation", I say "conclusion".

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
I wonder why a black person would trust white folks telling them to disarm.

Black people disarm because they understand the violence implied, and because they don't like being shot by the police.

SteveK said...

>> "We have laws and procedures in place designed to reduce medical errors. Let's also reduce guns."

We used to train and educate children about guns in school. Proper gun use and safety would be improved if we returned to doing that. That's a law I would support.

Legion of Logic said...

Do you understand what these spaces are being safe from?

If you're right, apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't understand what these spaces are being safe from. From progressive site Huffington Post


So, for example, the comment that Mexican immigrants are more likely to be drug dealers or rapists than either 1) American-born citizens, or 2) Mexican who stay in Mexico, would be racist?

I don't know the specific statistics, myself, so it could either be a true statement ("more likely", which would only require a higher percentage of the population) or it could be an ignorant racist statement.


Maybe you've missed where Democrats also get corrected on these issues.

By other Democrats and progressives? Yes, I must have missed this.


Leave motivations out of it entirely.

That would make for a very horrific society.


My intentions to not be racist don't undo the harm of any racist actions I may have unintentionally engaged in.

But if we leave motivations out of it, you are worthy of just as much condemnation as any KKK member.


You say "accusation", I say "conclusion".

Then by this statement of yours:

I fully acknowledge I have engaged in racist behaviors

we must conclude you are a racist, in the same category of people as David Duke and Adolf Hitler. Or we must conclude that since everyone is a racist, none of us has the moral authority to condemn others of racism.

Or, doing it my way, we must thoughtfully approach each circumstance and evaluate it based on the full picture, which includes motivations, to determine whether there was actual racism involved. In which case, you would not be labeled a racist.

That's the difference in our approaches. Yours labels you a racist due to your behaviors. Mine does not.

Starhopper said...

"Or we must conclude that since everyone is a racist, none of us has the moral authority to condemn others of racism."

Utter nonsense. By that logic, since we are all sinners, no one has any right to condemn anyone else's sinful behavior.

Legion of Logic said...

Utter nonsense. By that logic, since we are all sinners, no one has any right to condemn anyone else's sinful behavior.

I agree, it is utter nonsense. But if people are too lazy to actually differentiate between a non-racist doing or saying something racist, and an actual racist worthy of condemnation, then since EVERYONE does or says things that are racist to an extent, and since everyone has some sort of bias regardless of their best intentions, either we have to condemn everyone, we have to condemn no one, or we have to actually discern what is problematic and what is not.

Which is why my position in the conversation with One Brow is to focus on motivations and not simply behavior. If we only look at behavior, then we are all hopeless racists.

SteveK said...

In One Brow's world stealing a suitcase is the same as picking up the wrong suitcase. Both should be treated the same, because everything is behavior-based. In the real world, we don't do that.

bmiller said...

I've never been to a Socialist convention. It sounds like too many rules for me.

Communication is difficult, but it doesn't have to be offensive. Just look at what happened after the video.

Not confirmed by Snopes yet.

Starhopper said...

Why did whoever put that video together tack on those final seconds with AOC, making it look like she was addressing that meeting? Very deceptive. In fact, downright dishonest.

bmiller said...

You actually watched it all the way through?

OK, I'll believe you that AOC wasn't there. I don't think it materially affects the content of what went on either way. There were many versions of it but most had commentary. I chose the first one I could find without commentary.

bmiller said...

I went back and looked again.

I think they put AOC there at the end talking about "this is what organizing looks like" more as a joke than to be deceptive. But if you didn't see it as a joke, then it probably failed.

Starhopper said...

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a failed attempt at humor. When I watched it, though, it appeared as though they were trying to link AOC with the lunatics in that hall. I missed the joke altogether.

Such "rules" are quite apolitical. In fact, I attended one meeting at the Pentagon, of all places, that was run very much like that one in the video. No clapping, lots of hand signals, and all sorts of no-nos when speaking. (I was chastised for using the word "pretend" in a talk I gave, but I cannot remember why it was considered offensive.)

bmiller said...

