Politics & Stuff

[CHOULO19 24,332]

7 hours ago, Peace. said:

Indeed.

He most certainly was a person with a weak mentality and personality. A weak man that was brainwashed by the media which are incessantly saying that all the problems of the black community are down to white racism and more specifically down to white cop violence — something which is evidently a lie but that has became a reality because people have repeated it over and over again and because it is what is aired on the news (by the way, this is basic social engineering)¹. And because of that, that poor lost soul found a cause to his (mental) problems — the white cops — and found a solution to end those problems — to kill the said white cops.

Or maybe...

He was a weak man that was used by a shady organisation(s)² in order to heat up the situation and to widen the rift between people. On the one hand, it encourages "BLM" activists to be more violent against the policemen and on the other hand, it leads the cops (and more generally those who sympathise with the police) to be more resentful towards young black men (especially those who carry guns and those who instinctively confront the police when they are stop by them).

Any way...

Whether the manipulation was passive or active — direct or indirect — the end result is the same. That individual was led to pour oil upon the fire. This can only lead to more tension and more grudge between two parts of the population. Meanwhile, the monopolistic class drinks its champagne and increases its wealth and its power over the non-monopolistic class. The latter, in the end, only deserves its living conditions — the "oppressed",  in their holy ignorance, are only able to bark to themselves. What a pathetic mass.

 

¹ The Alton Sterling case is the perfect example of how the media can spin reality. They can create a tragic situation from what is actually a banal situation ; throughout history, soldiers/policemen have always killed weak people, not because they are this or that, but because this is easy and because there is no repercussion (and I mean that in the case where we assume that those police officers killed Sterling for personal reasons, which is not necessarily the case) — I mean, you could not find a more trivial story. They can create a harmless and lovely Innocent from what is basically a small time criminal.

² For instance, Soros and the C.I.A. (to name the most renown) have proven many times in the past their sheer talent to manipulate and arm dangerous people in order to destabilize countries and populations.

1) Brainwashed by the media? What media are you talking about? The vast majority of  powerful media outlets are openly biased for cops and against resistance movements like BLM. How many BLM people do you see in interviews on TV vs how many pro cop 'experts'? How much coverage did the daily demonstrations all over the country against police brutality get? How often do news outlets smear black victims by digging up old criminal records? How often do incredibly stupid and easily debunked talking points like "more white people get shot by cops" go unchallenged on TV? You have some incredibly warped view of reality if you think that black resistance movements control the media!

2) All the reports and investigations that have been leaked or made public so far have consistently stated that the Dallas shooter had no contact with any group and that he was acting alone. You can do you psychoanalysis all day, but there are facts in the end, and the facts don't fit your theories one bit.

3) It's rich of you to call oppressed people ignorant immediately after coming up with two ridiculous conspiracy theories. This condescending attitude is why I hate liberals more than anyone in this world. The majority of oppressed people are more aware than most, simply because they have to. . It's usually the middle class fuckers who write the history books who have no idea what the fuck is going on.

4) Are you saying that's okay for the police to kill 'weak' people because that has always been the case?! I rest my case. 

[lucio 5,418]

so they are even killing black police now... what is the point? just murderers

 

[Fulham Broadway 17,333]

10 hours ago, Peace. said:

Indeed.

He most certainly was a person with a weak mentality and personality. A weak man that was brainwashed by the media which are incessantly saying that all the problems of the black community are down to white racism and more specifically down to white cop violence — something which is evidently a lie but that has became a reality because people have repeated it over and over again and because it is what is aired on the news (by the way, this is basic social engineering)¹. And because of that, that poor lost soul found a cause to his (mental) problems — the white cops — and found a solution to end those problems — to kill the said white cops.

Or maybe...

He was a weak man that was used by a shady organisation(s)² in order to heat up the situation and to widen the rift between people. On the one hand, it encourages "BLM" activists to be more violent against the policemen and on the other hand, it leads the cops (and more generally those who sympathise with the police) to be more resentful towards young black men (especially those who carry guns and those who instinctively confront the police when they are stop by them).

