He's not selling "burglary tools" anymore than Home Depot is, but i know what you're saying. It sure doesn't feel right for him to sell what he does.

By California law it's no more a burglary tool then a screwdriver is. Intent to break in must be proven for the tool to be deemed illegal to be in possession of. At least that's how i read it. California Penal Code 466

this is one of the primary reasons i don't care for sports in general.


Ever see anyone get penalized for being in the freethrow lane in basketball?


Section VI—Offensive Three-Second Rule

An offensive player shall not remain for more than three seconds in that part of his free throw lane between the endline and extended 4’ (imaginary) off the court and the farther edge of the free throw line while the ball is in control of his team.
https://official.nba.com/rule-no-10-violations-and-penalties/


me neither.


but back to this, the trouble is it's really just whatever the fuck the ref feels like, not what really happened

It happened, it was halted, it's happening again. As long as lower education is so disparate between mostly white and mostly black schools, it's proper. Revamp the education system so all high school graduates have the same educational opportunities, I would support removing it again, but we are moving the opposite direction. No link required, I explained....but from the link you provided....
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html

Did you read the link you provided about the one place supporting a day of absence? Evergreen? Their "day of absence" was 100% voluntary, not enforceable and not enforced, contrary to your claim.

The reporter chased out wasn't chased out, he was confronted, and he had left the media area to interrupt the event by "interviewing" people who didn't want to be interviewed in the middle of the event. Trump's campaign has adopted this tactic and added violence, and often physically assaulted reporters even when they comply and stay in the media area. This particular event was akin to a reporter jumping on stage and insisting the speaker let him interview him then and there, disrupting the sanctioned event.

Um....this was a discussion of why people would vote for Trump, not what's happening in Canada. That said, you can't expect a university to give a platform to a person who would use it to degrade and denigrate the university and it's policies. I wouldn't expect a religious school to host atheistic pro-life lectures, and I wouldn't expect publicly funded universities to host anti inclusion lectures.

Duh...your alleged "whiteness" class was not defining whiteness as inherently negative, it was this....
CSRE 136: White Identity Politics (AFRICAAM 136B, ANTHRO 136B)
Pundits proclaim that the 2016 Presidential election marks the rise of white identity politics in the United States. Drawing from the field of whiteness studies and from contemporary writings that push whiteness studies in new directions, this upper-level seminar asks, does white identity politics exist? How is a concept like white identity to be understood in relation to white nationalism, white supremacy, white privilege, and whiteness? We will survey the field of whiteness studies, scholarship on the intersection of race, class, and geography, and writings on whiteness in the United States by contemporary public thinkers, to critically interrogate the terms used to describe whiteness and white identities. Students will consider the perils and possibilities of different political practices, including abolishing whiteness or coming to terms with white identity. What is the future of whiteness? n*Enrolled students will be contacted regarding the location of the course. And it was cancelled in 2016-17. Don't be dishonest, it will change my responses.

Not sure why you made up this falsely alleged definition of racism that appears nowhere in the definitions or class descriptions you linked, but you did. Calling bullshit....Again.

Critical Race Theory (7016): This course will consider one of the newest intellectual currents within American Legal Theory -- Critical Race Theory. Emerging during the 1980s, critical race scholars made many controversial claims about law and legal education -- among them that race and racial inequality suffused American law and society, that structural racial subordination remained endemic, and that both liberal and critical legal theories marginalized the voices of racial minorities. Course readings will be taken from both classic works of Critical Race Theory and newer interventions in the field, as well as scholarship criticizing or otherwise engaging with Critical Race Theory from outside or at the margins of the field. Meeting dates: The class will meet 7:15PM to 9:15PM on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (January 7, 8, and 9), and the following Monday and Tuesday (January 13 and 14). Elements used in grading: Class Participation, Written Assignments.

Not anti white/pro minority/white=evil....but an examination of how laws as written and enforced may (or may not) be an example of racial injustice codified in law, whether by accident or intent. Again, you misrepresent the facts to pretend a class that examines the roll of race in law is a racist class teaching whites are bad and blacks are good.

