@Asmo , @enoch , @Jinx --

I appreciate what you're saying and I know that I *should* feel the way(s) you suggest. ...But I have a hard time actually getting there.

At some point, we are all responsible for our own actions, and the consequences of our own actions. Even though these people may not have any of the sort of opportunities that I take for granted, even though circumstances well outside of their control might push them into the direction of addiction, at some point they made a choice to start up with this crap. And they make a choice to continue with the drugs, even if the physical and mental addiction makes it nearly impossible for them to choose anything else.

There's a lot of problems in the world. There's a lot of people who unjustly have to contend with major problems that are absolutely 100% in no way their fault. Addicts are at least partially at fault for getting themselves into the mess that they are in. That puts them way down the line on my empathy list, that's all I'm saying.

Asmo said "To fix a problem, you first have to understand it. That does not require sympathy or empathy." That in particular helps me look at the issue from a different angle. Just because addiction is not a problem on my personal priority list, I 100% agree that it *is* a problem, and it is a problem that affects *me* also, indirectly if not directly. I live in a society of people, and helping each individual person in the society can help *everyone* in the society.

The war on drugs and its approach of mass incarceration, etc. pretty clearly doesn't work well to alleviate the problem. The part of me that (mostly jokingly, but not entirely) would tag this as EIA might be happy to take the approach of letting these people all shoot themselves up with krokodil or whatever else until they kill themselves. But rationally, I know that wouldn't fix anything. I'm not convinced that it would be worse than the war on drugs, but it definitely wouldn't be ideal.

So rationally, I know that social systems to help people break those addictions and whatever situations or psychological problems contributed to them are probably the optimal solution, from a society-wide sort of view. But I don't want to be at the front lines of any of that myself, because I think that it *does* require some empathy to the situation to be an effective contributor there, and I simply recognize that I personally can't scrounge any up.

So by all means, STOP taking my tax dollars and spending them on the war on drugs, and START spending them on social programs that experts and scientists who study addiction believe will do a better job of actually fixing the problem. But that's the extent of the personal involvement that I want to have.

All you mac people are so snowed or blind or just desperately trying to justify your money being wasted on a inferior product.

any thing can be done faster on a proper pc (proper meaning it uses the latest processor memory ssd and graphics card)

but the trouble comes from people when they get on pc they get cheap and expect to do their video editing in virtual dub (not knocking vdub by the way)

or try and find some other video tool they can use for free . they wont buy a proper video editing software package nor will they buy proper software tools for their jobs . they try and use free alternatives or try and pirate the software.

but when they use mac they by the video editing software and the tools they need .

it is such bs, macs are weaker hardware weaker operating system and a weaker overall tool . but since people have invested so much money into them they unjustly justify there purchases by derailing the pc as a lesser platform.

when it is not true.

pcs, can have dedicated storage that outperforms and also stores more than any mac can dream of .

pcs can be all self contained no need for plethora of external drives hanging form 4 may be 3 or is it 2? soon to become one port hanging off your mac in a needless chain of wires.

pcs can have higher resolution and better monitors better user input, better configuration options, and backwards and forward compatibility with previous and next gen software.

but no, mac users over shadow this with the base argument that their $1500 mac is some how better than the $300 desktop they love comparing to .

but when it becomes price point vs hardware mac users have no ground to stand on as they are using , even in their newest machines 3+ year old hard ware and even on a refresh they are already 1 year behind in technology.

mac is nothing more than a placebo for those who failed at using windows computers .

they constantly compare a custom 1500 dollar computer with a locked in user experience to a 300 dollar walmart special with a completely open user experience and lament the windows based product as inferior.

when in actuality it is the mac that is the inferior product.

did you know that your $2000++ mac has a 5400 rpm hardrive in it configured to work with 128gb ssd in such a way that if either of the two fail your entire data set is trashed?

yeah ... thats a well built product .

Hmm... Democrat failure of 8 years? I seem to recall the Republicans have controlled the budget, more or less for 6 of those 8 years, and solidly for the last 2. I seem to recall we were in a budget surplus before Bush Jr took us out of it for an unjust war built on, at best misinformation, and very possibly lies. All the while the same people crying about the deficit now said then that deficits don't matter. What happened is a failure of Obama, it's a failure of the Republican policies as Obama's weren't even given a shot as the modern day Republican doesn't want a democracy, what they want is a dictatorship where they dictate the rules and compromise with the other side of the isle, formally known as politics, is bad and it's my way or the highway mentality is the rule of law for the party. Hell, the party abandoned its very own plan for affordable health care and now call it one of the worst things ever... their own plan... the same plan, funded the same way with the same penalties for not participating, that they tried to pass into federal law 3 times is now one of the worst things that our government has ever passed.

