US riots

[XeeleeFlower]

@Dolan did you read the whole article?

[Dolan]

Yes. Where can I see the report? Because otherwise I have to trust Ken Klippenstein, who wrote the article, that the FBI's report only refers to what he says in the article.
Often the media will cherry pick parts of a document that they claim they have confidential access to and weave a story that only highlights those issues in line with their bias. The same thing happens for both left and right-wing media, it wouldn't be unique to this outlet.

So, I'd be interested in seeing the full report, how the FBI worded the report and what kinds of groups were they looking for. What kind of evidence they found for which groups, etc. The complete picture, rather than these carefully cherry picked infos.

[Dolan]

Also, if you even check out the screenshots from that quoted report, the FBI report says it's not a comprehensive one, it's just a bunch of highlights (to the complete form of which we don't even have access, so we don't know what they include)



So, yeah, if you only go by these carefully cherry picked facts, they found no involvement of antifa and they found facebook messages of far right instigating etc etc. But could "The Nation", which seems an outlet that is favourable to the Dems even write anything else? Would you see them writing that antifas did participate in riots? We saw Twitter videos with them, like seriously, how can they even claim that. Who was writing "burn the banks" on those walls, far right instigators?

What is more, if the FBI didn't find evidence, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. How can you even gather that evidence, when there's a bunch of edgy kids running around in black clothes? What kind of evidence can you find, you can't even identify them. You can only infer from their messages what kind of groups they might belong to.

[XeeleeFlower]

No need to get defensive. I just wanted to know if you read the entire thing. I do find your defensiveness interesting though.

[Dolan]

I too find it interesting that you tend to post articles that serve a certain point of view.

I have no problem with any facts that would prove that both antifas and far right would have been involved in these events. But people on both sides seem to have a problem with that. They want "their guys" to be exonerated.

I'm just pointing out that most media are biased and tend to use this dishonest method of reporting, based on "confidential and exclusive information", that they don't fully present.

[RefluxSemantic]

Yeah like I said, discussion is over for me as well. If anyone cares to educate themselves, youtube John Oliver, he has a ton of segments that explains these issues very well, much better than I'd be able to do.

fuck, I never even got around to private prisons in this discussion now that I think of it. there's a lot of shit that makes the blood boil. I've never even been subjected to any of this rote injustice either too.

Its funny though, John Oliver tends to make a good, well educated case most of the time and I usually find myself agreeing with him. Your unnuanced conclusions and opinions seem to be really far from what John Oliver is usually saying.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[RefluxSemantic]

https://www.ussc.gov/research/research- ... sentencing
Also if you wondered what institutional racism looks like. Check this out. Absolutely no explanation for it.

Does this actually mean racism is institutionalized, or does this mean that judges are being affected by the existing stereotype of African Americans? Because there definitely is a negative stereotype, and I definitely think that society confirms part of this stereotype (because African Americans overwhelmingly belong to the lower social classes). If thats the case, I dont know that I would say racism is institutionalized. This could still be explained by Vardar's theory. And this actually seems to be supported by the fact that females of all races get significantly shorter sentences for the same crime. This isn't because sexism is institutionalized, but because sex-related stereotypes (which are at least partially correct) affect the decisionmaking of the judge.

On top of that, it could be the case that on average African Americans have less money for a good lawyer, which presumably would negatively affect the length of their sentence, but I feel like the former point was more important.

I feel like institutionalized racism refers to racism actually being part of the law. In terms of sentence duration, I dont really see that and I don't believe judges are all trying to actively give African Americans longer sentences. There is a pretty decent explanation for this that not only explains why African American males get longer sentences, but also why females get shorter sentences.

[wardyb1]

https://www.ussc.gov/research/research- ... sentencing
Also if you wondered what institutional racism looks like. Check this out. Absolutely no explanation for it.

Does this actually mean racism is institutionalized, or does this mean that judges are being affected by the existing stereotype of African Americans? Because there definitely is a negative stereotype, and I definitely think that society confirms part of this stereotype (because African Americans overwhelmingly belong to the lower social classes). If thats the case, I dont know that I would say racism is institutionalized. This could still be explained by Vardar's theory. And this actually seems to be supported by the fact that females of all races get significantly shorter sentences for the same crime. This isn't because sexism is institutionalized, but because sex-related stereotypes (which are at least partially correct) affect the decisionmaking of the judge.

