The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Protecting Property Is Oppressing People?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the fairly nationally representative battleground state of North Carolina, we learn most people want to see the police intervene to stop the destruction even if people are out of harm’s way:

The vast majority of people don’t want to see people get hurt, though:

One-in-ten people don’t want the police intervening at all, even when something like this happens:

The streets will settle it.

As the second graph shows, this contingent is disproportionately young, far-left, and non-white. They’re not settling for performative half measures. They’re angry and they want to make things happen. One suspects they’ll have plenty more opportunities to do so over the next few months.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Polling, Rioting 
Hide 110 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. AE: “they’re angry and they want to make things happen”

    The vast majority of them have nothing at all to be angry about; they’re simply ignorant, indoctrinated, lacking in historical perspective, profoundly and shamefully ungrateful, and have unrealistic and illiterate expectations. You know, all the stuff your father is supposed to warn you about, when you get to be about 14. That is, if you HAD a father.

    They’re angry because they’ve been (((told))) to be angry, because it suits (((someone else’s))) agenda. That’s all.

    • Agree: Pop Warner, MBlanc46
    • Replies: @neutral
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Not arguing against them been (((told))) to be angry, but the anger comes naturally. The sub Saharan and South American lands they are from are not known for being paragons of peace.

    , @Daniel Chieh
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    The strength of Ares and why he was the God of War was not that he was the greatest warrior(defeated as he was by Athena to symbolize the triumph of strategy over passion) but that he could motivate large numbers into senseless blood rage.

    So we see.

  2. Yes. Like our forefathers, we’ll need to “give ’em the grape.”

  3. Note when looking at these numbers:

    — The poll is 750 adults, not Likely Voters [LV].
    — Only 551 of these adults voted for POTUS (Trump or Hillary) in 2016.

    There does not seem to be an obvious way to filter the demographic results down to only LV. However, one can score LV vs. ALL.

    The LV group is 2.5% more inclined towards use of force to protect property and lives:

    LV_ — 61.2% = 323 / 527
    ALL — 58.7% = 414 / 705

    PEACE 😇

  4. What is the deal with those “Hispanic” numbers? I have seen a lot of arguments on this site recently on how they are supposed to be docile, not that fond of blacks, and so on, yet on that survey they are more supportive of violence than even blacks.

    • Replies: @Wyatt
    @neutral

    There are good beans and bad beans. Puerto Ricans are the bad kind of beans who can inflate murder stats just like negros. There are terrible beans that come from Guatemala, El Salvador and the like and they'll turn some places into no-go zones. And then there are the Mexicans, best described as Meh-xicans. Most of the time they don't care, other times they burn down black neighborhoods.

    We need the latter-est of the latter. They fight.

  5. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    AE: "they're angry and they want to make things happen"

    The vast majority of them have nothing at all to be angry about; they're simply ignorant, indoctrinated, lacking in historical perspective, profoundly and shamefully ungrateful, and have unrealistic and illiterate expectations. You know, all the stuff your father is supposed to warn you about, when you get to be about 14. That is, if you HAD a father.

    They're angry because they've been (((told))) to be angry, because it suits (((someone else's))) agenda. That's all.

    Replies: @neutral, @Daniel Chieh

    Not arguing against them been (((told))) to be angry, but the anger comes naturally. The sub Saharan and South American lands they are from are not known for being paragons of peace.

  6. One-in-ten people don’t want the police intervening at all, even when something like this happens:

    So, we’ve got the guns AND we’ve got the numbers.

    • Replies: @Sollipsist
    @The Alarmist

    That same line has been bouncing around my head for a while.

    When people say "all art is political," they don't usually realize that the difference between mere propaganda and political art is that art lasts long enough to end up as a double-edged sword, cutting both ways...

    , @Corvinus
    @The Alarmist

    "So, we’ve got the guns AND we’ve got the numbers."

    But you talk tough and won't do anything about it.

  7. The writer Jim Bishop noted that victims of property crime will react with the same sense of hurt and anger as victims of violent crime, which he found remarkable. Maybe not so remarkable when you consider property is earned by the sweat of your brow and often has good sentimental associations.

    (Consider those “de-cluttering” specialists who try to separate people from stuff they’re strongly attached to for non-utility reasons.)

    I sort of idly wonder whether extremely stringent law enforcement by some sort of massive, combined police/military force may be experimented with in some cities affected by violent demonstrations for the purpose of immediately squelching those demonstrations. I don’t have the police or law background to know what the boundaries (shoot to kill orders for looters?) would be. Don’t even know about the desirability of a “massive” response–but I think it ought to be explored.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    @JackOH

    Declaration of martial law might be a first step.

    Replies: @JackOH

    , @Cloudbuster
    @JackOH

    The writer Jim Bishop noted that victims of property crime will react with the same sense of hurt and anger as victims of violent crime, which he found remarkable. Maybe not so remarkable when you consider property is earned by the sweat of your brow and often has good sentimental associations.

    I think the modern conceit that it is excessive to use lethal force in defense of property is a profoundly decivilizing idea. The knowledge that if you try to take a man's hard-earned property that your life may be forfeit and that the law will smile upon your death is a strong message to outlaws (as is the concept of outlawry itself), and the elimination of people who would willfully commit property crimes is ultimately good for society.

    One researcher, I can't remember who (Edward Dutton? Or someone he talks about?), thinks that high levels of capital punishment in medieval Europe served to weed out much of the anti-social population of the area, creating actual selective pressure, and that the more "humane" justice system we have now is reversing that pressure and, along with other benefits of civilization causing a rise in mutational load and resultant anti-social behavior.

    Replies: @Charlotte, @JackOH, @Anon, @Audacious Epigone

  8. @JackOH
    The writer Jim Bishop noted that victims of property crime will react with the same sense of hurt and anger as victims of violent crime, which he found remarkable. Maybe not so remarkable when you consider property is earned by the sweat of your brow and often has good sentimental associations.

    (Consider those "de-cluttering" specialists who try to separate people from stuff they're strongly attached to for non-utility reasons.)

    I sort of idly wonder whether extremely stringent law enforcement by some sort of massive, combined police/military force may be experimented with in some cities affected by violent demonstrations for the purpose of immediately squelching those demonstrations. I don't have the police or law background to know what the boundaries (shoot to kill orders for looters?) would be. Don't even know about the desirability of a "massive" response--but I think it ought to be explored.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Cloudbuster

    Declaration of martial law might be a first step.

    • Replies: @JackOH
    @Diversity Heretic

    DH, agree, martial law seems to me something at least worth talking about. At least as I'm seeing it, we have some serious civil chaos going on, elected political leaders abdicating their responsibility to protect the public, maybe a half-billion in property damage, lives lost, etc. Again, I'm not sure about the desirability of an applied policy of "maximum force" under martial law, but I'd like to see someone with the right chops make the case publicly.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @dfordoom

  9. @Diversity Heretic
    @JackOH

    Declaration of martial law might be a first step.

    Replies: @JackOH

    DH, agree, martial law seems to me something at least worth talking about. At least as I’m seeing it, we have some serious civil chaos going on, elected political leaders abdicating their responsibility to protect the public, maybe a half-billion in property damage, lives lost, etc. Again, I’m not sure about the desirability of an applied policy of “maximum force” under martial law, but I’d like to see someone with the right chops make the case publicly.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    @JackOH

    Thanks for your comment! Martial law was declared by the governor in my hometown of Newton, Iowa in 1938 in response to a strike at the Maytag Company that resulted in minor streetfighting. No one killed and only a few persons seriously injured but the governor decided he'd seen enough.

    The advantage of martial law is that the ordinary civil courts and police no longer function. Arrests are by soldiers and trials are by military tribunals. District and county attorneys can no longer politicize prosecutions.

    But you need a reliable military to implement martial law, and I don't think Donald Trump has that right now.

    , @dfordoom
    @JackOH


    DH, agree, martial law seems to me something at least worth talking about.
     
    Isn't that how Mao tamed the Cultural Revolution - by letting the People's Liberation Army loose on civilians? Of course the vast majority of the deaths caused by the Cultural Revolution were in fact people killed by the PLA. Letting the military loose on civilian populations tends to end that way. You end up with law and order but with mounds of dead bodies along the way.

    And of course there is the difference that Mao could depend absolutely on the loyalty of the PLA. Could Trump depend absolutely on the loyalty of the US military?

    Replies: @neutral, @JackOH

  10. Anon[108] • Disclaimer says:

    Police blindly serve the people, to such an extent that any dickwad can make a fake 911 call on an innocent person and get them gunned down by a SWAT team.

    I would argue then that if police respond to a riot, in which dozens or even hundreds of people are burning things, then the police should be required by law to blindly join in and participate in the riots, and gun down anyone who tries to stop it.

    Since when do the concerns of a feeble few (individual victims and criminals) carry more weight than the full force of nationwide social revolution?

    Who are the police protecting and serving? And why are you people defending these people’s shitty fast food and trinket businesses? The correct answers are 1.) the petit-bourgeosie who employ illegal aliens and blacks, and sell cheap Asian garbage, and 2.) because you’re fucking stupid. Now you realize why Communism is the future.