Cruz and Trump will isolate America from our allies, especially if Trump won. None of our allies (save perhaps Israel) would want to associate with us. They are already mad at us for Bush's wars and both Cruz and Trump want to escalate those wars and "carpet bomb" millions of innocent people to get to a few bad people? Trump wants to kill their families, which will make it easier to radicalize more and more people... and before one says that is the brutality of that religion, which religion is the one wanting to carpet bomb innocent people to kill a few guilty people and torture people and other crimes that their Christ would never support? Of course everything the Republicans want to do is exactly what ISIS has publicly stated they want other nations to do, so perhaps the Republican party is in league with ISIS?

Their policies, especially Trump's, regarding items made out of the country (jobs sent overseas by the same people that Republicans love... the same people who take for themselves while they refuse to pay living wages to their employees for pure greed reasons) would result in an economic melt down in the US as countries and businesses refuse to do as much business with us... or they move from the US dollar as the standard currency as retribution, which again wrecks the US economy.

Of less importance is that a Trump presidency and likely a Cruz as well would result in a guarantee that we'd lose the bids for the 2024 Olympic games and the 2026 World Cup, both of which we have a decent lead on as of now, but if men of hate and discrimination get in, then why would games of peace come? Trump wants to refuse to let Muslims even visit, and that would make a huge percentage of those who'd come for either or.

Anyhow to the subject of Bernie. Yes the Republican's would block everything as they do with Obama, but the conversation is moved and advanced for the people. I'd fear that if Clinton got in, the Republicans would spend all their time trying to impeach her rather than go about the process of governing. Bernie they'd just try to ignore and then get caught off guard as the nation caught onto his ideas and wanted to run with it and gave him a congress that would work with him.... of course a Trump nomination means they'd likely lose the Senate anyhow... which will be hilarious, doesn't matter if it's Clinton or Sanders in the office, because moments after the election, Obama pulls the moderate Supreme Court Justice nomination that the Republicans asked for by name before it became a political issue, and they instead get a more liberal justice... (I'm further amused by how they say they just want American's to vote on it... they did folks, 4 years ago, everyone knew there'd likely be an opening or two during his terms and he still won.)

If you think a rule imposed by any authority is unjust, feel free to practice some civil disobedience.

But part of the impact of civil disobedience comes from accepting the (unjust) punishment / consequences of that disobedience with some dignity. That is what really persuades other people to see the injustice in the same light that you do.

Occupying a "federal building" that is only very tenuously connected to the word "federal" and then taking to Facebook to beg for "bare necessity" supplies (like French vanilla coffee creamer) is not dignified.

Yelling and cussing at a University Dean (?) because ... um, I actually can't figure out what she's upset about ... is not dignified.


Rosa Parks refused to leave her "colored seating" place on a bus when the driver demanded that she vacate it for some white people. He said "why don't you stand up?", and she said "I don't think I should have to". He told her he was going to call the police, and she said "you may do that." She had more dignity in her little finger than all of the Oregon clowns have put together.

That's why today, more than 60 years after the fact, people still remember what she did. The Oregon dudes will be lucky to be remembered 60 *hours* after their "occupation" of that building ends.

First of all, statistics aren't a game Not all of the internet is about being a tough guy winner, and sometimes some of us are just trying to explain ourselves.

Secondly, I'm not giving you links because I like links, but because I like sources. Not all sources are equal. A blog post by a conservative think tank employee and right wing activist isn't as neutral as the CDC or the US Census. Nothing is 100% 'neutral', but numbers gathered by the Labor Department are a little more transparent than a blog post by Christina Hoff Sommers. Say what you will about her, but her agenda is always very clear.

Thirdly, can you clarify your point about illegal discrimination? I don't think anybody talked about illegal discrimination, just the actual wage gap. Illegal discrimination is not necessary to establish oppression - nobody is illegally preventing women from becoming president, but we still have a historic gender gap in the oval office. Things can be shitty and in need of change even if it nothing currently illegal is going on (like the pew research polling you linked to shows). Illiteracy, for example, is a shitty phenomenon for citizens and bad for democracy, but it's not illegal; the wage gap is bad for citizens and for democracy, even when it is not illegal.

Fourthly, if you are willing to accept that there's a pervasive and destructive culture of rape of women by men outside of prison, I will also concede that there's a pervasive and destructive culture of rape of men by men in prison. In fact, I'll go ahead and concede that anyway. Which is fucking awful, but doesn't mean that feminists are wrong for railing against the situation outside of prison. The are two different sectors of society, and the factors that create a rape culture in one sector do not apply so much in the other. Still awful though.

fifthly, you ended on some stuff which might just have been random thoughts, because I don't see how they fit in anywhere:

"[the existence of self-perpetuating unjust power structures] does not automatically equate to men getting a free ride" - was not said by me, ever. We should get rid of injustice even if not all men get a free ride, I think

"in fact i would posit that this obnoxious behavior works against the very thing they are trying to convey" - can be said about all sorts of uppity oppressed groups

"this woman has received death threats and threats of physical violence from other feminists!" - doesn't make her right, and it doesn't make her wrong, and it doesn't 'ruin' all of feminism.