If everyone BUT Asains do poorly because they aren't offered the same opportunities to excell, then yes, we need to step in to UPGRADE the opportunities of everyone else, that doesn't translate into downgrading the opportunities Asains are offered. Derp. This bullshit is the same racist trope the anti equality side has used for years, it's just bullshit. Asians aren't penalized for being competent at math nor for being Asian....neither were whites, which was V 1.0 of that same argument.

Identity politics are on both sides, played hard by the right too, to the detriment of society.

Affirmative action got national pushback from the racist right the day it was described as a plan, and constantly since.

It seems you may be confused by morons who would tell you racism is dead, reverse racism is out of control. When white women start being lynched by black mobs and blacks get a free pass for breaking the law, come back and try again. Until then, you sound like a bully whining about getting a time out for punching a smaller kid because they're a different race and proclaiming the whole system is unfair to white kids because you had a minor consequence forced on you.

As a percentage of income, businesses and the rich pay nothing compared to the poor, who can least afford it.

I'm all for simplification, no loopholes or special deductions, including religion (wow, would that fill some coffers!), I could even go for one tax rate on all income (edit: including inheritance), with a huge standard deduction. I absolutely agree what we have is a convoluted mess that benefits the rich and penalizes the poor and unconnected....particularly business taxes. I also think they should be simplified and standardized, with no more special tax handouts to any businesses added as new law, and any bailouts should be pure stock transactions nationalizing any businesses that need bailouts, paid at current market rates.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned, I think going to only national sales tax effects the poor in a way that's not equal or just, even if you include businesses, and puts excessive additional burden on those who already need help.

He gave her a point penalty for something it seems every other coach in the tournament had done without receiving so much as a warning, coaching from the stands, then gave her a full game penalty for being upset about it with less vitriol than others (men) who did not get penalized at all by the same judge for the same thing, telling him he will never judge another match they play.
Together that looks pretty biased against her.

Let's call them what they are.

Concentration camps.

The first stages of Ethnic Cleansing.

I'd like to point to the following article via Slate.com

"As one of the few journalists permitted to tour the government’s new internment camp, about 40 miles from the southern border, the New York Times correspondent tried to be scrupulously fair. Forcing civilians to live behind barbed wire and armed guards was surely inhumane, and there was little shelter from the blazing summer heat. But on the other hand, the barracks were “clean as a whistle.” Detainees lazed in the grass, played chess, and swam in a makeshift pool. There were even workshops for arts and crafts, where good work could earn an “extra allotment of bread.” True, there had been some clashes in the camp’s first days—and officials, the reporter noted, had not allowed him to visit the disciplinary cells. But all in all, the correspondent noted in his July 1933 article, life at Dachau, the first concentration camp in Nazi Germany, had “settled into the organized routine of any penal institution.” "

Yes... he did it. If there were any doubts left, this should remove them. Trump officially put the United States on the same path as Nazi Germany.

What are you going to do about it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

-Niemöller

In a perfect world, yes, but in reality, no.
Police do not have to tell the truth, and if a lie gets them the upper hand, they'll often lie. Asking them to explain your rights, especially after annoying them by being obstinate and repeating to them that you know your rights, is just dumb imo. They have no obligation to teach you or to be honest about them and every incentive not to.....although it would be nice if they did.

Edit: asking for a lengthy explanation after being told 'any answer besides"yes" is considered refusal' is a point where you will be penalized for asking what your rights are....white, black, or purple.

Explain how it's ok to administer a test at any time but this time is harassment because he failed them, please, because that's contradictory.

He parked on the freeway causing suspicion,
admitted to drinking and driving requiring a field test,
didn't follow directions so failed the field test,
then obstinately repeated that with the breathalyzer by not answering yes and taking it. (After being told anything but yes legally means no).
Please, what's harassment there?....because there's definitely something more imo.