    If you’re not rioting by now, you’re not fully human.

  11. It’s probably wishful thinking, but perhaps some of the people polled for the 2nd bar graph are those who, like me, think it’d be better if some of the violence was ended Kyle Rittenhouse style. Yes, he shot in self defense, but if that happened more, then actual peaceful protestors on our side would be able to be there to confront* the antifa Commies and black thugs in the first place.

    I can see that attitude comprising the 6 and 5 % of those red bars. It’s very likely not the case with the brown, and especially, black, bars and those blue ones on the right, too, come to think of it. There are people who just don’t want cops around period. Some have a good point, and some are deluded.

    .

    * and by “confront”, I mean make sure it actually STAYS a protest and not a riot.

  12. Despite the spreading of false narratives to define these protests as exercises in “rioting and looting,” by the system’s propaganda mechanisms, millions of people are apparently willing to openly support these protests.

    This is good because it proves that most people are refusing to accept the backward analysis that murdering protesters to protect property is OK, while damaging property to protest murder is an unforgivable act.

    • LOL: Realist
    • Replies: @Johnny Smoggins
    @Observator

    White owned property has more value than a black life. A shack owned by a White man has more value than the life of a black baby.So it is written, so it shall be.

  13. Older, White, very conservative men are the smartest of all Americans. And that is what our founding fathers knew.

    • Agree: 216
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Realist


    Older, White, very conservative men are the smartest of all Americans. And that is what our founding fathers knew.
     
    This is, of course, a totally uncalled-for jab at women, but I must say, it's a great deal less obnoxious than what I used to see here. It's good to see the backs of one's enemies in retreat.

    Replies: @Realist, @Chrisnonymous

    , @Franz
    @Realist


    Older, White, very conservative men are the smartest of all Americans.
     
    True.

    Another often overlooked reason: They're much more likely to be veterans. From Eisenhower's draft till the early 70s military service was a given. Men joined a branch that might do them some good to avoid waiting till their draft number came up.

    Military service instills a certain level of experience and the right level of apprehension to consider what happens when laws are ignored.

    All the low numbers on the second graph are unsurprising. Liberals were more likely to avoid service back when the draft existed; often having had the means to go overseas or to Canada for education.

    Younger vets seem to catch this too. They have a seriousness their non-vet Affirmative Action comrades don't seem to understand. But older vets find that pretty familiar, having put up with some of that when we got out too.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  14. I wonder how many of these people don’t own houses or cars.

    • Thanks: nokangaroos
    • Replies: @216
    @songbird

    The young and university educated are burdened with debt.

    This is why DSA's Marxist "kill the landlords" rhetoric plays so well.

    I recall a focus group where Democrats assumed that the average Republican had an income of 150K, which is about 3x of what it actually is.

  15. @JackOH
    @Diversity Heretic

    DH, agree, martial law seems to me something at least worth talking about. At least as I'm seeing it, we have some serious civil chaos going on, elected political leaders abdicating their responsibility to protect the public, maybe a half-billion in property damage, lives lost, etc. Again, I'm not sure about the desirability of an applied policy of "maximum force" under martial law, but I'd like to see someone with the right chops make the case publicly.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @dfordoom

    Thanks for your comment! Martial law was declared by the governor in my hometown of Newton, Iowa in 1938 in response to a strike at the Maytag Company that resulted in minor streetfighting. No one killed and only a few persons seriously injured but the governor decided he’d seen enough.

    The advantage of martial law is that the ordinary civil courts and police no longer function. Arrests are by soldiers and trials are by military tribunals. District and county attorneys can no longer politicize prosecutions.

    But you need a reliable military to implement martial law, and I don’t think Donald Trump has that right now.

  16. @neutral
    What is the deal with those "Hispanic" numbers? I have seen a lot of arguments on this site recently on how they are supposed to be docile, not that fond of blacks, and so on, yet on that survey they are more supportive of violence than even blacks.

    Replies: @Wyatt

    There are good beans and bad beans. Puerto Ricans are the bad kind of beans who can inflate murder stats just like negros. There are terrible beans that come from Guatemala, El Salvador and the like and they’ll turn some places into no-go zones. And then there are the Mexicans, best described as Meh-xicans. Most of the time they don’t care, other times they burn down black neighborhoods.

    We need the latter-est of the latter. They fight.

  17. @JackOH
    @Diversity Heretic

    DH, agree, martial law seems to me something at least worth talking about. At least as I'm seeing it, we have some serious civil chaos going on, elected political leaders abdicating their responsibility to protect the public, maybe a half-billion in property damage, lives lost, etc. Again, I'm not sure about the desirability of an applied policy of "maximum force" under martial law, but I'd like to see someone with the right chops make the case publicly.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @dfordoom

    DH, agree, martial law seems to me something at least worth talking about.

    Isn’t that how Mao tamed the Cultural Revolution – by letting the People’s Liberation Army loose on civilians? Of course the vast majority of the deaths caused by the Cultural Revolution were in fact people killed by the PLA. Letting the military loose on civilian populations tends to end that way. You end up with law and order but with mounds of dead bodies along the way.

    And of course there is the difference that Mao could depend absolutely on the loyalty of the PLA. Could Trump depend absolutely on the loyalty of the US military?

    • Replies: @neutral
    @dfordoom

    The bigger difference is that Mao did not have the goal to end the Chinese people. Now compare this to the leaders of France, Germany, USA, UK. It is very clear which is worse.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @JackOH
    @dfordoom

    dfordoom, I didn't say that! I did say I'd like to see a temperate person knowledgeable in law and enforcement make the case for martial law, if indeed there's a case to be made, and let the chips fall where they may. Open debate on the subject will on its own likely have some minor effect on curbing the violence, moderating the destruction, and stiffening the spines of some of the mayors and governors.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

  18. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    AE: "they're angry and they want to make things happen"

    The vast majority of them have nothing at all to be angry about; they're simply ignorant, indoctrinated, lacking in historical perspective, profoundly and shamefully ungrateful, and have unrealistic and illiterate expectations. You know, all the stuff your father is supposed to warn you about, when you get to be about 14. That is, if you HAD a father.

    They're angry because they've been (((told))) to be angry, because it suits (((someone else's))) agenda. That's all.

    Replies: @neutral, @Daniel Chieh

    The strength of Ares and why he was the God of War was not that he was the greatest warrior(defeated as he was by Athena to symbolize the triumph of strategy over passion) but that he could motivate large numbers into senseless blood rage.

    So we see.

  19. @JackOH
    The writer Jim Bishop noted that victims of property crime will react with the same sense of hurt and anger as victims of violent crime, which he found remarkable. Maybe not so remarkable when you consider property is earned by the sweat of your brow and often has good sentimental associations.

    (Consider those "de-cluttering" specialists who try to separate people from stuff they're strongly attached to for non-utility reasons.)

    I sort of idly wonder whether extremely stringent law enforcement by some sort of massive, combined police/military force may be experimented with in some cities affected by violent demonstrations for the purpose of immediately squelching those demonstrations. I don't have the police or law background to know what the boundaries (shoot to kill orders for looters?) would be. Don't even know about the desirability of a "massive" response--but I think it ought to be explored.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Cloudbuster

    The writer Jim Bishop noted that victims of property crime will react with the same sense of hurt and anger as victims of violent crime, which he found remarkable. Maybe not so remarkable when you consider property is earned by the sweat of your brow and often has good sentimental associations.

    I think the modern conceit that it is excessive to use lethal force in defense of property is a profoundly decivilizing idea. The knowledge that if you try to take a man’s hard-earned property that your life may be forfeit and that the law will smile upon your death is a strong message to outlaws (as is the concept of outlawry itself), and the elimination of people who would willfully commit property crimes is ultimately good for society.

    One researcher, I can’t remember who (Edward Dutton? Or someone he talks about?), thinks that high levels of capital punishment in medieval Europe served to weed out much of the anti-social population of the area, creating actual selective pressure, and that the more “humane” justice system we have now is reversing that pressure and, along with other benefits of civilization causing a rise in mutational load and resultant anti-social behavior.

    • Agree: Twinkie, Alden
    • Replies: @Charlotte
    @Cloudbuster

    Society maybe makes too much of a distinction between ‘violent’ and ‘non-violent’ crime. In real life, I think the kind of people who’ll steal or destroy your property also tend to be the kind of people who’ll do you physical harm if they believe they can get away with it.

    , @JackOH
    @Cloudbuster

    There are those phrases sometimes used to console victims of burglary, vandalism, arson, theft, etc: "It's only money" or "You can always replace property". Sometimes those same phrases are used to urge compliance with a violent robber.

    A vandal tears the social fabric of law and expectations of ordinary human decency by slashing my car tires. Am I expected to believe that by replacing those tires at my own expense or by filing an insurance claim, the social fabric has been mended?

    IOW-I'm leaning towards agreement with you.

    , @Anon
    @Cloudbuster

    Most of what we call "anti-social behavior" is the normal, healthy condition. It is populations with a higher mutational load who have a higher compliance with laws/social norms. The population with the lowest mutational load (Sub Saharan Africans) have the highest offense rate in the USA. The population with the highest mutational load (East Asian) is the best behaved.