"at the end of the day this is actually a human issue,and a valid one and we all have a right to our own opinion,but not a right to impose it upon another. feel free to disagree." ...nobody can disagree with this because it means nothing. It's a Hallmark card. I tried to give you actual facts and you countered with "we are all humans so everything is like, always a human issue and like, opinions, man."

I haven't heard of one either, but the fact that we -have- heard of good cops blowing the whistle, even if they were forced out later, proves that there have been some good ones. And it's completely unbelievable that there aren't still some others out there, who haven't yet had to make that decision, but who will choose the right path when push comes to shove.

Tarring them with the same feather as the bad cops is doing them a disservice almost as bad as the coverups are for the rest of us. It's unfair, unjust, and just plain wrong.

I'm all for locking up the bad cops, and for treating those who cover up crimes by their fellow officers as equally guilty of those crimes. But I'm -not- fine with condemning people for crimes there is no evidence they participated in. I'm not willing to become what we are trying to fight against.

I got a song for Uwe to live by:

Truly, fuck the world,
for all it's worth,
every inch of planet Earth,
fuck myself,
don't leave me out,
but don't get involved,
don't corner me

Inside, ulcer,
unjust bastards,
file out face first
Meet the lies and see what you are

It's forcing you down, and it's grinding against you
Let the war nerve break

For every fucking second the pathetic media pisses on me and
judges what I am in one paragraph

- Look here -

FUCK YOU AAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL

Expect the worst,
you bleeding heart,
but kill me first
before it starts,
yes my cock is getting hard,
we are born different after all

Invite mayhem,
produce weapons,
shoot out,
burn down
No CNN or media now

All the money in the fucking world couldn't buy me one second of trust
or one ounce of faith in anything you're about
Fuck you all

Nothing is worth the sleep that I've lost
Apologies unacceptable now
A blistered revenge awaits in me
This is fucking loveless

Hate
Hate mail is not read, in jail instead
Hate

The Lord knows,
there's worse
Ignore, this curse
HATE

@lantern53
*Here's a back-up for when you delete my comment cause it makes you uncomfortably aware of reality.


But to answer your questions..

1.) Why would I want to charm a openly belligerent jingoist racist asshat? I wouldn't.

One who "takes every opportunity" to mock, disparage and shame black people & culture..

..Completely denying that rule-class privilege, ethnicity & heritage have ANY bearing on those unequal, unfair, unjust outcomes..

With nearly EVERY COMMENT YOU POST!

2.) Do you call me names? Yes.

Every time you talk shit about how young black males are all "criminals, savages & thugs" and they "deserved what they got because only bad people get stopped by police".

You're a fuckin' bully. You bully black people with nearly EVERY comment you post here.

I'm just here to remind you of what that feels like Lantern.

Doesn't it suck when someone relentlessly insults and mocks you? Constantly,. on the same topic.. ..every chance they get..

Don't you hate it when someone judges you & all other cops "shitty" based on the actions & statements of a few ACTUALLY shitty cops?


Nope? You don't care or understand or "get it". It figures.

Back into your bubble, old fool.
Back into your bubble.

Are some laws not unjust in and of themselves? Not that I disagree with you at all newtboy, in fact I don't. But I do not agree that we should follow all laws to their original intents. (And yes, when you say law enforcement should always follow the law, which you have, you create a culture where others believe it, even if you understand the nuance.)

Now here is the crux. I kind of do see Gorilia's point to some degree but not in the same madness. If a cop goes home and gets his dick sucked by his wife (or girlfriend or mistress)--on lunch--he could be fired. On lunch...on his fucking time off that is required to be given to him by law... This also applies to other things. An officer was making muscles for a kid in a courtroom (in a non-disruptive manner) and the judge dismissed him from working the courthouse ever again. Just for making a kid smile...

The list goes on and on about stupid protocols that law enforcement has to face that are utterly stressful and ridiculous...

That's all well and good, but the fact of the matter is, all cops uphold laws, many of which are simply unjust. For example, almost anything to do with the "war on drugs" makes criminals out of nonviolent offenders, ruining families, destroying lives. Cops also follow protocols that give them license to do what would land a civilian in jail, like shooting dogs at their discretion (the endless YouTube videos of this happening is nauseating). So, the profession itself involves doing things that, while "legal," are unethical and dangerous to the public.

Whatever good they may do -- bringing justice for victims and such -- is a separate issue from the not-so-good they do, like pursuing an immoral "war on drugs" that damages way too many innocent victims, destroys far too many lives, to be justified as "good." However good of a person someone is, the reality is that cops have a job that involves things like arresting and/or shooting people for victimless crimes.