On top of that, it could be the case that on average African Americans have less money for a good lawyer, which presumably would negatively affect the length of their sentence, but I feel like the former point was more important.

I feel like institutionalized racism refers to racism actually being part of the law. In terms of sentence duration, I dont really see that and I don't believe judges are all trying to actively give African Americans longer sentences. There is a pretty decent explanation for this that not only explains why African American males get longer sentences, but also why females get shorter sentences.

The judges being affected by the stereotype is the institutional racism. Are you dumb? That is the problem. That is the institution pushing them down. Also I'd argue that women getting a shorter sentence probably is institutional sexism.
It is the same as them being less likely to afford a good lawyer. That is what people are fighting against. Stop looking at every single problem as an individual problem. Look at them all and see what is wrong. It is that a lot more black people than white people are disadvantaged either due to race or class. And their class has most likely been a product of their race and some point in their family tree.

[XeeleeFlower]

I too find it interesting that you tend to post articles that serve a certain point of view.

I have no problem with any facts that would prove that both antifas and far right would have been involved in these events. But people on both sides seem to have a problem with that. They want "their guys" to be exonerated.

I'm just pointing out that most media are biased and tend to use this dishonest method of reporting, based on "confidential and exclusive information", that they don't fully present.

Glad we find each other interesting.

If you pay attention to my posts, you'll see that I post several points of view and do try to be unbias while empathizing with different groups of people.

You had posted something claiming that antifa was behind much of the rioting. I don't remember your exact words, but the sentiment was something that stuck with me because it's something that I keep reading from people in different forums/groups. Trump has used this to declare them a terrorist group and to allow the use of military force on citizens that may or may not be antifa simply because they're protesting/rioting. Thus, I wanted to provide an article that counters this notion that antifa is the driving force.

In addition, I had mentioned some things that I've read from white nationalists/extremists groups, but couldn't go back to find them all in order to actually quote them. As it turns out, the FBI was aware of these things, which was mentioned in the article. This backs up things I read and expressed here.

I do not care who the real instigators are at this point since that knowledge doesn't really have an impact on how I'm viewing the actual protests/riots. Additionally, as you said, it's super easy to act like/claim you're affiliated with a certain group while sowing chaos. But if the FBI or other investigative agency is saying something, I'm going to pay attention to it.

On a different, semi related note, this is absolutely terrifying, especially since he had an untraceable gun: https://abc7.com/national-guard-imposte ... a/6227824/

[wardyb1]

Also LAPD (maybe the sherriffs department, not sure) are now doing drive-by shootings. Just a couple of bad apples, nothing to worry about.

[Dolan]

post

I too find it interesting that you tend to post articles that serve a certain point of view.

I have no problem with any facts that would prove that both antifas and far right would have been involved in these events. But people on both sides seem to have a problem with that. They want "their guys" to be exonerated.

I'm just pointing out that most media are biased and tend to use this dishonest method of reporting, based on "confidential and exclusive information", that they don't fully present.

Glad we find each other interesting.

If you pay attention to my posts, you'll see that I post several points of view and do try to be unbias while empathizing with different groups of people.

You had posted something claiming that antifa was behind much of the rioting. I don't remember your exact words, but the sentiment was something that stuck with me because it's something that I keep reading from people in different forums/groups. Trump has used this to declare them a terrorist group and to allow the use of military force on citizens that may or may not be antifa simply because they're protesting/rioting. Thus, I wanted to provide an article that counters this notion that antifa is the driving force.

In addition, I had mentioned some things that I've read from white nationalists/extremists groups, but couldn't go back to find them all in order to actually quote them. As it turns out, the FBI was aware of these things, which was mentioned in the article. This backs up things I read and expressed here.

I do not care who the real instigators are at this point since that knowledge doesn't really have an impact on how I'm viewing the actual protests/riots. Additionally, as you said, it's super easy to act like/claim you're affiliated with a certain group while sowing chaos. But if the FBI or other investigative agency is saying something, I'm going to pay attention to it.