Did they make you use Jazz Hands?

I'd probably just use my Jazz Finger.

bmiller said...

Good comedy is funny no matter what your politics are.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
If you're right, apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't understand what these spaces are being safe from. From progressive site Huffington Post

2) Marginalized groups have a right to claim spaces in the public realm where they can share stories about the discrimination they have faced without judgment and intrusion from anyone else. ... It's not just important, but it's essential, for marginalized groups to have safe spaces on campus to engage with people who understand what they go through.

These were not students there to support, help, or participate; they were reporters. Did the Ryersonian have no black reporters to send, reporters who would have had a better perspective on the experiences and goals of the organization? I'm sure you'll agree that the life experiences of a reporter change how they view and report on events.

Perhaps you did not appreciate the importance of my inclusion of "If they were their [sic] to interact under the terms of the group in the space...".

I don't know the specific statistics, myself, so it could either be a true statement ("more likely", which would only require a higher percentage of the population) or it could be an ignorant racist statement.

Should you care to look up the statistics, you'll find the latter supported.


That would make for a very horrific society.

You think judging other people primarily on their actions makes for a horrific society?

But if we leave motivations out of it, you are worthy of just as much condemnation as any KKK member.

Do my actions match those of KKK members? I mean, I realize you don't actually know, but if we are judging on actions, is a person to advocates for counter-oppression positions the same as one who burns crosses or demonstrates for oppression?


we must conclude you are a racist, in the same category of people as David Duke and Adolf Hitler. Or we must conclude that since everyone is a racist, none of us has the moral authority to condemn others of racism.

I'm not a big believer in our ability to accurately create categories. however, I will respond as if this concept is meaningful.

Well, I'm certainly a human, as are Hitler and Duke, so I share that category with them. Part of being in that category is the existence of cognitive short cuts, such as Type I system thinking, that I have picked up from being raised with racist tropes and narratives. If that is the sole basis of the category, then we are all in that category.

You can lean with these shortcuts and tendencies, or you can work against them and tryto reprogram yourself. I see myself as a person who does the latter.

For the most part, condemnation is not useful when applied to persons, as much as to what the persons do and say.

Or, doing it my way, we must thoughtfully approach each circumstance and evaluate it based on the full picture, which includes motivations, to determine whether there was actual racism involved. In which case, you would not be labeled a racist.

That's the difference in our approaches. Yours labels you a racist due to your behaviors. Mine does not.


Personally, I have no problem if people want to label me a racist based on my innate human characteristics. It's just a reminder that I need to improve.

However, I understand that for you it is a loaded term. I know you are a sensitive man, would prefer to have a safe space where such terms are not used.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
In One Brow's world stealing a suitcase is the same as picking up the wrong suitcase. Both should be treated the same, because everything is behavior-based. In the real world, we don't do that.

In the real world, people who steal suitcases don't try to return them, which is a difference in behavior. In the real world, if you pick up the wrong suitcase, you apologize to the other person for the inconvenience you caused them, even though you did not intend it.

What's your world like?

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
I agree, it is utter nonsense. But if people are too lazy to actually differentiate between a non-racist doing or saying something racist, and an actual racist worthy of condemnation, then since EVERYONE does or says things that are racist to an extent, and since everyone has some sort of bias regardless of their best intentions, either we have to condemn everyone, we have to condemn no one, or we have to actually discern what is problematic and what is not.

Which is why my position in the conversation with One Brow is to focus on motivations and not simply behavior. If we only look at behavior, then we are all hopeless racists.


I don't agree that we are hopeless. We are works in progress.

It's funny that you agree with Starhopper that we can makes this distinction with some types of sin (we are all sinners, but we can still condemn some types of egregious sin based on the actions), but when it comes to racism, you can't treat that like other types of sin.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
Good comedy is funny no matter what your politics are.