    It requires deleterious mutations to produce obedient, law-abiding citizens who study hard and play less. The genetically healthy humans drop out of high school, twerk, punch people at the bar, and murder working grandparents in convenience store robberies. What you describe (selective application of homicide to one specific segment of the population for hundreds of years) can only lead to homozygosity and Ashkenazi Jew-like genetic disaster.


    https://www.pnas.org/content/113/4/E440


    Distance from sub-Saharan Africa predicts mutational load in diverse human genomes

    Human genomes carry hundreds of mutations that are predicted to be deleterious in some environments, potentially affecting the health or fitness of an individual. We characterize the distribution of deleterious mutations among diverse human populations, modeled under different selection coefficients and dominance parameters. Using a new dataset of diverse human genomes from seven different populations, we use spatially explicit simulations to reveal that classes of deleterious alleles have very different patterns across populations, reflecting the interaction between genetic drift and purifying selection. We show that there is a strong signal of purifying selection at conserved genomic positions within African populations, but most predicted deleterious mutations have evolved as if they were neutral during the expansion out of Africa
     

    Replies: @Peter Frost

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Cloudbuster

    There is something to the idea that property destruction is akin to slavery--someone's time, effort, and resources went into creating something for your benefit without, or more accurately against, that someone's consent.

    Replies: @A123, @JackOH

  20. @dfordoom
    @JackOH


    DH, agree, martial law seems to me something at least worth talking about.
     
    Isn't that how Mao tamed the Cultural Revolution - by letting the People's Liberation Army loose on civilians? Of course the vast majority of the deaths caused by the Cultural Revolution were in fact people killed by the PLA. Letting the military loose on civilian populations tends to end that way. You end up with law and order but with mounds of dead bodies along the way.

    And of course there is the difference that Mao could depend absolutely on the loyalty of the PLA. Could Trump depend absolutely on the loyalty of the US military?

    Replies: @neutral, @JackOH

    The bigger difference is that Mao did not have the goal to end the Chinese people. Now compare this to the leaders of France, Germany, USA, UK. It is very clear which is worse.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @neutral


    The bigger difference is that Mao did not have the goal to end the Chinese people. Now compare this to the leaders of France, Germany, USA, UK. It is very clear which is worse.
     
    Yeah, but it's still dangerous to unleash the military on the civilian population. With the military you're dealing with people who are trained to kill. Their response to a problem is, naturally, to kill people. That's what the PLA did, much to Mao's dismay (Mao didn't like killing people and hadn't anticipated that the PLA would be quite so brutal). It's not easy to restrain soldiers once you've unleashed them.

    Also, if you don't have control of the Megaphone then using the military in this fashion is going to be portrayed as an attempted fascist coup. And if a handful of people are killed in riots and you send in the military and they kill a few hundred people (which could happen if officers lose control of troops) the optics are really really bad. You can very quickly go from looking like the good guy to looking like the bad guy.

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive

  21. @neutral
    @dfordoom

    The bigger difference is that Mao did not have the goal to end the Chinese people. Now compare this to the leaders of France, Germany, USA, UK. It is very clear which is worse.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The bigger difference is that Mao did not have the goal to end the Chinese people. Now compare this to the leaders of France, Germany, USA, UK. It is very clear which is worse.

    Yeah, but it’s still dangerous to unleash the military on the civilian population. With the military you’re dealing with people who are trained to kill. Their response to a problem is, naturally, to kill people. That’s what the PLA did, much to Mao’s dismay (Mao didn’t like killing people and hadn’t anticipated that the PLA would be quite so brutal). It’s not easy to restrain soldiers once you’ve unleashed them.

    Also, if you don’t have control of the Megaphone then using the military in this fashion is going to be portrayed as an attempted fascist coup. And if a handful of people are killed in riots and you send in the military and they kill a few hundred people (which could happen if officers lose control of troops) the optics are really really bad. You can very quickly go from looking like the good guy to looking like the bad guy.

    • Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @dfordoom


    And if a handful of people are killed in riots and you send in the military and they kill a few hundred people (which could happen if officers lose control of troops) the optics are really really bad. You can very quickly go from looking like the good guy to looking like the bad guy.
     
    It's a moot point since the military is under the control of the same people paying for and organizing the rioters. But, that being said, if you had real control of the military, that means de facto control of the press i n the case of martial law so "looking like the bad guy" really doesn't matter at all, the CCP certainly didn't seem too damaged by it.

    And all this talk of martial law, why not try maybe, idk, the police first? They've let them have free reign generally, but every time they take the kid gloves off for a split second the rioters disperse immediately. Using just the NON-LETHAL tools at their disposal would see the riots ended very quickly. This rabble of degenerate criminals is prepared to do battle with organized police forces just like they were ready to do battle with Kyle Rittenhouse. The first sign of real resistance and suddenly the first words out of the tough-guy street anarchist are "Call the police, call the police!"

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Rosie

  22. @dfordoom
    @neutral


    The bigger difference is that Mao did not have the goal to end the Chinese people. Now compare this to the leaders of France, Germany, USA, UK. It is very clear which is worse.
     
    Yeah, but it's still dangerous to unleash the military on the civilian population. With the military you're dealing with people who are trained to kill. Their response to a problem is, naturally, to kill people. That's what the PLA did, much to Mao's dismay (Mao didn't like killing people and hadn't anticipated that the PLA would be quite so brutal). It's not easy to restrain soldiers once you've unleashed them.

    Also, if you don't have control of the Megaphone then using the military in this fashion is going to be portrayed as an attempted fascist coup. And if a handful of people are killed in riots and you send in the military and they kill a few hundred people (which could happen if officers lose control of troops) the optics are really really bad. You can very quickly go from looking like the good guy to looking like the bad guy.

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    And if a handful of people are killed in riots and you send in the military and they kill a few hundred people (which could happen if officers lose control of troops) the optics are really really bad. You can very quickly go from looking like the good guy to looking like the bad guy.

    It’s a moot point since the military is under the control of the same people paying for and organizing the rioters. But, that being said, if you had real control of the military, that means de facto control of the press i n the case of martial law so “looking like the bad guy” really doesn’t matter at all, the CCP certainly didn’t seem too damaged by it.

    And all this talk of martial law, why not try maybe, idk, the police first? They’ve let them have free reign generally, but every time they take the kid gloves off for a split second the rioters disperse immediately. Using just the NON-LETHAL tools at their disposal would see the riots ended very quickly. This rabble of degenerate criminals is prepared to do battle with organized police forces just like they were ready to do battle with Kyle Rittenhouse. The first sign of real resistance and suddenly the first words out of the tough-guy street anarchist are “Call the police, call the police!”

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive


    And all this talk of martial law, why not try maybe, idk, the police first?
     
    That would be a lot more sensible. It's not much help to Trump though since he doesn't control the police.

    And of course it's probably in Trump's interests for the riots to keep going.

    Replies: @216

    , @Rosie
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive


    It’s a moot point since the military is under the control of the same people paying for and organizing the rioters.
     
    Indeed. Hence my puzzlement at the post-RBG antijudicial hysteria, as if transferring power from the judiciary to the other (and arguably even more) treacherous branches of government would do us any good at this juncture.
  23. Mr. Epigone says:

    The streets will settle it.

    As the second graph shows, this contingent is disproportionately young, far-left, and non-white. They’re not settling for performative half measures. They’re angry and they want to make things happen. One suspects they’ll have plenty more opportunities to do so over the next few months.

    I say:

    Ancestry will settle it.

    The key to dislodging the treasonous and evil JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is to combine and gather together the German Americans in the Great Lakes states and the Anglo-Celts in the Southern states and then you have a political and fighting force capable of quickly taking over the electronic command and control of the US military along with the control of the ground and air and atmosphere and outer space areas.

    Trump’s secret strategy was to use the GERMAN STRATEGY in combination with the SOUTHERN STRATEGY to win the crucial Electoral College states in the Great Lakes plus Florida.

    The GERMAN STRATEGY is to win the votes of German Americans in the Great Lakes states in combination with the votes of Anglo-Celts in the Southern states. Trumpy put the cherry on top of the GERMAN STRATEGY by winning Florida with the votes of Anglo-Celts in the Northern portion of Florida in combination with the votes of the snowbirds from the Great Lakes states and the Northeast.

    A young cohort of White American Christians is disproportionally pissed off about getting ripped off and played for suckers by Greedy White Geezers born before 1965 and these young White Core Americans have an idea that the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank has blown up a series of asset bubbles in stocks and bonds and real estate(commercial/residential) that have disproportionally benefited Greedy White Geezers born before 1965.

    You only need to get a third of the young German Americans in the Great Lakes states and a third of the young Anglo-Celts in the Southern states to dislodge from power the evil and treasonous JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire.

    The only thing holding the American Empire together is monetary extremism from the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank.

    Tweets from 2015 and 2014:

  24. @dfordoom
    @JackOH


    DH, agree, martial law seems to me something at least worth talking about.
     