You could just think about who would have such a strong motivation to get out and protest. It's not your typical wagecucks who even have the time to do this, it's very specific people.

So probably most protesters are blacks who are especially motivated by these incidents. Secondly, it's whites and others who are probably leftwing supporters who feel strongly enough to actually get out and protest, and then there might be some infiltrated instigators, but I'd really doubt that their numbers are significant.

I don't know if the antifa are behind "much of the rioting", but when I posted that, I noted this weird new fact that more recently some black people were trying to calm protesters down, while some white instigators (who were dressed like your typical antifas, with black balaclavas, hoodies and backpacks) were trying to stir shit up. So it seems like some black people realised that there is a negative perception growing about these protests destroying stuff and it's not going to serve them well in the future. While antifas typically don't give a shit about this, since they are edgy, anti-system kids who are driven by blind ideology and who don't miss any opportunity to smash the windows of police stations or banks.

You actually have a better chance at guessing who is behind what if you just watch their behaviour, not what they say. Then, ofc, some might be simply faking it.

[RefluxSemantic]

https://www.ussc.gov/research/research- ... sentencing
Also if you wondered what institutional racism looks like. Check this out. Absolutely no explanation for it.

Does this actually mean racism is institutionalized, or does this mean that judges are being affected by the existing stereotype of African Americans? Because there definitely is a negative stereotype, and I definitely think that society confirms part of this stereotype (because African Americans overwhelmingly belong to the lower social classes). If thats the case, I dont know that I would say racism is institutionalized. This could still be explained by Vardar's theory. And this actually seems to be supported by the fact that females of all races get significantly shorter sentences for the same crime. This isn't because sexism is institutionalized, but because sex-related stereotypes (which are at least partially correct) affect the decisionmaking of the judge.

On top of that, it could be the case that on average African Americans have less money for a good lawyer, which presumably would negatively affect the length of their sentence, but I feel like the former point was more important.

I feel like institutionalized racism refers to racism actually being part of the law. In terms of sentence duration, I dont really see that and I don't believe judges are all trying to actively give African Americans longer sentences. There is a pretty decent explanation for this that not only explains why African American males get longer sentences, but also why females get shorter sentences.

The judges being affected by the stereotype is the institutional racism. Are you dumb? That is the problem. That is the institution pushing them down. Also I'd argue that women getting a shorter sentence probably is institutional sexism.
It is the same as them being less likely to afford a good lawyer. That is what people are fighting against. Stop looking at every single problem as an individual problem. Look at them all and see what is wrong. It is that a lot more black people than white people are disadvantaged either due to race or class. And their class has most likely been a product of their race and some point in their family tree.

I guess I don't really think this is racism though. Technically racism is defined as something like "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.". While the prejudice and discrimination is definitely there, I don't really see that the average American does this based on the belief of white superiority. I feel like people have some amount of prejudice because to some extend the racial stereotype is correct. That just doesn't seem to fit the definition of racism. If you use a different definition then it might be racism, but I tend to use this one because it's what I've been taught and this seems the usual definition of racism.

That doesn't mean that African Americans don't have the deck stacked against them though, but I don't think Vardar argued against this anyways and it's not something I would argue against. But this being proof that there is institutionalized racism? I don't know about that.

[wardyb1]

Show hidden quotes

https://www.ussc.gov/research/research- ... sentencing
Also if you wondered what institutional racism looks like. Check this out. Absolutely no explanation for it.

Does this actually mean racism is institutionalized, or does this mean that judges are being affected by the existing stereotype of African Americans? Because there definitely is a negative stereotype, and I definitely think that society confirms part of this stereotype (because African Americans overwhelmingly belong to the lower social classes). If thats the case, I dont know that I would say racism is institutionalized. This could still be explained by Vardar's theory. And this actually seems to be supported by the fact that females of all races get significantly shorter sentences for the same crime. This isn't because sexism is institutionalized, but because sex-related stereotypes (which are at least partially correct) affect the decisionmaking of the judge.

On top of that, it could be the case that on average African Americans have less money for a good lawyer, which presumably would negatively affect the length of their sentence, but I feel like the former point was more important.