Laughing at yourself is the best medicine.

Legion of Logic said...

These were not students there to support, help, or participate; they were reporters. Did the Ryersonian have no black reporters to send, reporters who would have had a better perspective on the experiences and goals of the organization?

Skin color should not have mattered, period. Treating people differently based on skin color is racist by definition.


You think judging other people primarily on their actions makes for a horrific society?

Bob killed Jim. Bob should be thrown in prison and the key tossed away, right? Oh wait, Jim attempted to kidnap Bob's daughter, and Bob stopped Jim and killed him in the process. Do we judge Bob on his actions, or his actions plus his motivations? If the former, that is horrific.

Now you can try to say "Well Bob's action wasn't simply killing Jim, it was lethally stopping the kidnapping of his daughter". The same discernment can be applied to racist acts, or acts that are accused of being racist, such as opposing, say, affirmative action. "Bob opposes affirmative action because he believes blacks do not belong in universities" shows that Bob is a racist piece of garbage. "Bob opposes affirmative action because he strongly believes in a fully equal playing field, but hasn't really thought about how much harder it often is for poor black kids to succeed" shows that Bob has some ignorant beliefs, but not that he is a racist per se. Both times Bob opposed affirmative action, but in only one of them does he deserve scorn.


Do my actions match those of KKK members? I mean, I realize you don't actually know, but if we are judging on actions, is a person to advocates for counter-oppression positions the same as one who burns crosses or demonstrates for oppression?

If you commit racist acts or say racist things, you are a racist, right? Why should you not be condemned for being a racist? I know the answer, since motivation is key, but do you?


Personally, I have no problem if people want to label me a racist based on my innate human characteristics.

I find that ridiculous, but you do you I suppose. You've proven my point that by not drawing a line where being labeled a racist is meaningful, you've made the label of racist meaningless.


I know you are a sensitive man, would prefer to have a safe space where such terms are not used.

Rather than hiding or trying to silence opposing views, some of us prefer engaging and trying to educate others when they are doing harmful things. That's why I spend so much time talking to progressives!


but when it comes to racism, you can't treat that like other types of sin.

Being labeled a racist is a very negative thing. It can impact multiple aspects of one's life. So for such an accusation to be made based on someone having implicit bias or saying something out of ignorance, the accuser is worse than the accused at that point. Seems to me I'm treating racism the same as anything else - actually discerning when something rises to the level of racism, and then discerning whether that something is actually worthy of societal backlash.

KKK? Worthy of the label. Ignorantly thinking all black people love rap and basketball? Not worthy of the label.

Legion of Logic said...

Laughing at yourself is the best medicine.

Joe Biden has the opportunity to be the healthiest man alive, then. By valuing truth over facts, he decided that poor kids are just as smart as white kids!

SteveK said...

>> "In the real world, people who steal suitcases don't try to return them, which is a difference in behavior. In the real world, if you pick up the wrong suitcase, you apologize to the other person for the inconvenience you caused them, even though you did not intend it."

You're now saying intentions are something that needs to be considered. That's not what you said above. The difference in behavior is the result of their intentions.

bmiller said...

It seems we have someone claiming that they prompted Trump to pick a fight with Elijah Cummings. Jack Brewer.

Is he racist or not racist?

Starhopper said...

I'm concerned that you even know such a link exists. You are evidently watching way too much faux news. No wonder your worldview is so skewed.

bmiller said...

Why do you think it's fake news? Do you think the man did not make the claim and the video was altered?

If not, then is this man racist?

bmiller said...

But maybe you're right about me taking in too much fake news. I listen to 2-3 hours of NPR every day.

If that's all a person listens to they'd have no idea what's going on.

Starhopper said...

Must disagree with you. Objective studies have shown that the more a person watches Fox News, the less he knows, and the more falsehoods he believes to be true. Watching FOX to get your news is like getting your information about religion from Bill Maher.

bmiller said...

Let me see. Since your news sources did not provide you with this fact, therefore it's not a fact?