Any way...

Whether the manipulation was passive or active — direct or indirect — the end result is the same. That individual was led to pour oil upon the fire. This can only lead to more tension and more grudge between two parts of the population. Meanwhile, the monopolistic class drinks its champagne and increases its wealth and its power over the non-monopolistic class. The latter, in the end, only deserves its living conditions — the "oppressed",  in their holy ignorance, are only able to bark to themselves. What a pathetic mass.

 

¹ The Alton Sterling case is the perfect example of how the media can spin reality. They can create a tragic situation from what is actually a banal situation ; throughout history, soldiers/policemen have always killed weak people, not because they are this or that, but because this is easy and because there is no repercussion (and I mean that in the case where we assume that those police officers killed Sterling for personal reasons, which is not necessarily the case) — I mean, you could not find a more trivial story. They can create a harmless and lovely Innocent from what is basically a small time criminal.

² For instance, Soros and the C.I.A. (to name the most renown) have proven many times in the past their sheer talent to manipulate and arm dangerous people in order to destabilize countries and populations.

Or maybe... he was a Class Warrior hero fighting back against what some commentators call our oppressors most powerful lackeys -the police.

Its all about perspective.

As for your last bit about the ''pathetic masses getting what they deserved in their holy ignorance'', maybe you wouldn't have that high French status, or have Egalite, Liberte, Fraternite without the ''ignorant pathetic mass'' rising up in 1789.

[Fulham Broadway 17,333]

11 hours ago, Spike said:

Here are some videos, that you may or may not agree with that raise some interesting points. Some are horrifying points, some challenge the media's agenda but at the core of it they are trying to unfold the situation America is in and are trying to examine it far more deeply than a shallow news report would sell you.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

The first video is appears to be a badly edited  random racist Northerner as far as I can ascertain trying to justify his prejudice, and the second has that racist author being egged on by another egotistical beardy weirdy.

Tbh I have more respect for overt racists, rather than ones that try to hide behind pseudo 'facts' and dodgy stats.

[kellzfresh 7,229]

I just saw a video of the police killer saying people should fight back against the cops. He made it a day or so before the killing. 

[Spike 12,049]

8 hours ago, CHOULO19 said:

Those are interesting to read and discuss if you are majoring in history or have a knack for it, but for the current times and current discussions they are mostly irrelevant. Whether you realize it or not you are not bringing in those points to enrich the discussion, but merely to distract from the main point.

Slavery is still alive in the US in another form through laws specifically designed to target black lifestyles, coupled with overt and systematic racism both in the police and the media, helped by mandatory minimums and implemented by privatized prisons through free labor. 

What you are saying indicates an underlining bias against black people because you keep trivializing and playing down their current suffering. Just take some time and listen to the people who are suffering:

 

 There are hundreds of those on youtube. Just hear them out for once.

 

These are just racist points because they try to blame the powerless victims for their plight. The issue most certainly isn't the culture of black people. The issue is systematic racism and police violence against black people. And until the vast majority of people can say that clearly with no ifs or buts, the violence will most likely continue. 

I don't get what you are trying to say? I trivialise the modern plight of black people because I want history to be taught more thoroughly in school? Nonsense, the two were unrelated discussions. Fulham mentioned decades of racial abuse and I merely pointed out from the birth of America till now it all needs to be thoroughly taught in schools. How does wanting the future generations to truly understand what has happened in America trivialise what is happening right now?

It seems to me you're the one that dragged my comment about teaching history into this discussion.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

47 minutes ago, Spike said:

I don't get what you are trying to say? I trivialise the modern plight of black people because I want history to be taught more thoroughly in school? Nonsense, the two were unrelated discussions. Fulham mentioned decades of racial abuse and I merely pointed out from the birth of America till now it all needs to be thoroughly taught in schools. How does wanting the future generations to truly understand what has happened in America trivialise what is happening right now?

It seems to me you're the one that dragged my comment about teaching history into this discussion.

That is not what I said.