I feel like institutionalized racism refers to racism actually being part of the law. In terms of sentence duration, I dont really see that and I don't believe judges are all trying to actively give African Americans longer sentences. There is a pretty decent explanation for this that not only explains why African American males get longer sentences, but also why females get shorter sentences.

The judges being affected by the stereotype is the institutional racism. Are you dumb? That is the problem. That is the institution pushing them down. Also I'd argue that women getting a shorter sentence probably is institutional sexism.
It is the same as them being less likely to afford a good lawyer. That is what people are fighting against. Stop looking at every single problem as an individual problem. Look at them all and see what is wrong. It is that a lot more black people than white people are disadvantaged either due to race or class. And their class has most likely been a product of their race and some point in their family tree.

I guess I don't really think this is racism though. Technically racism is defined as something like "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.". While the prejudice and discrimination is definitely there, I don't really see that the average American does this based on the belief of white superiority. I feel like people have some amount of prejudice because to some extend the racial stereotype is correct. That just doesn't seem to fit the definition of racism. If you use a different definition then it might be racism, but I tend to use this one because it's what I've been taught and this seems the usual definition of racism.

That doesn't mean that African Americans don't have the deck stacked against them though, but I don't think Vardar argued against this anyways and it's not something I would argue against. But this being proof that there is institutionalized racism? I don't know about that.

So just to clarify, you don't think judges giving African Americans a 15% longer sentence just for being black is racist?

[fightinfrenchman]

That doesn't mean that African Americans don't have the deck stacked against them though, but I don't think Vardar argued against this anyways and it's not something I would argue against. But this being proof that there is institutionalized racism? I don't know about that.

Would highly recommend you check out some stuff said by the US Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders

[RefluxSemantic]

Show hidden quotes

https://www.ussc.gov/research/research- ... sentencing
Also if you wondered what institutional racism looks like. Check this out. Absolutely no explanation for it.

Does this actually mean racism is institutionalized, or does this mean that judges are being affected by the existing stereotype of African Americans? Because there definitely is a negative stereotype, and I definitely think that society confirms part of this stereotype (because African Americans overwhelmingly belong to the lower social classes). If thats the case, I dont know that I would say racism is institutionalized. This could still be explained by Vardar's theory. And this actually seems to be supported by the fact that females of all races get significantly shorter sentences for the same crime. This isn't because sexism is institutionalized, but because sex-related stereotypes (which are at least partially correct) affect the decisionmaking of the judge.

On top of that, it could be the case that on average African Americans have less money for a good lawyer, which presumably would negatively affect the length of their sentence, but I feel like the former point was more important.

I feel like institutionalized racism refers to racism actually being part of the law. In terms of sentence duration, I dont really see that and I don't believe judges are all trying to actively give African Americans longer sentences. There is a pretty decent explanation for this that not only explains why African American males get longer sentences, but also why females get shorter sentences.

The judges being affected by the stereotype is the institutional racism. Are you dumb? That is the problem. That is the institution pushing them down. Also I'd argue that women getting a shorter sentence probably is institutional sexism.
It is the same as them being less likely to afford a good lawyer. That is what people are fighting against. Stop looking at every single problem as an individual problem. Look at them all and see what is wrong. It is that a lot more black people than white people are disadvantaged either due to race or class. And their class has most likely been a product of their race and some point in their family tree.

I guess I don't really think this is racism though. Technically racism is defined as something like "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.". While the prejudice and discrimination is definitely there, I don't really see that the average American does this based on the belief of white superiority. I feel like people have some amount of prejudice because to some extend the racial stereotype is correct. That just doesn't seem to fit the definition of racism. If you use a different definition then it might be racism, but I tend to use this one because it's what I've been taught and this seems the usual definition of racism.

That doesn't mean that African Americans don't have the deck stacked against them though, but I don't think Vardar argued against this anyways and it's not something I would argue against. But this being proof that there is institutionalized racism? I don't know about that.

So just to clarify, you don't think judges giving African Americans a 15% longer sentence just for being black is racist?

Everything I wanted to say is exactly written down in my post. I don't need to clarify anything.

[fightinfrenchman]

https://www.theonion.com/auntie-anne-s- ... 1843862478

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[RefluxSemantic]

Nice level of maturity here.