    Isn't that how Mao tamed the Cultural Revolution - by letting the People's Liberation Army loose on civilians? Of course the vast majority of the deaths caused by the Cultural Revolution were in fact people killed by the PLA. Letting the military loose on civilian populations tends to end that way. You end up with law and order but with mounds of dead bodies along the way.

    And of course there is the difference that Mao could depend absolutely on the loyalty of the PLA. Could Trump depend absolutely on the loyalty of the US military?

    Replies: @neutral, @JackOH

    dfordoom, I didn’t say that! I did say I’d like to see a temperate person knowledgeable in law and enforcement make the case for martial law, if indeed there’s a case to be made, and let the chips fall where they may. Open debate on the subject will on its own likely have some minor effect on curbing the violence, moderating the destruction, and stiffening the spines of some of the mayors and governors.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @JackOH

    Martial law usually results in a lot more arrests without habeas corpus than mass murder.

  25. @JackOH
    @dfordoom

    dfordoom, I didn't say that! I did say I'd like to see a temperate person knowledgeable in law and enforcement make the case for martial law, if indeed there's a case to be made, and let the chips fall where they may. Open debate on the subject will on its own likely have some minor effect on curbing the violence, moderating the destruction, and stiffening the spines of some of the mayors and governors.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    Martial law usually results in a lot more arrests without habeas corpus than mass murder.

  26. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @dfordoom


    And if a handful of people are killed in riots and you send in the military and they kill a few hundred people (which could happen if officers lose control of troops) the optics are really really bad. You can very quickly go from looking like the good guy to looking like the bad guy.
     
    It's a moot point since the military is under the control of the same people paying for and organizing the rioters. But, that being said, if you had real control of the military, that means de facto control of the press i n the case of martial law so "looking like the bad guy" really doesn't matter at all, the CCP certainly didn't seem too damaged by it.

    And all this talk of martial law, why not try maybe, idk, the police first? They've let them have free reign generally, but every time they take the kid gloves off for a split second the rioters disperse immediately. Using just the NON-LETHAL tools at their disposal would see the riots ended very quickly. This rabble of degenerate criminals is prepared to do battle with organized police forces just like they were ready to do battle with Kyle Rittenhouse. The first sign of real resistance and suddenly the first words out of the tough-guy street anarchist are "Call the police, call the police!"

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Rosie

    And all this talk of martial law, why not try maybe, idk, the police first?

    That would be a lot more sensible. It’s not much help to Trump though since he doesn’t control the police.

    And of course it’s probably in Trump’s interests for the riots to keep going.

    • Replies: @216
    @dfordoom

    The riots have witnessed a significant increase in crime for most US metros, but the media is largely suppressing the news of it (a major change from their usual pattern of bleeds/leads)

    It isn't making much of a dent, because moderate white (women) are more concerned with Trump being "antagonistic".

    It isn't in Trump's interest for the riots to keep going, because he looks weak. At the same time, he can't directly use force to stop them.

    He has to look at it through the countersectional method.

    The most effective move is to call on his supporters to cancel their cable/netflix subscriptions and boycott a small number, but highly visible, of corporations that have backed BLM.

    Replies: @A123, @dfordoom

  27. @songbird
    I wonder how many of these people don't own houses or cars.

    Replies: @216

    The young and university educated are burdened with debt.

    This is why DSA’s Marxist “kill the landlords” rhetoric plays so well.

    I recall a focus group where Democrats assumed that the average Republican had an income of 150K, which is about 3x of what it actually is.

  28. @Cloudbuster
    @JackOH

    The writer Jim Bishop noted that victims of property crime will react with the same sense of hurt and anger as victims of violent crime, which he found remarkable. Maybe not so remarkable when you consider property is earned by the sweat of your brow and often has good sentimental associations.

    I think the modern conceit that it is excessive to use lethal force in defense of property is a profoundly decivilizing idea. The knowledge that if you try to take a man's hard-earned property that your life may be forfeit and that the law will smile upon your death is a strong message to outlaws (as is the concept of outlawry itself), and the elimination of people who would willfully commit property crimes is ultimately good for society.

    One researcher, I can't remember who (Edward Dutton? Or someone he talks about?), thinks that high levels of capital punishment in medieval Europe served to weed out much of the anti-social population of the area, creating actual selective pressure, and that the more "humane" justice system we have now is reversing that pressure and, along with other benefits of civilization causing a rise in mutational load and resultant anti-social behavior.

    Replies: @Charlotte, @JackOH, @Anon, @Audacious Epigone

    Society maybe makes too much of a distinction between ‘violent’ and ‘non-violent’ crime. In real life, I think the kind of people who’ll steal or destroy your property also tend to be the kind of people who’ll do you physical harm if they believe they can get away with it.

    • Agree: Cloudbuster, Twinkie, Alden
  29. @dfordoom
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive


    And all this talk of martial law, why not try maybe, idk, the police first?
     
    That would be a lot more sensible. It's not much help to Trump though since he doesn't control the police.

    And of course it's probably in Trump's interests for the riots to keep going.

    Replies: @216

    The riots have witnessed a significant increase in crime for most US metros, but the media is largely suppressing the news of it (a major change from their usual pattern of bleeds/leads)

    It isn’t making much of a dent, because moderate white (women) are more concerned with Trump being “antagonistic”.

    It isn’t in Trump’s interest for the riots to keep going, because he looks weak. At the same time, he can’t directly use force to stop them.

    He has to look at it through the countersectional method.

    The most effective move is to call on his supporters to cancel their cable/netflix subscriptions and boycott a small number, but highly visible, of corporations that have backed BLM.

    • Replies: @A123
    @216


    The riots have witnessed a significant increase in crime for most US metros, but the media is largely suppressing the news of it (a major change from their usual pattern of bleeds/leads)
     
    Incorrect. Many U.S. Metro areas are experiencing minimal difficulties.

    There is a distinct pattern to the riots and increased crime

    -- Worst case -- Blue Cities in Blue States
    -- Middle case -- Blue Cities in Red States
    -- Best case -- Red Cities in Red States


    It isn’t in Trump’s interest for the riots to keep going, because he looks weak.
     
    Trump looks like the strong adult in the room.

    Did your parents ever let you do something stupid so you would learn from that experience? Trump as "Father Figure" for the nation is allowing Blue Voters to learn a real life lesson. They are now experiencing the consequences of electing Blue City Mayors and Blue State Governors.


    The most effective move is to call on his supporters to cancel their cable/netflix subscriptions and boycott a small number, but highly visible, of corporations that have backed BLM.

     

    For expensive items like tires that can work as a tactic, but it is not very visible. Goodyear is having a sales problems, but it is difficult not to leverage that into a 30 second Ad Buy.

    Subscriptions far too easy to manipulate. What happens if Trump says people should cancel NetFlix? The opposition runs a promotional offer to boost Team Blue numbers.... "Get NetFlix for 99¢/mo. for the first 3 months.". Your choice of tactics will make Trump look weak when NetFlix subscriptions increase 50%+ in the run up to the election.
    ____

    Trump's strategy has delivered a massive body blow to NYC. The most Blue Mayor of them all moved homeless into high cost hotels. And, Team Blue is going to keep them there. (1)


    Mayor de Blasio’s promise to move homeless people housed temporarily in hotels in affluent Manhattan neighborhoods faces a likely legal challenge from those who advocate for them.

    The Legal Aid Society on Thursday said if de Blasio moved the homeless from their current Manhattan lodgings, he’d be appeasing “racist NIMBYism.”
     

    Families that pay NYC taxes are now abandoning the city at record rates. (2)

    Due to increasingly squalid conditions on the Upper West Side, including two new homeless shelters packed with junkies and registered sex offenders, longtime dwellers are departing the Big Apple with no plans to ever return.
    ...
    “In the best of times, NYC is a hard place to live,” said Carr. “Now you have all this other stuff. It’s a question for families … to have to see a guy masturbating on the corner or explain to my kids while I’m buying diapers at Duane Reade why this guy wearing no shoes is collapsed on the floor and they’re doing CPR on him.”
     
    And, all Trump has to do is stand back and let de Blasio drive voters to him.
    _____

    Voters see that Trump is wielding power with the grace and strength of Sun Tzu.

    Having TDS victims call him weak, just makes him look that much stronger. Reducing adversaries to mouth-frothing, rabid helplessness discourages future challenges.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/ny-legal-aid-tro-mayor-de-blasio-homeless-people-hotels-20200827-vtz2twphzfcivdmxu3jmgdnm4y-story.html

    (2) https://nypost.com/2020/08/08/nyc-moms-fleeing-upper-west-side-amid-crime-and-chaos/

    Replies: @216, @Mark G., @Alexander Turok

    , @dfordoom
    @216


    The most effective move is to call on his supporters to cancel their cable/netflix subscriptions and boycott a small number, but highly visible, of corporations that have backed BLM.
     
    An effective boycott can only be carried out by a group that is capable of acting as a well-organised highly motivated highly disciplined bloc.

    Back in the 1930s Hollywood caved in to threats of a Catholic boycott because at that time they believed Catholics were sufficiently well organised (they had the entire apparatus of the Church) and sufficiently motivated. They also had some elite support and some support from the Press.