Starhopper said...

If I heard from FOX News that the sun rose this morning, I would want confirmation from another source before giving any credence to the report.

Seriously.

bmiller said...

So you think the interview Mr Brewer gave was a fake by Fox?

If not, then why change the subject to Fox rather than what the man said and whether he is a racist or not?

bmiller said...

Those Fox people are more clever than foxes.

They even set up a fake twitter account.

bmiller said...

Wow. Jeffrey Epstein.

Didn't see that coming.

Starhopper said...

"apparent suicide"

Puh-leeze. Just how gullible do they think we are? There are way too many people in high places who have likely been crapping in their pants daily since his arrest, wondering just how willing he would be to "talk" to the law. His death is so-o-o-o convenient.

bmiller said...

If someone tried to write a fictional story about this, it wouldn't sell a single copy.

Real life is weirder than fiction.

bmiller said...

Too bad he died. Now the peds will never see justice.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Starhopper said...

Oh, they'll see justice all right - once the next (Democratic) administration is in, after Jan 2021, and all of the current president's crimes and treasons are prosecuted. The murder of Epstein in his cell will be merely one of a laundry list of felony charges against the Trump criminal cartel.

bmiller said...

Lots of conspiracy theories being churned out right now that's for sure.

Starhopper said...

As a rule, I shrink from conspiracy theories as from a hot stove, but this "suicide" stinks to high heaven. There's no need to connect any dots - they're already in direct contact with each other!

Just ask yourself two questions:

1. Who does Epstein's death benefit? and
2. Who had access to his cell, and could make this happen?

bmiller said...

Like most controversial stories people should wait 48 hours for facts to emerge. Right now there are contradictory stories.

There are a lot of powerful elite people with a motive and the means to kill Epstein. They aren't all just US citizens either if you've been reading the unsealed documents.

This is testimony from Virginia Roberts Giuffre, the most famous accuser. She names a lot of names. Read what she says about Prince Andrew. Ewww!

Starhopper said...

It's the "means" part that gets me here. Epstein was in a high security facility under suicide watch (a.k.a., 24 hour observation). That means the killer (I think it's a given that there is one) had connections high up in the Justice Department, with enough clout to get past/around the measures in place to prevent anything from happening to Mr. Epstein.

bmiller said...

Remember this was his second attempt at "suicide". Who helped him with it the first time?

All you need is money and knowing the right people. Pay off a guard or 2, shut off the cameras and finito.

I can tell you from my vast experience (of watching Jason Bourne movies) it couldn't have been anyone at the highest levels of our own government. If it was, they wouldn't have arrested him in the first place. They'd just contact operation Tredstone to activate a MK-Ultra mind controlled assassin and make it look like he ran into a robber in Manhattan.

bmiller said...

Have you seen the creepy "Temple" on Epstein Island?

Legion of Logic said...

Somehow Epstein was taken off suicide watch, despite "attempting suicide" on July 23. The only way to get taken off suicide watch is for the prison's top psychologist to declare the inmate no longer in imminent danger of suicide. So six days after a suicide attempt in prison, facing extremely hefty charges, and Epstein is declared to no longer be a suicide threat?

Really? Methinks this is not a suicide, and suicide watch provided too much observation, aka witnesses. Regular cells do not.


The murder of Epstein in his cell will be merely one of a laundry list of felony charges against the Trump criminal cartel.

I suspect it's as naïve to believe this has anything to do with Trump or his administration as it is to believe Epstein killed himself. But whether it was Trump or whether it was another prominent name, hopefully Epstein's death won't prevent the downfall of those who used his "services" as well as those who were behind his death.

On an aside,

once the next (Democratic) administration is in, after Jan 2021

I've suspected our presidential pendulum would continue to swing further out of control after Obama was elected, so I suppose one of the unhinged nutjobs running for office in 2020 is the perfect Democratic response to Trump.

bmiller said...