Remove race from the equation, and it's a good arrest. Adding race in does nothing to negate that imo.


Edit: I was a white punk with a long Mohawk. I got harassed far worse than this repeatedly, including being thrown to the ground at gunpoint because an officer read my plate wrong and accused me of being a car thief. Attitude usually has far more to do with the outcome than anything else in my experience. When I was polite and followed instructions I almost always walked, even when in the wrong. When I argued, I got slapped hard, like a vandalism charge for a 4" chalk line on a sidewalk or 2 hours of having my car searched in front of my friends house.

If I'm misunderstanding and you aren't claiming this was a dwb arrest, apologies. That's the part I'm debating, because it seems wrong.

It's his contention that absolute compliance is your only acceptable recourse in every situation, even when the police are violently violating your rights, stealing from you, and lying about it, and his further contention that any abuse can be remedied by civil lawsuit ...which is patently ridiculous. (and he conveniently ignores that police officers are protected from civil suit by law, and can't be sued personally).
Also his BS contention that 99% of the time, when a cop shows up to any situation, they dominate....then why aren't near 99% of cases solved and 99% of those who flee captured instantly? It's simply a line cops use to pretend that near 50% of chases and fights end up lost. (or used to the last time I saw stats)

If he had said 'your best bet to avoid injury and further charges is to just comply'. I would agree, it's the rest of his speech that I found self serving and misleading.

So, he has a minimum number of tickets/charges to write every week, he gets penalized for not being as zealous as possible (or not writing enough), but he says there aren't quotas because they don't call them quotas? And you accept that? What?

@newtboy
i think you are being a tad over-zealous in your commentary.
now you know i agree with you on pretty much all aspects of police:brutality,malfeasance,hubris,fascism etc etc..

but we both realize that for the majority of police officers it is a job,and one they take seriously.statistically this is just a plain fact.

so i am struggling to understand your rage induced commentary directed toward a cop who is simply saying "please,comply".

that is pretty sound advice when dealing with an agent of the state who is not only authorized to use physical force,but carries a gun.

i found his advice pretty non-controversial.

your obvious points non-withstanding,because your points are accurate and have caused incredible misery,but his advice is also just as sound,and if it could deter even just one police beating.wouldn't that be worth it?

i am telling ya man,izzo is a pretty straight up guy for a cop,and he addresses pretty much every point you brought up on his channel.i know some of those points he makes you will disagree with,because i disagreed,but this man will surprise you on a bunch of points.i know he surprised me.

here is a video of him talking about his impending termination.he knew it was coming because he exposed corruption in his precinct:
https://youtu.be/-4TpcIPKj_E
*edit:i should post this video next round,give it a watch newt.

he has one video where he talks about quotas,and the reason why they are supposedly "non-existent".they do not call them quotas,but they are penalized if they give out too many warnings,or write a lower cost infraction.

trust me man,put aside your cop hate and check this dude out.you can still disagree,but he does give a solid representation of a cops perspective.

Ok, in the interest of fairness I did some further research on this issue.

He was fined a total of 42,000 dollars. This does not count his accrued court and legal fees which are estimated to be around 100,000 dollars at this time. I won't bother converting that to USD, but he is going to be out of pocket 142k as a ballpark figure.

This is the joke:

“Everyone said he sucked, but I defended him,” Ward says. “They said he was terrible, but I was like, ‘He’s dying but he’s living a dream, leave him alone.’ ” The niceties end when Ward figures out Gabriel isn’t actually dying. “He’s unkillable! I saw him at the water park, and I tried to drown him, but I couldn’t. Then I went on the Internet to figure out what was wrong with him, and you know what it was? He’s ugly, goddammit!”

That is all. He was making a joke that he thought the kid was being given a 'make a wish' type thing because he was dying, but that he was just ugly.