    I very much doubt that Trump supporters have the necessary discipline and motivation and they certainly aren't well organised.

    A failed boycott simply makes you look weaker. For quite a while now people on the far right have repeated the mantra Get Woke, Go Broke. So far no Woke mega-corporation has gone broke.

    This is a variation on the "there's gonna be a massive backlash from the Silent Majority any day now" fantasy.

    There's also the problem that Trump is unlikely to want to make bitter enemies in the corporate sector.

    In purely cynical political terms (the only terms Trump understands) the smartest move is to keep churning out lots of rhetoric while doing nothing.

    Replies: @A123

  30. @Cloudbuster
    @JackOH

    The writer Jim Bishop noted that victims of property crime will react with the same sense of hurt and anger as victims of violent crime, which he found remarkable. Maybe not so remarkable when you consider property is earned by the sweat of your brow and often has good sentimental associations.

    I think the modern conceit that it is excessive to use lethal force in defense of property is a profoundly decivilizing idea. The knowledge that if you try to take a man's hard-earned property that your life may be forfeit and that the law will smile upon your death is a strong message to outlaws (as is the concept of outlawry itself), and the elimination of people who would willfully commit property crimes is ultimately good for society.

    One researcher, I can't remember who (Edward Dutton? Or someone he talks about?), thinks that high levels of capital punishment in medieval Europe served to weed out much of the anti-social population of the area, creating actual selective pressure, and that the more "humane" justice system we have now is reversing that pressure and, along with other benefits of civilization causing a rise in mutational load and resultant anti-social behavior.

    Replies: @Charlotte, @JackOH, @Anon, @Audacious Epigone

    There are those phrases sometimes used to console victims of burglary, vandalism, arson, theft, etc: “It’s only money” or “You can always replace property”. Sometimes those same phrases are used to urge compliance with a violent robber.

    A vandal tears the social fabric of law and expectations of ordinary human decency by slashing my car tires. Am I expected to believe that by replacing those tires at my own expense or by filing an insurance claim, the social fabric has been mended?

    IOW-I’m leaning towards agreement with you.

    • Agree: Cloudbuster
  31. Anon[108] • Disclaimer says:
    @Cloudbuster
    @JackOH

    The writer Jim Bishop noted that victims of property crime will react with the same sense of hurt and anger as victims of violent crime, which he found remarkable. Maybe not so remarkable when you consider property is earned by the sweat of your brow and often has good sentimental associations.

    I think the modern conceit that it is excessive to use lethal force in defense of property is a profoundly decivilizing idea. The knowledge that if you try to take a man's hard-earned property that your life may be forfeit and that the law will smile upon your death is a strong message to outlaws (as is the concept of outlawry itself), and the elimination of people who would willfully commit property crimes is ultimately good for society.

    One researcher, I can't remember who (Edward Dutton? Or someone he talks about?), thinks that high levels of capital punishment in medieval Europe served to weed out much of the anti-social population of the area, creating actual selective pressure, and that the more "humane" justice system we have now is reversing that pressure and, along with other benefits of civilization causing a rise in mutational load and resultant anti-social behavior.

    Replies: @Charlotte, @JackOH, @Anon, @Audacious Epigone

    Most of what we call “anti-social behavior” is the normal, healthy condition. It is populations with a higher mutational load who have a higher compliance with laws/social norms. The population with the lowest mutational load (Sub Saharan Africans) have the highest offense rate in the USA. The population with the highest mutational load (East Asian) is the best behaved.

    It requires deleterious mutations to produce obedient, law-abiding citizens who study hard and play less. The genetically healthy humans drop out of high school, twerk, punch people at the bar, and murder working grandparents in convenience store robberies. What you describe (selective application of homicide to one specific segment of the population for hundreds of years) can only lead to homozygosity and Ashkenazi Jew-like genetic disaster.

    https://www.pnas.org/content/113/4/E440

    Distance from sub-Saharan Africa predicts mutational load in diverse human genomes

    Human genomes carry hundreds of mutations that are predicted to be deleterious in some environments, potentially affecting the health or fitness of an individual. We characterize the distribution of deleterious mutations among diverse human populations, modeled under different selection coefficients and dominance parameters. Using a new dataset of diverse human genomes from seven different populations, we use spatially explicit simulations to reveal that classes of deleterious alleles have very different patterns across populations, reflecting the interaction between genetic drift and purifying selection. We show that there is a strong signal of purifying selection at conserved genomic positions within African populations, but most predicted deleterious mutations have evolved as if they were neutral during the expansion out of Africa

    • LOL: Cloudbuster
    • Replies: @Peter Frost
    @Anon

    Most of what we call “anti-social behavior” is the normal, healthy condition. It is populations with a higher mutational load who have a higher compliance with laws/social norms. The population with the lowest mutational load (Sub Saharan Africans) have the highest offense rate in the USA. The population with the highest mutational load (East Asian) is the best behaved.

    The reference you cite doesn't really support your argument:


    There is an ongoing debate on whether selection has been equally or more efficient in African versus non-African populations due to the major bottleneck that occurred in the ancestors of OOA populations. Two studies found no significant differences in mutation load between European Americans and African Americans under an additive model with two classes of alleles: deleterious and neutral. Fu et al. (11) identified small but significant differences in the average number of alleles and the SFS, potentially due to a different algorithm for predicting mutation effect than earlier studies. We argue that estimates of the efficacy of selection should take into account not only the number of mutations per individual but also the predicted severity of mutational effect. [...]
     

    For variants that have putatively moderate (2 ≤ GERP < 4) or extreme deleterious effect (GERP ≥ 6), we do not see a significant difference between African and non-African populations in the number of mutations per individual. Significant per-individual differences are only observed for the intermediate large-effect category. [...]
     

    We note that the observed differences between populations are relatively small compared with the within-population variance. Nonetheless, a novel measure of the efficacy of selection, RH, is significantly different across all three mutational categories between sub-Saharan Africans and non-Africans in our dataset. That is, the observed heterozygosity at deleterious loci is greater in non-Africans than in Africans—after correcting for neutral genetic diversity in each group. This is particularly significant for moderate- and large-effect mutations
     
    In short, the number of harmful mutations is the same for Africans and non-Africans, but non-Africans tend to have more harmful mutations with large effects (although the difference is small).

    This is because the rate of evolutionary change has been more rapid outside Africa than in Africa. There has been selection for alleles that are beneficial in the more common heterozygous state and harmful in the less common homozygous state.

    You sort of understand this point. Well, sort of:

    What you describe (selective application of homicide to one specific segment of the population for hundreds of years) can only lead to homozygosity and Ashkenazi Jew-like genetic disaster.

    Uh, the genetic problems develop only with homozygosity. In any case, I wouldn't call the Ashkenazi Jews "a genetic disaster." On balance, they've done rather well, and out-marriage will probably be their undoing.

    Replies: @Anon

  32. @216
    @dfordoom

    The riots have witnessed a significant increase in crime for most US metros, but the media is largely suppressing the news of it (a major change from their usual pattern of bleeds/leads)

    It isn't making much of a dent, because moderate white (women) are more concerned with Trump being "antagonistic".

    It isn't in Trump's interest for the riots to keep going, because he looks weak. At the same time, he can't directly use force to stop them.

    He has to look at it through the countersectional method.

    The most effective move is to call on his supporters to cancel their cable/netflix subscriptions and boycott a small number, but highly visible, of corporations that have backed BLM.

    Replies: @A123, @dfordoom

    The riots have witnessed a significant increase in crime for most US metros, but the media is largely suppressing the news of it (a major change from their usual pattern of bleeds/leads)

    Incorrect. Many U.S. Metro areas are experiencing minimal difficulties.

    There is a distinct pattern to the riots and increased crime

    — Worst case — Blue Cities in Blue States
    — Middle case — Blue Cities in Red States
    — Best case — Red Cities in Red States

    It isn’t in Trump’s interest for the riots to keep going, because he looks weak.

    Trump looks like the strong adult in the room.

    Did your parents ever let you do something stupid so you would learn from that experience? Trump as “Father Figure” for the nation is allowing Blue Voters to learn a real life lesson. They are now experiencing the consequences of electing Blue City Mayors and Blue State Governors.

    The most effective move is to call on his supporters to cancel their cable/netflix subscriptions and boycott a small number, but highly visible, of corporations that have backed BLM.

    For expensive items like tires that can work as a tactic, but it is not very visible. Goodyear is having a sales problems, but it is difficult not to leverage that into a 30 second Ad Buy.

    Subscriptions far too easy to manipulate. What happens if Trump says people should cancel NetFlix? The opposition runs a promotional offer to boost Team Blue numbers…. “Get NetFlix for 99¢/mo. for the first 3 months.“. Your choice of tactics will make Trump look weak when NetFlix subscriptions increase 50%+ in the run up to the election.
    ____

    Trump’s strategy has delivered a massive body blow to NYC. The most Blue Mayor of them all moved homeless into high cost hotels. And, Team Blue is going to keep them there. (1)

    Mayor de Blasio’s promise to move homeless people housed temporarily in hotels in affluent Manhattan neighborhoods faces a likely legal challenge from those who advocate for them.

