ViperMan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2ZnWgvw84o&ab_channel=VasilTreska

It's already masquerading on some facebook group that probably none of us is a part of.

Link? Stats? Evidence? Genuinely curious to see numbers that differ from those in society at large. Thanking you up front.

This series of articles highlights the "Animal Farm" that the NYT - our supposed paper of record - has become: https://nypost.com/2021/02/10/ny-times-defends-1619-project-creator-after-she-doxxed-reporter/ https://nypost.com/2021/02/11/read-the-column-the-new-york-times-didnt-want-you-read/ https://nypost.com/2021/02/10/the-woke-mob-now-utterly-rules-the-new-york-times/ https://nypost.com/2021/02/09/war-erupts-at-ny-times-after-donald-mcneil-ousted-over-n-word-controversy/ In short, Nikole Hannah-Jones doxxed a journalist because she didn't like his questions about her previous (perhaps appropriate) use of the N-word. The questioning led her to delete her entire twitter history and post some nonsense about how she "routinely" deletes previous posts. I'm not personally surprised by this, because she is ultimately one garbage person, but the disparate response by the NYT decision makers is "problematic" to say the least. At the same time, another NYT journalist, Donald McNeil, has been summarily ousted because of his use of the N-word. If you read into that situation's background, you'll find it wasn't used maliciously. What's more, is that the NYT scuttled a critical, though valid, piece of its own handling of that situation - which drew attention to how context matters and is being fully disregarded in this case. I can't say I'm actually surprised by them not self-publishing an article airing their own dirty laundry, but it is important for us to understand the filter that anything the NYT publishes has passed through. Even more important, though, is that instances like this highlight the growing institutional acceptance and normalization of mob rule, arbitrary rule-making, and unprincipled application. Rules for thee, not for me. This is the type of power "1984" warns us about.

In addition to the many valid comments already posted, I would say the amount of preparation that needs to go into each sortie is far, far greater than anything I experienced in the civilian world. If you show up and can't talk your way through each maneuver, precisely, you're doing it wrong. If you don't know the sequence of what you're going to do ahead of the brief, you're already behind. Civilian instructors will probably take you up and treat the cockpit as a classroom. Mil instructor may no-step you. My approach in UPT was to treat the every sortie as a time when I was going to "demonstrate" maneuvers to my IP, not expect they would walk me through the things I hadn't adequately prepared for - there's not the luxury of time on any given UPT sortie.

🖕 Not Lord Ratner, but I do like his style. Whatever.

Right. Money. I agree, and it probably would have been had he not already been repeatedly arrested for the same crime (https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-police-officer-wont-face-criminal-charges-in-eric-garner-death-1417635275). Something tells me he's not getting the message? I don't know, but I get the feeling this guy decided he doesn't care about certain laws or consequences. Want to change a law? Awesome, there are ways to do that in our society, but continual and open disregard for the enforcement arm of our government is not one of them. "He has a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny. An official said the charges include several incidents in which he was arrested for selling unlicensed cigarettes." How many posting on this message board can relate to the type of life this guy leads? Has any of us been arrested 30 times? For the same crime? Would any of us resist arrest? Or would you rather just have your day in court? Here's video with as much context as I could find. The first minute has all the context required to establish the type of interaction it was. The officers attempted reasoning with him first. Attempted/offered a gentle arrest, which was rejected, and then escalated. I'm not saying that he deserved to die. I'm saying that this is yet another instance where circumstances are vital to understanding the whole picture. Here, this has been intentionally misrepresented in order to help paint a picture and establish a narrative that just simply isn't true.

Comparing required, necessary governmental functions (police) to not-required, unnecessary commercial functions (cosmetology) is apples to oranges and is a red herring. Much (most) of the ridiculous training, certification, and licensure that is attendant of certain professions is protectionism and regulatory capture - implemented in order to prevent others from entering a given market - and thus has little to do with the actually achieving proficiency in a given profession. Or do you actually think the 1300-2000 hours of training required to be "certified" to cut hair or paint nails is necessary? I'm sure each of the CBTs about hair-curlers are just bursting with new information and that if you miss a bullet point it's gone forever. It's ridiculous on it's face to license someone to cut hair. It's even more ridiculous that these licenses need to be "renewed." Please. So let's not draw invalid conclusions comparing "trainings" that serve wildly different purposes.