The "accident" that happened in the situation in this article, for example (in which a police officer attempted to shoot a family's dog, but missed, thus killing a woman in front of her 4 year old child, instead) would never have happened if cops didn't have crazy protocols like shooting dogs at whim.

If any civilian had taken a shot at a neighbor's dog and killed the neighbor instead, however, no one would be dismissing it as an "accident." Why, then, should cops get a free pass on such things by simply claiming that their immoral and indefensible activity is "by the book?"

(Of course, the purpose of this comment is not to be hurtful to anyone. But to serve as a wake up call that police services in this country have been getting out of control, just like the rest of the state apparatus.)

If I was racist I would argue that Gardner was also deserving. No, I lost a great hero beside me in Iraq that were of the black skin. Further, his best friend was wounded in more ways than most people can imagine.

And you just stated what I stated--that the more men on Gardner was an inappropriate use of force...which incidentally makes me look like I did not agree with it.

As for the low intelligence comment, you have to understand. One, mobs are always of low intellect. No matter how smart each individual might be. Two, poor neighborhoods are statistically at a disadvantages in education, to say the least. That is more systemic racial policies at work. So yes, they are lower intellect for both of those reasons.

I remember once witnessing an accident. Immediately a woman stated her "eye-witness" account. I looked at her and wondered how the fuck she could have the accident as remotely backasswards as she did. In fact, had it not been for me, the wrong driver would have been cited. Only because I pointed out the physical evidence of where the damage was and that the car spun around did things come out correct. On a side note, she was definitely poor...

I know what Lantern said and he is worse than a Ferguson witness. He is inherently the type of never-changing sludgery that would make a fine Islamic fanatic if he were born in different circumstances. I only point this out because you used witnesses unjustly. Just like the woman in my situation was not a criminal mastermind, nevertheless she was not fit to speak. If there were a 100 women like her around, the same would hold true. And how long do you think everyone had to talk to each other? Definitely enough time to feed off one another.

I down-voted it because the presenter was just annoying and looking for something to be offended over.

Also because, I don't really believe in the idea of "god given rights". Aside from the fact that I don't believe my rights have anything to do with something I don't believe in, the simple reality is that rights derive from societal values.

Most people today would agree that same sex couples should have the right to get married. But (in many cases) they can't.

Most people would say that the government doesn't have a right to unjustly spy on you. But they do anyway.

A few hundred years ago, there was an inalienable right to own slaves.

Rights are not some concrete physical law that underpins our existence, they exist because we as a society have decided they should. And as I said before, government is supposed to be the instrument that guarantees those rights are not violated.

Your video, police shooting of mentally disabled man, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I will agree that the whole thing could have been cleared up more quickly and efficiently if the homeowner had just provided identification showing she lived there and identified the man as her employee.

On the other hand, I can understand why she was upset and wanted to make a point.

I can also feel for the police too because there is a very, very fine line in a situation like this between unjust racial profiling and just looking for a person who seems out of place. In all likelihood, if they were responding to a burglary call in a white neighborhood, all they had was "black male" as a description, maybe also "wearing dark clothing" if they were lucky.

I'm kind of meh on the whole thing, other than the impressive way the woman handled herself and stood up to the police (though... devil's advocate again, that's not so hard when you're a wealthy white resident of a wealthy white neighborhood).

The point at issue isn't 'is islam bad', though obviously it is; but 'is it possible to generalise about large numbers of people who are in the same club and believe the same things' well yes of course it is. As for corroborative evidence, this is not an assertion that requires it. To the extent that it's possible to generalise about anything, it must be possible to generalise about people who have voluntarily signed up to the same ideology.

What's more the actions of individual muslims aren't important. You can't judge any ideology by the actions of its supporters because mostly they will act from, for example, biological imperatives, personal temperament, cultural factors independent of religion and so on, regardless of what they profess to believe. Which is not to say religion isn't influential and dangerous. To assess the merit of an ideology you have to look at what it actually says, what are its core tenets, what are the principles it espouses, and if you do that and ask the question 'does islam promote violence' the answer is an unequivocal 'yes'. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with promoting violence, but it's not my fault these people can't structure a proposition clearly.

Let's build some consensus. I'm sure everyone here can agree that islam's claims are unfactual, that there is no allah, that mohammed was a liar and that all muslims are idiots. These things are obvious, but given these certain truths wherefore do we defend these delusional maniacs? Certainly none of them is innocent. These are creatures who have signed up to follow the example, the whole point of islam is to follow mohammed's example, of a notorious murderer, slaver and rapist (historical and canonical facts); whose rambling, repetitive book is riddled with threats of eternal torture for unbelievers and exhortations to the faithful to slay those unbelievers, hastening them to that unjust end. Guilty, every one.

If you oppose bigotry, you oppose islam.