Your refusal to accept that black people could be feeling upset and desperate enough to commit violence against cops is you trivializing their plight. You bringing up of all that history that is largely irrelevant to the situation right now (in a sense that it changes nothing now, of course it is relevant in a historical sense) in response to a simple point about the attack being revenge for decades of racial abuse is a distraction from that factual point.

THAT is what I said. 

 

And I really hope you listen to some of those accounts and reactions of black people to systematic racism mate. We could be arguing over this for days here and not get anywhere but at the end of the day the key is empathy and the only way that can be achieved is through listening to the people suffering. 

[Spike 12,049]

1 minute ago, CHOULO19 said:

That is not what I said.

Your refusal to accept that black people could be feeling upset and desperate enough to commit violence against cops is you trivializing their plight. You bringing up of all that history that is largely irrelevant to the situation right now (in a sense that it changes nothing now, of course it is relevant in a historical sense) in response to a simple point about the attack being revenge for decades of racial abuse is a distraction from that factual point.

THAT is what I said. 

 

And I really hope you listen to some of those accounts and reactions of black people to systematic racism mate. We could be arguing over this for days here and not get anywhere but at the end of the day the key is empathy and the only way that can be achieved is through listening to the people suffering. 

But I didn't say that. I said that about Micah Johnson, he is not all black people. I was arguing about him, not the other anyone else.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

11 minutes ago, Spike said:

But I didn't say that. I said that about Micah Johnson, he is not all black people. I was arguing about him, not the other anyone else.

But THAT is what it is actually about.

 

If you say "I saw you taking my chocolate bar" 

And I reply "How can you know when what you see is simply your brain's interpretation of your flawed senses and truth cannot be obtained by humans"

It doesn't mean I'm suddenly interested in a discussion of epistemology with you, it just means I'm trying to hide the fact that I stole your bloody chocolate!

 

Because the point is not about Micah, it's about the rage of black people and the reasons behind it and you making incredibly irrational arguments about his motivation that were objectively clear, to me, indicate an underlying bias and a refusal to accept the main point that a lot of black people are angry to the point where they want revenge. Because that is where irrationality usually comes from: ignorance or bias. And you clearly are not ignorant about this matter.

 

So let's stop going in circles and address the main point: You correctly state that you did not say that black people are upset enough about police brutality to commit violence in return and that they want revenge for all the senseless killings, but do you or do you not agree with that? Because if you do, then we are basically in agreement about the main point in all of this, and if you don't then unfortunately we go back, imo, to bias and trivializing the plight of oppressed people.

Either way I feel that I have nothing left to reply on this particular point, so you can have the last say on this if you wish. 

[Spike 12,049]

4 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

But THAT is what it is actually about.

 

If you say "I saw you taking my chocolate bar" 

And I reply "How can you know when what you see is simply your brain's interpretation of your flawed senses and truth cannot be obtained by humans"

It doesn't mean I'm suddenly interested in a discussion of epistemology with you, it just means I'm trying to hide the fact that I stole your bloody chocolate!

 

Because the point is not about Micah, it's about the rage of black people and the reasons behind it and you making incredibly irrational arguments about his motivation that were objectively clear, to me, indicate an underlying bias and a refusal to accept the main point that a lot of black people are angry to the point where they want revenge. Because that is where irrationality usually comes from: ignorance or bias. And you clearly are not ignorant about this matter.

 

So let's stop going in circles and address the main point: You correctly state that you did not say that black people are upset enough about police brutality to commit violence in return and that they want revenge for all the senseless killings, but do you or do you not agree with that? Because if you do, then we are basically in agreement about the main point in all of this, and if you don't then unfortunately we go back, imo, to bias and trivializing the plight of oppressed people.

Either way I feel that I have nothing left to reply on this particular point, so you can have the last say on this if you wish. 

Of course I agree with it, I always agreed with but that doesn't mean I believe that Johnson and the 'rage of black people' are one in the same. Refusing one person's supposed motivation isn't an indication of an underlying bias towards an entire race of people. 

If there was a manifesto or other hard evidence to support your statement concerning Johnson's motivation, I'd believe you but I'm afraid that I will always question second-hand information delivered from the police-chief. I do not deny the possibility of it being true but I refuse to accept that at face value.