[RefluxSemantic]

Im completely open minded about this by the way, its not really a point I really care about or am biased about.

If Im so retarded, coule you please explain to me what makes it so obvious that judges in America think of nonwhite people as an inferior race? The stats wardi provided dont seem to indicate that.

Or maybe you dont agree with my definition of racism. First of all, it seems pretty ridiculous to call someone retarded for using a definition of racism from the dictionary. Second of all, you could maybe show some maturity and explain to me why the dictionary is wrong.

[n0el]

@RefluxSemantic it has less to do with judges, and more to do with the basis of the law itself. the law is written to protect the owner class. who do you think that is?

[Dolan]

This black guy raises some interesting points here: when most black victims are killed by blacks (like 83% of homicides are black on black), blacks don't go out protesting that they're being killed by their own. No, they just consider it being ordinary homicide.
But when there's one white guy killing one of their own, boom, big deal, white peepo are killing us.



For these reasons, he calls this fake solidarity, since black people are not making such a big fuss when their own are killing their own in huge numbers.
And that probably includes black police officers abusing black suspects too, as it's been shown in this thread, when I posted a video of a black officer aggressing black suspects.

So are white people actually making a huge deal out of this just because of cultural guilt? Because of majority guilt? Because until now, as this guy is saying, blacks surely haven't complained or protested about how much they are killing each other. Or about how black officers are mistreating their own. It suddenly becomes a huge political and media issue when one white guy does it. And that probably has a lot more to do with the aforementioned cultural guilt, which is especially popular in former colonial cultures and among leftwing supporters from those cultures.

[duckzilla]

I like this article from a German newspaper today which reflects on racism in Germany in the light of Minneapolis:

(...)
Racism is a way of thinking that manifests itself in manifold actions in Germany. Violent acts are a visible form among others. Racism is a multi-level system in which hierarchization, stigmatization and segregation are carried out. That's why the fight against racism cannot be won by fighting against police violence or unequal treatment during raids, in schools or the housing market, i.e. against the symptoms. And certainly not the struggle of the "affected".
(...)
The more the minorities organize and emancipate themselves politically, the more they make an effort and achieve something and maybe lose it again, the more the unaffected groups insist that it is they who will soon be abolished, repopulated or otherwise exterminated. The political struggle of the disenfranchised is reinterpreted as a threat. Now the marginalized not only have to fight against inequality, they are also busy debating the worries of those who are not disadvantaged, comforting them and promising them to behave democratically, under the rule of law, good and kind.

It makes no sense to ask for respect and recognition in the majority society over and over again. Racist societies indulge in the insults and threats they increasingly pose to minorities. This is manorial behavior, which always argues that the "others" have to adapt. A majority society, once internalized, will never voluntarily give up the privilege of unequal treatment in life. The structures will only change if acts of violence committed for racist reasons lead to sensitive criminal consequences for the perpetrators. Above all, racist politicians, violent police officers or soldiers who illegally arm themselves for Day X must also be hit. Instead of punishments, however, it is mostly outrage.

Racism has a political and economic function. As long as citizens are afraid of blacks, Muslims, Jews, Roma and Sinti, demonize them and are responsible for every misery, they have no reason to get an overview of corporations and lobbyists. No strength to see the connection between exploitation and capitalism. Incidentally, in such a society it is easier to be a politician. You just go to any rally where white people are afraid, and comfort and act as an understanding friend who shares all fears and needs.
(...)

The definition for racism to be based on the superiority of one's race does not fit in my opinion. Taking the view that belonging to an arbitrarily defined "race" allows conclusions about a person's character traits/skills or whatever is racism to me.

[knusch]

@RefluxSemantic it has less to do with judges, and more to do with the basis of the law itself. the law is written to protect the owner class. who do you think that is?

pretty sure the point with regards to instutional racism in the judicial system is that laws r not apllied equally as before linked report regarding sentencing simplies.

[n0el]

@RefluxSemantic it has less to do with judges, and more to do with the basis of the law itself. the law is written to protect the owner class. who do you think that is?

pretty sure the point with regards to instutional racism in the judicial system is that laws r not apllied equally as before linked report regarding sentencing simplies.

yes, they aren't.