I agree with your general sentiment, but honestly, what is a victimless crime? If I don't pay my taxes, that's victimless, right? I mean, I should be allowed to not pay a dime in property taxes but keep my house, right? Likewise I should be allowed to sell an otherwise regulated product (cigarettes) whilst others abide the rules, thereby taking advantage of those who do, right? I'm in favor of the libertarian sentiment that I should be basically allowed to do whatever I want, but that's not our society. There are rules (this isn't 'Nam). If rules are going to be enforced selectively, that's a massive problem. And if we're being real, the only reason Eric Garner was even able to sell cigarettes is because other people were following the rules, which is the definition of wrong, and decidedly not why our laws exist.

Do you acknowledge that police officers are much more likely to be involved in a violent confrontations with minorities as opposed to whites?

Yep. It's misdirected fire. Invalid at pickle. And this is coming from someone who thinks Ted Cruz is basically a schmuck.

In the abstract? It's not, and is always a good idea to go to talk with people. In the context of the conversation at hand, it's an attempt to avoid dealing with the very real issue of disproportionate levels of violent crime being committed by the black community in the USA. And further, I'm not sure what would be gleaned from a conversation with one individual that would explain why blacks commit a greater number of murders than whites, whilst being outnumbered by whites ~ 7x. Maybe it would be illuminating, but even still, would at best be anecdotal. And I will say this, I am generally not convinced of "truths" about groups of people by emotion or personal stories - I'd say that makes me an anti-racist - in the true sense of the word, not this new-speak we're all being subjected to. Either way, the FBI is convinced that there is a problem. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to fit in to certain belief sets, but I have my ideas. And notice, none of you guys has/can/will acknowledge the data put forth. Why? Why is it hard to look at a data set and say, "yeah, that is a problem"? Is it a conspiracy? Do you literally not believe those numbers? Are there massive numbers of white murders that are going unreported and unsolved? Or are there massive numbers of blacks being convicted and incarcerated for murders they didn't commit? You see why people like me have a hard time even seeing where you guys are coming from on this subject.

How many 5000+ page bills did the founding fathers have < 24 hrs to read, evaluate, consider, and sign? Oh. Right. If it was me, I'd just bring a book I wanted to read anyway. Shit, I'd stop by the library on my way. Probably grab a few magazines, maybe some penthouse letters, definitely one of those astronaut piddle-packs that lets you drive maniacally across the country without stopping once... Don't miss the point of the filibuster because it seems ridiculous to you. It's point is to protect the minority in this country - and increasingly, all of us from a supposed majority.

So the responses proffered were "go re-read this forum," a tangential "his lot in life depends on this belief so he won't understand," "go talk to a black person," and most recently, changing the subject to "black people were historically discriminated against in this country." Hmmm? And I'm the person not wanting to have a conversation about this? Pfffffft. Scoff. Each of those responses is a prototype for avoiding something that challenges a closely held belief. Note, I don't deny that blacks were historically discriminated against in this country and that those policies have effects to this day (today). But that wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about rioting and policing being unfair in this country. I provided data that (to me) fully explains why policing appears disproportionate. That doesn't square with some dogma, but it can't be addressed directly because it doesn't fit into an acceptable narrative, so we get the four side-steps outlined above. Let me offer this: there is middle ground out there, but if you're going to find it, you have to accept what's real. We can agree that blacks have been treated horribly historically in this country and that something needs to be done to wrench this community (and others) out of the death spiral it seems to be in. You won't find middle ground with people "on the other side" whilst denying obvious realities and pinning the tail on whatever donkey you've been told is responsible. The cops aren't your scapegoat. The greatest irony in all this "BLM" nonsense from the summer was that the police are the greatest actual BLM organization out there - but of course they're the ones painted as the villains.

IMO it's because he tells the truth. And people fucking hate the truth.

Can you show us a representative sample?