OK. 2 Theories:

1) Epstein knew he wouldn't last in prison with his crimes. He had money. He bribed the guards to look away so he could hang himself. He knew how to do it with the least amount of fuss. Peds often commit suicide so they won't have to meet up with the general prison population. So it actually was suicide.

2) Feds knew that people wanted Epstein dead. Didn't they try to get him once already? They need him to spill the beans on all those rich and powerful people. So they fake a suicide and wheel him out to a different undisclosed facility. Those pictures leaked of him on a gurney? Faked. You can tell by comparing the ear from other photos available online.

Which one is it?

bmiller said...

Epstein lawyers are hiring lawyers.

In a sign that the attorneys are bracing for government scrutiny of Mr. Epstein’s companies, Mr. Indyke and Mr. Schantz both recently hired criminal defense lawyers.

So looks like even though Epstein is gone, the investigations will roll on.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...

These were not students there to support, help, or participate; they were reporters. Did the Ryersonian have no black reporters to send, reporters who would have had a better perspective on the experiences and goals of the organization?

Skin color should not have mattered, period.

You don't think a person's experiences have any effect on their understanding?

At any rate, at least we agree the behavior was consistent with my description.

Treating people differently based on skin color is racist by definition.

You seem to keep going back and forth on this.

Bob killed Jim. Bob should be thrown in prison and the key tossed away, right? Oh wait, Jim attempted to kidnap Bob's daughter, and Bob stopped Jim and killed him in the process. Do we judge Bob on his actions, or his actions plus his motivations? If the former, that is horrific.

You think the action of killing a person, while that person is committing a felony, it identical to the action of killing a person while that person is not committing a crime?

What if Bob really enjoyed killing Jim, and talked afterwards about how he had been waiting for an excuse to kill Jim, and how Bob didn't care about his daughter? Then, his motivation becomes not wanting to go to jail. So, do we send Bob to jail in that case?

Now you can try to say "Well Bob's action wasn't simply killing Jim, it was lethally stopping the kidnapping of his daughter". The same discernment can be applied to racist acts, or acts that are accused of being racist, such as opposing, say, affirmative action.

Of course.

Both times Bob opposed affirmative action, but in only one of them does he deserve scorn.

It's nice of you to try to protect Bob from scorn. I'm more worried about the kids who, regardless of Bob's motivations, find it more difficult to get into college because of the way Bob votes. How does not calling out Bob for his error help those kids?

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...

If you commit racist acts or say racist things, you are a racist, right? Why should you not be condemned for being a racist? I know the answer, since motivation is key, but do you?

You keep using words like 'accuse' and 'condemn'. I don't find it to be an accusation to have someone point out when I say something racist, I find it to be a teachable moment. I listen, learn, and try to change.

You've proven my point that by not drawing a line where being labeled a racist is meaningful, you've made the label of racist meaningless.

Except, I have drawn a line. My line is where my actions, or those of others, affect people. You may disagree with that line, but that doesn't erase it.

Rather than hiding or trying to silence opposing views, some of us prefer engaging and trying to educate others when they are doing harmful things. That's why I spend so much time talking to progressives!

Right, as long as the vocabulary suits you.

Being labeled a racist is a very negative thing. It can impact multiple aspects of one's life.

Nonsense. I saw GWB and Obama both labeled racists by various people, and it had little impact on their lives. In fact, unless you are determined to display your racism, any consequences suffered tend to be short-term.

So for such an accusation to be made based on someone having implicit bias or saying something out of ignorance, the accuser is worse than the accused at that point. Seems to me I'm treating racism the same as anything else - actually discerning when something rises to the level of racism, and then discerning whether that something is actually worthy of societal backlash.

I am making the same determinations, except I am using the observable behavior, as opposed to the unknowable motivations, to make them.

Joe Biden has the opportunity to be the healthiest man alive, then. By valuing truth over facts, he decided that poor kids are just as smart as white kids!