I listened to it and it wasn't really funny. However, it wasn't 142k worth of court costs and damages either. The kid, disability or not, is now a public figure and should not be protected from jokes at his expense. The fact that a comedian called him ugly does not mean he should get 42k in recompense because it made him feel bad. Fuck, if I got 42k every time someone called me ugly in jest, I wouldn't be posting here. I'd be on a damn Yacht in the Mediterranean.

People say hurtful things. How many people looked at this kid and made fun of him when he was trying to sing the Canadian anthem at a Hockey game? Does he deserve 42k from each of them?

One of the talks I listened to as part of this research brought up a salient point. The commission that was created to address hurtful speech has clearly ran out of 'real' hate speech to go after. To save their jobs, they need to start going after the next level of 'hate speech'. Where better to look than blue comedians?

This brings me back to my original point. If you create an organization and give it power to control what people say through punitive measures, it may work great when your group is in power. You will probably have no issue with it, as long as it goes after speech you dislike. But, no group is in power forever and organizations don't just disappear when a new group of leaders come into power. Suddenly you might really come to regret your choice to create that organization, especially when they decide it is 'YOUR' words that need to be penalized.

That said, my only dog in this fight is that I think it is idiotic to limit what people can say. They don't stop saying it, they just stop saying it around people they don't trust. This sows the seeds of dissension and the harvest is never a good one.

The thruth of this world is that most ideals are bullshit. Let's look at the idea that human life is sacred, the sanctity of human life. God disapproves of murder.
The death penality is older than scripture. It existed before we had written words. It is still a thing.
How can that be if we are so developed, so evolved, so civilized?
Human life isn't sacred. We shit on that on a daily basis. Murder is committed every day. For petty reasons. For political reasons. For stupid reasons.
Your holy book, the Bible, tells me to kill people for adultery.
How can you defend this?
That's why I'm a cynic, that's why I'm a dissapointed idealist. I'd like to believe but I can't. Belief makes me inhuman, makes me cruel, makes me kill adulterers. It commands me to be a murderer.
For what?
For betrayal? For sex? For deceit? For breaking promises?
I'd rather be a cynic. I choose humanism over homicide.
Your book is evil. Your faith leads to evil.
I chose compassion. I chose cynicism.

@gorillaman

It's almost as if some countries have different cultural values than the United States. For example:

Japan:
--Distributing pornography is illegal and punishable by up to two years in prison and a $25,000 fine (under Article 175 of the Penal Code, which defines pornography as showing the naughty parts of a man or woman, hence mosaics on all Japanese porn)
--Domestic violence and rape laws are often unenforceable
--LGBT community has almost no legal recourse in the face of discrimination of virtually any kind (housing, work, banking, etc.)

America itself has its share of bat-shit insane laws (from the rest of the world's perspective at least) such as legalized death penalty, and "well-intentioned" Christians are still fighting to deny gay people the right to marry in court at this very moment.

Should we come to the conclusion that Americans and Japanese people are "bad people" because these laws exist? Or maybe, as Ahmed Ahmed suggested, we should stop lumping huge groups of people (in the case of Muslims literally millions of people from an extremely culturally diverse group of countries) together and assuming they're all alike and believe exactly the same things?

When I got mine, I had to get 2 passport photos, submit a fingerprint, take a day long class, take a written test, and pass a range test with my preferred CCW handgun. There are a bunch of other restrictions which I'll list below; not all states have these but Texas is one of the easiest states to get licensed in, so this should give you an idea for a baseline. When it comes to 'may issue' states like the ones I listed earlier, they have the same hoops to jump through generally, but the main one is you have to prove good cause to a police entity to carry. In many cases, those entities are either 'suggested' or blatantly told "Do not give out any permits". I suppose power or money could get around that, but you would still have to pass the other requirements.