I like to think about how dumb the average American is, and then I immediately think about how half of the rest are dumber than that...

Jezus, what kind of beer and what kind of hookers?

Well, there definitely is something wrong here. We just disagree about what it is. You think that black people are being systematically mistreated and/or over-policed. Trouble is, policing in ~ 80% of cases is in response to a call - not because some cop goes out of his way to interact with a minority. https://lawliberty.org/the-facts-on-race-crime-and-policing-in-america/

Oh...sorry...help me with the difference? Normal Adjective REGULAR, NORMAL, TYPICAL, NATURAL mean being of the sort or kind that is expected as usual, ordinary, or average.

Oh, we're back to normal?!? Sweet, I hadn't heard!

I'm curious. What exactly is "social equality"? What does it look like? I like equality. I grew up as a white kid in the American southwest. Middle class parents taught me how to interact with the police. Be polite. Don't argue. Don't resist arrest. Don't grab cops' tazer/gun/other weapons. Don't make a cop fear for his life. Just the basics, you know? In regards to high-profile deaths of black people, in almost all cases (with the exception of Freddie Gray), they have been misrepresented, misconstrued, or otherwise shaped/framed in order to produce talking points and support the narrative that says blacks are systematically mistreated in the US. That is a fiction. What data? Data showing that different racial groups produce crime at different rates? The riots this summer were because of COVID. They would not have happened without a global pandemic that gave people nothing but time to think of something to be angry about. Cue the media and some sweet, sweet, narrative to push an agenda. Black crime affects the USA disproportionately. I agree that default police interaction and policing methods could broadly be made better in this country, but the notion that there is a disproportionate amount of policing affecting blacks in this country is unattached to reality. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43 https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2 Looking at pure data, in 2017 blacks committed more absolute murders than whites (5,660 > 5,070). If the proportion of the two races was about equal, that would make sense. So, if we're going for "equity", which of those black murders should we let go in order to bring it into balance with the white murder rate? Or, which white people should be charged with murders they didn't commit in order to bring it into balance? I don't see an alternative outcome given the left's current position. The fact that a much smaller minority is able to account for a disproportionate amount of violent crime in this country does say something - trouble is, it doesn't say there is systematic police discrimination. What it says, in actuality, is that blacks are committing murder at about 7x the rate of whites. Now, given that, what is the solution to the appearance of over-policing? I don't know, but I'm open to novel solutions.

Remember guys, getting the vaccine does protect others. Cutting people in line who need it more is not great, but there is still benefit. It's not a zero sum game.

Fair enough. I would ask you, though, if he did it by neglect, where else should we currently be at war? I would go a lot further, however. Modern-day politics has been completely F'd starting in '03 because of our ill-conceived venture into Iraq. I'm glad the rest of the world is waking up to how screwed up our politics is across the board. If it was Trump that woke people up, great, but Trump ain't the root cause. My main concern is that there are people who are only seeking to take advantage of the current situation who don't give one F about the actual future of this country. IMO those people are now in charge and that worries me.

Neil Gorsuch. Brett Kavanaugh. Amy Barrett. Kicking Iran's dick in. Not engaging in any new wars - something no President since Regan? Carter? has been able to do. Attempting to normalize relations with NK. Overseeing numerous ME peace deals. No president is morally perfect. Trump and Biden included. I don't think most conservatives are worried about Biden per se, though...most know that Biden is a place-holder; an empty vessel who is merely the wedge the woke machine needed to use in order to regain the executive branch. Look at the rest of people who were in the race - Kamala, Bernie, Warren, Buttigieg, Beto, etc. There are not moderate people. Biden is the lightly salted mashed potatoes who they had to put foward in order to get moderate democrats motivated to think they had a shot and get out to the polls en masse - that wouldn't have happened with a Bernie. Personally I think Joe Biden is basically a good man - would probably have been an ok president at some point. That said, this guy is just getting started with probably one of the most stressful jobs in the world, and he's already (waaaaay) past his expiration date. Look at what 8 years did to Bush Jr. and Obama - they came out different men. Does anyone honestly expect this is a guy who's about to be a two-term president?