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

Everytime I hear pro or anti gun debates in the USA I think of this song by the Dead Kennedys from 1987. Seems not much has changed in 30 years.

 

"A Child And His Lawnmower"
 

Some clown in Sacramento was dragged into court
He shot his lawnmower
It disobeyed, it wouldn't start
Might makes right, it's the American way
They fined him $60 and sent him on his way 

You know, some people don't take no shit
Maybe if they did they'd have half a brain left

[Spike 12,049]

4 minutes ago, Iggy Doonican said:

Everytime I hear pro or anti gun debates in the USA I think of this song by the Dead Kennedys from 1987. Seems not much has changed in 30 years.

 

"A Child And His Lawnmower"
 

Some clown in Sacramento was dragged into court
He shot his lawnmower
It disobeyed, it wouldn't start
Might makes right, it's the American way
They fined him $60 and sent him on his way 

You know, some people don't take no shit
Maybe if they did they'd have half a brain left

 

I've spent a lot of time around guns in the states and back home. To be honest, I never really felt endangered around people that obviously know how to use a gun safely. Guns are cool, guns are fun as fuck but nobody has rights to a gun, it's a privileged that has to be earned. Hell, I'd feel safer around an NRA gun nut than a cop 

[cosmicway 1,333]

I 'm at a loss to uderstand the motive behind the Turkish attempted coup d' etat.
It does n't look like it falls into any of the usual patterns, communism-anticommunism, tribalism or even europeanism-antieuropeanism.
I also find it hard to believe that either of the two sides is pro-ISIS and the other one is against.
 

[johnnythefirst 1,076]

1 hour ago, cosmicway said:

I 'm at a loss to uderstand the motive behind the Turkish attempted coup d' etat.
It does n't look like it falls into any of the usual patterns, communism-anticommunism, tribalism or even europeanism-antieuropeanism.
I also find it hard to believe that either of the two sides is pro-ISIS and the other one is against.
 

It's more of a secular/religious division. 
Most of the young Turks I met in Istanbul/Izmir/Kusadasi et cetera are non-religious and absolutely despise Erdogan and what he represents. Turkey had a strict division between state and religion since Ataturk and he's trying to reverse this. This said, I think the whole coupe was very 'convenient' for him, since it allowed him to get rid of about 6,000 opponents without any protest. He fired 2,000 judges right after the coupe. I wouldn't be very surprised if it turned out that he planned all of it.

[Fernando 6,585]

39 minutes ago, johnnythefirst said:

It's more of a secular/religious division. 
Most of the young Turks I met in Istanbul/Izmir/Kusadasi et cetera are non-religious and absolutely despise Erdogan and what he represents. Turkey had a strict division between state and religion since Ataturk and he's trying to reverse this. This said, I think the whole coupe was very 'convenient' for him, since it allowed him to get rid of about 6,000 opponents without any protest. He fired 2,000 judges right after the coupe. I wouldn't be very surprised if it turned out that he planned all of it.

That is the conspiracy theory I been hearing. 

And to be fair I wouldn't be surprised as well since the bible says in the end time there will be a lot of deception. Like things aren't what they seem to be. 

[cosmicway 1,333]

31 minutes ago, johnnythefirst said:

It's more of a secular/religious division. 
Most of the young Turks I met in Istanbul/Izmir/Kusadasi et cetera are non-religious and absolutely despise Erdogan and what he represents. Turkey had a strict division between state and religion since Ataturk and he's trying to reverse this. This said, I think the whole coupe was very 'convenient' for him, since it allowed him to get rid of about 6,000 opponents without any protest. He fired 2,000 judges right after the coupe. I wouldn't be very surprised if it turned out that he planned all of it.