    The Legal Aid Society on Thursday said if de Blasio moved the homeless from their current Manhattan lodgings, he’d be appeasing “racist NIMBYism.”

    Families that pay NYC taxes are now abandoning the city at record rates. (2)

    Due to increasingly squalid conditions on the Upper West Side, including two new homeless shelters packed with junkies and registered sex offenders, longtime dwellers are departing the Big Apple with no plans to ever return.

    “In the best of times, NYC is a hard place to live,” said Carr. “Now you have all this other stuff. It’s a question for families … to have to see a guy masturbating on the corner or explain to my kids while I’m buying diapers at Duane Reade why this guy wearing no shoes is collapsed on the floor and they’re doing CPR on him.”

    And, all Trump has to do is stand back and let de Blasio drive voters to him.
    _____

    Voters see that Trump is wielding power with the grace and strength of Sun Tzu.

    Having TDS victims call him weak, just makes him look that much stronger. Reducing adversaries to mouth-frothing, rabid helplessness discourages future challenges.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/ny-legal-aid-tro-mayor-de-blasio-homeless-people-hotels-20200827-vtz2twphzfcivdmxu3jmgdnm4y-story.html

    (2) https://nypost.com/2020/08/08/nyc-moms-fleeing-upper-west-side-amid-crime-and-chaos/

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @216
    @A123


    For expensive items like tires that can work as a tactic, but it is not very visible. Goodyear is having a sales problems, but it is difficult not to leverage that into a 30 second Ad Buy.

    Subscriptions far too easy to manipulate. What happens if Trump says people should cancel NetFlix? The opposition runs a promotional offer to boost Team Blue numbers…. “Get NetFlix for 99¢/mo. for the first 3 months.“. Your choice of tactics will make Trump look weak when NetFlix subscriptions increase 50%+ in the run up to the election.
     
    I was very happy to see the call to boycott Goodyear, but the company was mostly fearful of law enforcement agencies not buying tires. They never apologized to Trump or his supporters.

    Trump has hemmed and hawed on an explicit call for a sports boycott. It doesn't help that he appointed the NY Jets owner to the UK ambassadorship. He's said he isn't watching personally, and cheers low ratings. But he won't make an explicit break with the GOP's donor class and order his supporters to turn it off. Not to mention that few in Congress are calling for a boycott or using their influence to find other ways of hurting the sports leagues.

    My preference is to call for boycotting (Starbucks-Seattle) (Nike-Portland). I'm not sure what a visible NYC corporation would be good to target. Speaking of Target, they are a good idea given their importance in the Twin Cities.
    , @Mark G.
    @A123


    Did your parents ever let you do something stupid so you would learn from that experience? Trump as “Father Figure” for the nation is allowing Blue Voters to learn a real life lesson. They are now experiencing the consequences of electing Blue City Mayors and Blue State Governors.
     
    Trump and the Republicans in Congress need to strongly oppose attempts by Democrats in Congress to bail out these Blue Cities and Blue States with federal money. Cities and states that follow saner policies and end up with stronger economies shouldn't have federal taxes extracted from them so the money can be passed over to the poorly run Democrat parts of the country where the people who form the local and state tax base are currently fleeing from.
    , @Alexander Turok
    @A123

    And Mueller is working with Trump, right? It may look like Trump's incompetent, but he's only pretending to be retarded. Trust in the plan. Trumpism should have the following Orwellian slogan:


    Talk is Action
    Nothing is Something
    Losing is Winning
     
  33. @A123
    @216


    The riots have witnessed a significant increase in crime for most US metros, but the media is largely suppressing the news of it (a major change from their usual pattern of bleeds/leads)
     
    Incorrect. Many U.S. Metro areas are experiencing minimal difficulties.

    There is a distinct pattern to the riots and increased crime

    -- Worst case -- Blue Cities in Blue States
    -- Middle case -- Blue Cities in Red States
    -- Best case -- Red Cities in Red States


    It isn’t in Trump’s interest for the riots to keep going, because he looks weak.
     
    Trump looks like the strong adult in the room.

    Did your parents ever let you do something stupid so you would learn from that experience? Trump as "Father Figure" for the nation is allowing Blue Voters to learn a real life lesson. They are now experiencing the consequences of electing Blue City Mayors and Blue State Governors.


    The most effective move is to call on his supporters to cancel their cable/netflix subscriptions and boycott a small number, but highly visible, of corporations that have backed BLM.

     

    For expensive items like tires that can work as a tactic, but it is not very visible. Goodyear is having a sales problems, but it is difficult not to leverage that into a 30 second Ad Buy.

    Subscriptions far too easy to manipulate. What happens if Trump says people should cancel NetFlix? The opposition runs a promotional offer to boost Team Blue numbers.... "Get NetFlix for 99¢/mo. for the first 3 months.". Your choice of tactics will make Trump look weak when NetFlix subscriptions increase 50%+ in the run up to the election.
    ____

    Trump's strategy has delivered a massive body blow to NYC. The most Blue Mayor of them all moved homeless into high cost hotels. And, Team Blue is going to keep them there. (1)


    Mayor de Blasio’s promise to move homeless people housed temporarily in hotels in affluent Manhattan neighborhoods faces a likely legal challenge from those who advocate for them.

    The Legal Aid Society on Thursday said if de Blasio moved the homeless from their current Manhattan lodgings, he’d be appeasing “racist NIMBYism.”
     

    Families that pay NYC taxes are now abandoning the city at record rates. (2)

    Due to increasingly squalid conditions on the Upper West Side, including two new homeless shelters packed with junkies and registered sex offenders, longtime dwellers are departing the Big Apple with no plans to ever return.
    ...
    “In the best of times, NYC is a hard place to live,” said Carr. “Now you have all this other stuff. It’s a question for families … to have to see a guy masturbating on the corner or explain to my kids while I’m buying diapers at Duane Reade why this guy wearing no shoes is collapsed on the floor and they’re doing CPR on him.”
     
    And, all Trump has to do is stand back and let de Blasio drive voters to him.
    _____

    Voters see that Trump is wielding power with the grace and strength of Sun Tzu.

    Having TDS victims call him weak, just makes him look that much stronger. Reducing adversaries to mouth-frothing, rabid helplessness discourages future challenges.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/ny-legal-aid-tro-mayor-de-blasio-homeless-people-hotels-20200827-vtz2twphzfcivdmxu3jmgdnm4y-story.html

    (2) https://nypost.com/2020/08/08/nyc-moms-fleeing-upper-west-side-amid-crime-and-chaos/

    Replies: @216, @Mark G., @Alexander Turok

    For expensive items like tires that can work as a tactic, but it is not very visible. Goodyear is having a sales problems, but it is difficult not to leverage that into a 30 second Ad Buy.

    Subscriptions far too easy to manipulate. What happens if Trump says people should cancel NetFlix? The opposition runs a promotional offer to boost Team Blue numbers…. “Get NetFlix for 99¢/mo. for the first 3 months.“. Your choice of tactics will make Trump look weak when NetFlix subscriptions increase 50%+ in the run up to the election.

    I was very happy to see the call to boycott Goodyear, but the company was mostly fearful of law enforcement agencies not buying tires. They never apologized to Trump or his supporters.

    Trump has hemmed and hawed on an explicit call for a sports boycott. It doesn’t help that he appointed the NY Jets owner to the UK ambassadorship. He’s said he isn’t watching personally, and cheers low ratings. But he won’t make an explicit break with the GOP’s donor class and order his supporters to turn it off. Not to mention that few in Congress are calling for a boycott or using their influence to find other ways of hurting the sports leagues.

    My preference is to call for boycotting (Starbucks-Seattle) (Nike-Portland). I’m not sure what a visible NYC corporation would be good to target. Speaking of Target, they are a good idea given their importance in the Twin Cities.

  34. @A123
    @216


    The riots have witnessed a significant increase in crime for most US metros, but the media is largely suppressing the news of it (a major change from their usual pattern of bleeds/leads)
     
    Incorrect. Many U.S. Metro areas are experiencing minimal difficulties.

    There is a distinct pattern to the riots and increased crime

    -- Worst case -- Blue Cities in Blue States
    -- Middle case -- Blue Cities in Red States
    -- Best case -- Red Cities in Red States


    It isn’t in Trump’s interest for the riots to keep going, because he looks weak.
     
    Trump looks like the strong adult in the room.

    Did your parents ever let you do something stupid so you would learn from that experience? Trump as "Father Figure" for the nation is allowing Blue Voters to learn a real life lesson. They are now experiencing the consequences of electing Blue City Mayors and Blue State Governors.


    The most effective move is to call on his supporters to cancel their cable/netflix subscriptions and boycott a small number, but highly visible, of corporations that have backed BLM.

     

    For expensive items like tires that can work as a tactic, but it is not very visible. Goodyear is having a sales problems, but it is difficult not to leverage that into a 30 second Ad Buy.