Biden's best days are behind him. He seems to be showing signs of declining mental ability. I really hope the Democrats can put up someone better.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
You're now saying intentions are something that needs to be considered. That's not what you said above. The difference in behavior is the result of their intentions.

If the person is apologizing and is returning my suitcase without having opened it, do I really know or care why they grabbed it?

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
It seems we have someone claiming that they prompted Trump to pick a fight with Elijah Cummings. Jack Brewer.

Is he racist or not racist?


Does what he said sound like what the President tweeted, to you?

How much control does any US Representative have over the conditions in their district?

One Brow said...

Starhopper said...
As a rule, I shrink from conspiracy theories as from a hot stove, but this "suicide" stinks to high heaven. There's no need to connect any dots - they're already in direct contact with each other!

Just ask yourself two questions:

1. Who does Epstein's death benefit? and
2. Who had access to his cell, and could make this happen?


How about this question: how often do we see wealthy people who, upon losing everything, commit suicide? It seems to happen regularly. This was even the second attempt (do you think the supposed assassins bungled the first?).

One Brow said...

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1160258660871749632

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1160184923682045952

People dying while under observation is not that unusual.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
OK. 2 Theories:

1) Epstein knew he wouldn't last in prison with his crimes. He had money. He bribed the guards to look away so he could hang himself. He knew how to do it with the least amount of fuss. Peds often commit suicide so they won't have to meet up with the general prison population. So it actually was suicide.

2) Feds knew that people wanted Epstein dead. Didn't they try to get him once already? They need him to spill the beans on all those rich and powerful people. So they fake a suicide and wheel him out to a different undisclosed facility. Those pictures leaked of him on a gurney? Faked. You can tell by comparing the ear from other photos available online.

Which one is it?


How about 3) prisons are inhumane, the guards think of the prisoners as scum, and no one needed to be paid off to allow Epstein to die?

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
So looks like even though Epstein is gone, the investigations will roll on.

Good news there.

SteveK said...

>> "If the person is apologizing and is returning my suitcase without having opened it, do I really know or care why they grabbed it?"

I have no idea. I'm only interested in showing that you agree intentions should be considered.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
>> "If the person is apologizing and is returning my suitcase without having opened it, do I really know or care why they grabbed it?"

I have no idea. I'm only interested in showing that you agree intentions should be considered.


That's why I asked that question. Answer it for you. If a person grabbed your suitcase, but is returning it unopened and apologizing to you for taking it, how much does it matter to you if it was deliberate or by accident?

SteveK said...

>> "how much does it matter to you if it was deliberate or by accident?"

The question of intent is always relevant. The intent of the response is just as relevant as the intent of the first action.

Maybe the person returned the suitcase unopened because they could see they were gonna get caught and couldn't risk that, or maybe they stole too many suitcases and yours wouldn't fit into the getaway car. You assume it was taken by accident, but why would you think that? If you look only at behavior then accidents look identical to deliberate actions and racists look identical to people with other motives that have nothing to do with race.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
The question of intent is always relevant. The intent of the response is just as relevant as the intent of the first action.

Maybe the person returned the suitcase unopened because they could see they were gonna get caught and couldn't risk that, or maybe they stole too many suitcases and yours wouldn't fit into the getaway car.


Notice how, once a again, you talked about how intent affects the same behavior, and then changed the behavior to demonstrate?

SteveK said...

The question of intent is always relevant. That’s my only point.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
The question of intent is always relevant. That’s my only point.

Fair enough. My point is we can apply a label based on behavior without needing to know intent.

bmiller said...

Guy who took the suitcase is a thief.

Legion of Logic said...

Just a hypothetical, of course, but let's say someone from, oh, Antifa, was to call black Portland police officers "Uncle Tom", "race traitors", and "coons". Everyone agrees this is racist, correct?

bmiller said...

Where do you come up with such wild ideas? How could anyone take that seriously?

bmiller said...

Very Stable Genius, or Literally Hitler?

The Truth!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 204   Newer› Newest»