Texas CCW pre-reqs:

A person is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:

is a legal resident of this state for the six month period preceding the date of application,

is at least 21 years of age (military 18 - 21 years of age now eligible - 2005 Texas CHL Law change),

has not been convicted of a felony,

is not currently charged with the commission of a felony, Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense, or an offense under Sec. 42.01 of the penal Code (Disorderly Conduct) or equivalent offense,

is not a fugitive from justice for a felony, Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense,

is not a chemically dependant person (a person with two convictions within the ten year period preceding the date of application for offenses (Class B or greater) involving the use of alcohol or a controlled substance is ineligible as a chemically dependant person. Other evidence of chemical dependency may also make an individual ineligible for a CHL),

is not incapable of exercizing sound judgement with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun,

has not, in the five years preceding the application, been convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense, or an offense under Section 42.01 of the Penal Code (Disorderly Conduct) or equivalent offense,

is fully qualified under applicable federal and state law to purchase a handgun,

has not been finally determined to be delinquent in making child support administered or collected by the attorney general,
has not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the comptroller, state treasurer, tax collector of a policital subdivision, Alcohol Beverage Commission or any other agency or subdivision,

is not currently restricted under a court protective order subject to a restraining order affecting a spousal relationship,

has not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application, been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law in the grade of felony,

has not made any material misrepresentation, or failed to disclose any material fact, in an application submitted pursuant to Section 411.174 or in a request for application submitted pursuant to Section 411.175.

P.S. if you screw up on any of the above 'after' you get your ccw, it gets suspended until you go before a board for review. My instructor said when I took the class, almost every single review case is denied.

Changed the title in lieu of new information. I know the grabbing is really low on the scale of what constitutes as assault, but if a white male did the same to a black female the internet would burn down.

Also, you violate Penal Code 236 PC California's false imprisonment law when you restrain, detain, or confine another person without that person's consent. The kid could have filed charges, but I think he chose to just make her look stupid instead.

I believe that you are correct, and Carr was not actually fined or otherwise legally penalized for his remarks.

However, it *was* a possibility that he would be, according to the first line in the article I linked to in my first post in this thread:
"Jimmy Carr could face sanctions for making a joke about dwarves during an appearance on BBC1’s The One Show."

I believe that I read other news articles that suggested that was a possibility at the time it happened, but I can't find anything with a real quick search now.

Going outside of the scope of that single incident, I definitely have seen quite a few reports of things that I would consider to be fairly trivial incidents like this being looked at by the UK government as "hate speech" and therefore potentially subject to "fines, imprisonment, or both" (according to that wikipedia article).

Samples from a quick search include a politician being arrested for quoting a passage about Islam from a book by Winston Churchill, a young man who was jailed for 12 weeks because of "some offensive Facebook posts making derogatory comments about a missing child" (it doesn't say what the posts were exactly; I am not saying I would defend his posts but I don't think anyone should go to jail for being an idiot and running their mouth on the internet), and another young man who was fined for saying that "all soldiers should die and go to hell". Plenty more incidents beyond those as well, it seems.

So while Jimmy Carr didn't end up actually facing any legal repercussions for his joke, I think it is not far fetched at all to suggest that he might have (and there seems to be some evidence that legal repercussions enacted by the government were being considered in that particular incident).

That is what seems crazy / wrong to me. That is NOT freedom of speech; it is freedom of benign speech, with an increasingly narrow view of what speech is benign.

I'm 100% OK with their being "consequences" for Jimmy Carr for his joke. But the government shouldn't be involved in that (and again, to be fair they DID end up staying out of it in that case). The consequences that I think are fine include:

* Ofcom or the BBC passing on some/all of any fines that the government levels against them on to Carr (ie., IF they get fined for breaking broadcast decency standards, make Carr foot the some or all of the bill for that).

* Ofcom or the BBC electing not to invite Carr to appear on any more programs if they are concerned about preventing fines / protecting their image / whatever. They are a business, they gotta look out for themselves.

* Individual people who were offended by Carr's joke boycotting programs that he appears on, refusing to pay to attend his live performances, etc. Obviously. If you don't like what he has to say, you are are of course not obliged to continue to listen to him.

Anything beyond those consequences is going too far in a society that claims it is democratic and free, in my opinion.