    Subscriptions far too easy to manipulate. What happens if Trump says people should cancel NetFlix? The opposition runs a promotional offer to boost Team Blue numbers.... "Get NetFlix for 99¢/mo. for the first 3 months.". Your choice of tactics will make Trump look weak when NetFlix subscriptions increase 50%+ in the run up to the election.
    ____

    Trump's strategy has delivered a massive body blow to NYC. The most Blue Mayor of them all moved homeless into high cost hotels. And, Team Blue is going to keep them there. (1)


    Mayor de Blasio’s promise to move homeless people housed temporarily in hotels in affluent Manhattan neighborhoods faces a likely legal challenge from those who advocate for them.

    The Legal Aid Society on Thursday said if de Blasio moved the homeless from their current Manhattan lodgings, he’d be appeasing “racist NIMBYism.”
     

    Families that pay NYC taxes are now abandoning the city at record rates. (2)

    Due to increasingly squalid conditions on the Upper West Side, including two new homeless shelters packed with junkies and registered sex offenders, longtime dwellers are departing the Big Apple with no plans to ever return.
    ...
    “In the best of times, NYC is a hard place to live,” said Carr. “Now you have all this other stuff. It’s a question for families … to have to see a guy masturbating on the corner or explain to my kids while I’m buying diapers at Duane Reade why this guy wearing no shoes is collapsed on the floor and they’re doing CPR on him.”
     
    And, all Trump has to do is stand back and let de Blasio drive voters to him.
    _____

    Voters see that Trump is wielding power with the grace and strength of Sun Tzu.

    Having TDS victims call him weak, just makes him look that much stronger. Reducing adversaries to mouth-frothing, rabid helplessness discourages future challenges.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/ny-legal-aid-tro-mayor-de-blasio-homeless-people-hotels-20200827-vtz2twphzfcivdmxu3jmgdnm4y-story.html

    (2) https://nypost.com/2020/08/08/nyc-moms-fleeing-upper-west-side-amid-crime-and-chaos/

    Replies: @216, @Mark G., @Alexander Turok

    Did your parents ever let you do something stupid so you would learn from that experience? Trump as “Father Figure” for the nation is allowing Blue Voters to learn a real life lesson. They are now experiencing the consequences of electing Blue City Mayors and Blue State Governors.

    Trump and the Republicans in Congress need to strongly oppose attempts by Democrats in Congress to bail out these Blue Cities and Blue States with federal money. Cities and states that follow saner policies and end up with stronger economies shouldn’t have federal taxes extracted from them so the money can be passed over to the poorly run Democrat parts of the country where the people who form the local and state tax base are currently fleeing from.

  35. @Realist
    Older, White, very conservative men are the smartest of all Americans. And that is what our founding fathers knew.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Franz

    Older, White, very conservative men are the smartest of all Americans. And that is what our founding fathers knew.

    This is, of course, a totally uncalled-for jab at women, but I must say, it’s a great deal less obnoxious than what I used to see here. It’s good to see the backs of one’s enemies in retreat.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Rosie


    This is, of course, a totally uncalled-for jab at women, but I must say, it’s a great deal less obnoxious than what I used to see here.
     
    It's not uncalled for at all. The majority of women are liberal and in this poll women voted more stupidly than men...though men did not comport themselves very well, in these two polls.

    It’s good to see the backs of one’s enemies in retreat.
     
    I do not consider myself an enemy of women.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Rosie


    It’s good to see the backs of one’s enemies in retreat.
     
    Culo es muy bueno!
  36. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @dfordoom


    And if a handful of people are killed in riots and you send in the military and they kill a few hundred people (which could happen if officers lose control of troops) the optics are really really bad. You can very quickly go from looking like the good guy to looking like the bad guy.
     
    It's a moot point since the military is under the control of the same people paying for and organizing the rioters. But, that being said, if you had real control of the military, that means de facto control of the press i n the case of martial law so "looking like the bad guy" really doesn't matter at all, the CCP certainly didn't seem too damaged by it.

    And all this talk of martial law, why not try maybe, idk, the police first? They've let them have free reign generally, but every time they take the kid gloves off for a split second the rioters disperse immediately. Using just the NON-LETHAL tools at their disposal would see the riots ended very quickly. This rabble of degenerate criminals is prepared to do battle with organized police forces just like they were ready to do battle with Kyle Rittenhouse. The first sign of real resistance and suddenly the first words out of the tough-guy street anarchist are "Call the police, call the police!"

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Rosie

    It’s a moot point since the military is under the control of the same people paying for and organizing the rioters.

    Indeed. Hence my puzzlement at the post-RBG antijudicial hysteria, as if transferring power from the judiciary to the other (and arguably even more) treacherous branches of government would do us any good at this juncture.

  37. @216
    @dfordoom

    The riots have witnessed a significant increase in crime for most US metros, but the media is largely suppressing the news of it (a major change from their usual pattern of bleeds/leads)

    It isn't making much of a dent, because moderate white (women) are more concerned with Trump being "antagonistic".

    It isn't in Trump's interest for the riots to keep going, because he looks weak. At the same time, he can't directly use force to stop them.

    He has to look at it through the countersectional method.

    The most effective move is to call on his supporters to cancel their cable/netflix subscriptions and boycott a small number, but highly visible, of corporations that have backed BLM.

    Replies: @A123, @dfordoom

    The most effective move is to call on his supporters to cancel their cable/netflix subscriptions and boycott a small number, but highly visible, of corporations that have backed BLM.

    An effective boycott can only be carried out by a group that is capable of acting as a well-organised highly motivated highly disciplined bloc.

    Back in the 1930s Hollywood caved in to threats of a Catholic boycott because at that time they believed Catholics were sufficiently well organised (they had the entire apparatus of the Church) and sufficiently motivated. They also had some elite support and some support from the Press.

    I very much doubt that Trump supporters have the necessary discipline and motivation and they certainly aren’t well organised.

    A failed boycott simply makes you look weaker. For quite a while now people on the far right have repeated the mantra Get Woke, Go Broke. So far no Woke mega-corporation has gone broke.

    This is a variation on the “there’s gonna be a massive backlash from the Silent Majority any day now” fantasy.

    There’s also the problem that Trump is unlikely to want to make bitter enemies in the corporate sector.

    In purely cynical political terms (the only terms Trump understands) the smartest move is to keep churning out lots of rhetoric while doing nothing.

    • Replies: @A123
    @dfordoom


    A failed boycott simply makes you look weaker.
     
    Yes. Politics vs has one clear lesson:

    FAILURE = WEAKNESS = DEFEAT

    Trying to generate a boycott and failing would be bad. Trying to intervene in the BLM riots and failing would be worse.

    There is also limited upside to trying in pushing a boycott. Unless one can wipe out a high visibility target, the political gains are limited.

    Back in the 1930s Hollywood caved in to threats of a Catholic boycott because at that time they believed Catholics were sufficiently well organised
     
    Going to a physical location was required in the 1930's. Thus, monitoring the flock for scabs was straightforward.

    With living room transactions, how does a protesting group identify and apply social pressure on NetFlix scabs? There is an entire class of boycotts that is much harder now, because there is nowhere to place the picket line.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @216

  38. The way I see it, property is something that is earned* by expending a very scarce, precious, ever-disappearing commodity – time, in other words some portion of my limited lifespan.

    So when someone steals from me and takes or destroys my property, he is taking a part of my life, something that cannot be won or earned back – time gone is time gone, no amount of money or work can regain it.

    So in a decent society, a person ought to be able to use lethal force to defend property, especially property that relates to one’s livelihood or life’s work.

    *What about inherited or given property you ask? Well, it was still earned by somebody if not by the current possessor. The criminal is taking life from that somebody. If I worked all my life and built a business and gave it to my children and some thug came along and burnt it, there is still a victim (me, in this case) whose lifespan was stolen by the said thug.

    • Agree: Cloudbuster, Mark G.
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    I got the distinct impression that the people who play the apologist for property destruction are the kinds who never had to build anything for themselves over the course of decades and watch it get destroyed in one night: and don't know people who have.

    , @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    So in a decent society, a person ought to be able to use lethal force to defend property, especially property that relates to one’s livelihood or life’s work.
     
    In a decent society you'd have a police force to defend your property.

    You have to be very careful about encouraging the idea of people taking the law into their own hands. Vigilante justice is a dangerous thing.

    Personally I prefer the older method. You know, giving people a fair trial. Innocent until proven guilty, that sort of thing. All very unfashionable these days.

    Encouraging vigilante justice is an admission that you have a failed society, and vigilantes are likely to make things worse rather than better.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Daniel Chieh, @Twinkie

  39. @Realist
    Older, White, very conservative men are the smartest of all Americans. And that is what our founding fathers knew.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Franz

    Older, White, very conservative men are the smartest of all Americans.

    True.

    Another often overlooked reason: They’re much more likely to be veterans. From Eisenhower’s draft till the early 70s military service was a given. Men joined a branch that might do them some good to avoid waiting till their draft number came up.

    Military service instills a certain level of experience and the right level of apprehension to consider what happens when laws are ignored.

    All the low numbers on the second graph are unsurprising. Liberals were more likely to avoid service back when the draft existed; often having had the means to go overseas or to Canada for education.

    Younger vets seem to catch this too. They have a seriousness their non-vet Affirmative Action comrades don’t seem to understand. But older vets find that pretty familiar, having put up with some of that when we got out too.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Franz

    >Military service instills a certain level of experience and the right level of apprehension to consider what happens when laws are ignored.