So it appears to me Erdogan is too religious but without going into the extremes of ISIS and the fundamentalists, while his opponents favour a more westernised way of life.
But is that enough for such a huge rift in society ?
It does n't look like he planned it but maybe he took the risk to provoke them as much as he could and make them play their hand.
From that much information, I don't think it is sane though.
In Greece in 1967 there was at least the accusation made by the army against Andreas Papandreou that he wanted to make Greece into a baathist state. That was a false accusation, almost comical, but as accusations go it was serious enough.
But starting a civil war because bikini suim suits are not allowed on the beaches seems bizarre to me.

 

 

[johnnythefirst 1,076]

26 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

So it appears to me Erdogan is too religious but without going into the extremes of ISIS and the fundamentalists, while his opponents favour a more westernised way of life.
But is that enough for such a huge rift in society ?
It does n't look like he planned it but maybe he took the risk to provoke them as much as he could and make them play their hand.
From that much information, I don't think it is sane though.
In Greece in 1967 there was at least the accusation made by the army against Andreas Papandreou that he wanted to make Greece into a baathist state. That was a false accusation, almost comical, but as accusations go it was serious enough.
But starting a civil war because bikini suim suits are not allowed on the beaches seems bizarre to me.

 

 

Turkey is a secular state, and a lot of the young/educated people in the big cities near the west coast are very free in the way they think. I would say more so than in some European countries. Istanbul for example is one of the most exciting cities I've ever been to. Simply wild. Erdogan is religious though, and is taking away certain freedoms. The army was always there to defend the secular ideals of Ataturk (he founded the modern Turkish state) and has taken over power plenty of times in the past when it felt that the secular state was being threatened by religious elements.

What is more worrying about Erdogan though, is that he is centralising all of the power in Turkey into his own hands. He's a Putin kind of guy. He wants to be the big man and the only power in the country until they take it from his cold dead hands. Essentially he got even stronger after what happened this week. He's as good as a dictator right now. He spent billions making this ugly, Aladdinlike Palace for himself, he's putting critical journalists in jail, he's suing foreign comics because they 'insulted him'. When he lost his complete majority after the last elections and had to make a coalition, he deliberately rotted things out until no solution could be found and there had to be new elections (he regained his majority after them). There are even rumors going around that he's giving out fridges and other appliances to poor illiterates on the countryside to make them go out and vote for him. 

The most infuriating thing to me was that, during the coupe and from the safety of his bunker, he ordered his followers to go out and fight against soldiers and tanks "to save democracy", while he has savagely beaten down any form of democratic protest against him during the last five years. Remember the major riots in Istanbul 3 years ago. All of the blood of civilian lives lost during this coupe are on his hands. He's an insecure coward, like so many of these dictators. 

[johnnythefirst 1,076]

Also, the problem is not that he's "too religious". The problem is that he's trying to get religion back into law and politics. Everybody can believe whatever the hell they want, but keep it out of the law and let other people live their lives as well. If someone in my country tried attacking the separation between church and state I would fight it with all my heart. 

[cosmicway 1,333]

19 minutes ago, johnnythefirst said:

Also, the problem is not that he's "too religious". The problem is that he's trying to get religion back into law and politics. Everybody can believe whatever the hell they want, but keep it out of the law and let other people live their lives as well. If someone in my country tried attacking the separation between church and state I would fight it with all my heart. 

 

Well, it depends what they do though.
Set up a new Spanish inquisition ?
We had the same debate here in 2002.
I sided with the church, because on the one hand we Greeks do not hurt people of different religions (like they were doing in Northern Ireland for example) while on the other hand I noticed that all those who attacked religion in the tv panels were communists who wanted to install a one party dictatorship.
But I suppose this is different from Turkey.
I think it's a problem. The Turks believe the world is divided between the righteous and the sinners (where your side are the righteous). The winner locks the loser to a prison cell. Just like Brexit.
They have to abandon this belief. It can't work. Go to international football results and see how many Turkish league matches do not end and compare the number to other countries.
Some Greeks behave the same. Before the last election, 20 September 2015, Tsipras said "on the twentieth you are finished", meaning that those who do not agree with his party will have to find some fast horses and carts and leave the country. He wants ot bring back to life the long time dead class hatred. But Tsipras is a pathetic imbecile.

 

[cosmicway 1,333]

---