    Not the case if you don't have a certain level of basic human capital to start out with. You ever heard of McNamara's Morons? In the late 1960s, the Army was having trouble recruiting, so they lowered standards to allow mentally subnormal men in. In practice, all this achieved was giving enemy snipers and booby trap builders (something the Vietnamese excelled at) ridiculously easy targets.

    The American military's professional warrior class-special operators, etc-tend to be very, very high class, but that's not the majority of the intake, and it is a genuine question whether most 20-somethings could be taken in between piercings/tattoos, mental illness, and obesity. The IDF and the ROKA-two militaries that still rely off conscription-don't deal with these problems, or at least on a negligible scale compared to the US.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Franz

  40. Should convenience store operators be allowed to shoot and kill 12 year old shoplifters?

  41. @Rosie
    @Realist


    Older, White, very conservative men are the smartest of all Americans. And that is what our founding fathers knew.
     
    This is, of course, a totally uncalled-for jab at women, but I must say, it's a great deal less obnoxious than what I used to see here. It's good to see the backs of one's enemies in retreat.

    Replies: @Realist, @Chrisnonymous

    This is, of course, a totally uncalled-for jab at women, but I must say, it’s a great deal less obnoxious than what I used to see here.

    It’s not uncalled for at all. The majority of women are liberal and in this poll women voted more stupidly than men…though men did not comport themselves very well, in these two polls.

    It’s good to see the backs of one’s enemies in retreat.

    I do not consider myself an enemy of women.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Realist


    I do not consider myself an enemy of women.
     
    I don't care what you "consider yourself." If you threaten women's rights, then you are an enemy of women.

    The majority of women are liberal
     
    The majority of White women have voted for Republicans in the vast majority of presidential elections in recent memory, albeit not as slavishly as White men.

    Replies: @Realist

  42. @Realist
    @Rosie


    This is, of course, a totally uncalled-for jab at women, but I must say, it’s a great deal less obnoxious than what I used to see here.
     
    It's not uncalled for at all. The majority of women are liberal and in this poll women voted more stupidly than men...though men did not comport themselves very well, in these two polls.

    It’s good to see the backs of one’s enemies in retreat.
     
    I do not consider myself an enemy of women.

    Replies: @Rosie

    I do not consider myself an enemy of women.

    I don’t care what you “consider yourself.” If you threaten women’s rights, then you are an enemy of women.

    The majority of women are liberal

    The majority of White women have voted for Republicans in the vast majority of presidential elections in recent memory, albeit not as slavishly as White men.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Rosie


    If you threaten women’s rights, then you are an enemy of women.
     
    Why do women have rights...men don't? What rights do men have that women don't?

    Replies: @Rosie

  43. @Rosie
    @Realist


    I do not consider myself an enemy of women.
     
    I don't care what you "consider yourself." If you threaten women's rights, then you are an enemy of women.

    The majority of women are liberal
     
    The majority of White women have voted for Republicans in the vast majority of presidential elections in recent memory, albeit not as slavishly as White men.

    Replies: @Realist

    If you threaten women’s rights, then you are an enemy of women.

    Why do women have rights…men don’t? What rights do men have that women don’t?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Realist


    Why do women have rights…men don’t? What rights do men have that women don’t?
     
    None that I can think of. I assume you're looking to change that, or was your jab at women apropos of nothing?

    Replies: @Realist

  44. @Realist
    @Rosie


    If you threaten women’s rights, then you are an enemy of women.
     
    Why do women have rights...men don't? What rights do men have that women don't?

    Replies: @Rosie

    Why do women have rights…men don’t? What rights do men have that women don’t?

    None that I can think of. I assume you’re looking to change that, or was your jab at women apropos of nothing?

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Rosie


    None that I can think of.
     
    There were two questions. Your earlier comment; If you threaten women’s rights, then you are an enemy of women. Implies that women have rights, that men don't...what are they?

    Replies: @Rosie

  45. @Observator
    Despite the spreading of false narratives to define these protests as exercises in “rioting and looting,” by the system’s propaganda mechanisms, millions of people are apparently willing to openly support these protests.

    This is good because it proves that most people are refusing to accept the backward analysis that murdering protesters to protect property is OK, while damaging property to protest murder is an unforgivable act.

    Replies: @Johnny Smoggins

    White owned property has more value than a black life. A shack owned by a White man has more value than the life of a black baby.So it is written, so it shall be.

    • Disagree: Audacious Epigone, dfordoom
  46. @Rosie
    @Realist


    Why do women have rights…men don’t? What rights do men have that women don’t?
     
    None that I can think of. I assume you're looking to change that, or was your jab at women apropos of nothing?

    Replies: @Realist

    None that I can think of.

    There were two questions. Your earlier comment; If you threaten women’s rights, then you are an enemy of women. Implies that women have rights, that men don’t…what are they?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Realist


    Your earlier comment; If you threaten women’s rights, then you are an enemy of women. Implies that women have rights, that men don’t…what are they?
     
    This kind logic makes me want to curl up in the fetal position and cry myself to sleep.

    Replies: @Realist, @Daniel Chieh

  47. @Realist
    @Rosie


    None that I can think of.
     
    There were two questions. Your earlier comment; If you threaten women’s rights, then you are an enemy of women. Implies that women have rights, that men don't...what are they?

    Replies: @Rosie

    Your earlier comment; If you threaten women’s rights, then you are an enemy of women. Implies that women have rights, that men don’t…what are they?

    This kind logic makes me want to curl up in the fetal position and cry myself to sleep.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Rosie

    This kind logic makes me want to curl up in the fetal position and cry myself to sleep.

    You wouldn't recognize logic if it bit you on the ass.

    You are skirting the issue...answer the question. Why do you call it women's rights if it is not exclusively for women???

    Replies: @Rosie, @Twinkie

    , @Daniel Chieh
    @Rosie

    Sounds like that logic should be applied more, then.

    Replies: @Realist

  48. @A123
    @216


    The riots have witnessed a significant increase in crime for most US metros, but the media is largely suppressing the news of it (a major change from their usual pattern of bleeds/leads)
     
    Incorrect. Many U.S. Metro areas are experiencing minimal difficulties.

    There is a distinct pattern to the riots and increased crime

    -- Worst case -- Blue Cities in Blue States
    -- Middle case -- Blue Cities in Red States
    -- Best case -- Red Cities in Red States


    It isn’t in Trump’s interest for the riots to keep going, because he looks weak.
     
    Trump looks like the strong adult in the room.

    Did your parents ever let you do something stupid so you would learn from that experience? Trump as "Father Figure" for the nation is allowing Blue Voters to learn a real life lesson. They are now experiencing the consequences of electing Blue City Mayors and Blue State Governors.


    The most effective move is to call on his supporters to cancel their cable/netflix subscriptions and boycott a small number, but highly visible, of corporations that have backed BLM.

     

    For expensive items like tires that can work as a tactic, but it is not very visible. Goodyear is having a sales problems, but it is difficult not to leverage that into a 30 second Ad Buy.

    Subscriptions far too easy to manipulate. What happens if Trump says people should cancel NetFlix? The opposition runs a promotional offer to boost Team Blue numbers.... "Get NetFlix for 99¢/mo. for the first 3 months.". Your choice of tactics will make Trump look weak when NetFlix subscriptions increase 50%+ in the run up to the election.
    ____

    Trump's strategy has delivered a massive body blow to NYC. The most Blue Mayor of them all moved homeless into high cost hotels. And, Team Blue is going to keep them there. (1)


    Mayor de Blasio’s promise to move homeless people housed temporarily in hotels in affluent Manhattan neighborhoods faces a likely legal challenge from those who advocate for them.

    The Legal Aid Society on Thursday said if de Blasio moved the homeless from their current Manhattan lodgings, he’d be appeasing “racist NIMBYism.”
     

    Families that pay NYC taxes are now abandoning the city at record rates. (2)

    Due to increasingly squalid conditions on the Upper West Side, including two new homeless shelters packed with junkies and registered sex offenders, longtime dwellers are departing the Big Apple with no plans to ever return.
    ...
    “In the best of times, NYC is a hard place to live,” said Carr. “Now you have all this other stuff. It’s a question for families … to have to see a guy masturbating on the corner or explain to my kids while I’m buying diapers at Duane Reade why this guy wearing no shoes is collapsed on the floor and they’re doing CPR on him.”
     
    And, all Trump has to do is stand back and let de Blasio drive voters to him.
    _____

    Voters see that Trump is wielding power with the grace and strength of Sun Tzu.

    Having TDS victims call him weak, just makes him look that much stronger. Reducing adversaries to mouth-frothing, rabid helplessness discourages future challenges.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/ny-legal-aid-tro-mayor-de-blasio-homeless-people-hotels-20200827-vtz2twphzfcivdmxu3jmgdnm4y-story.html

    (2) https://nypost.com/2020/08/08/nyc-moms-fleeing-upper-west-side-amid-crime-and-chaos/

    Replies: @216, @Mark G., @Alexander Turok

    And Mueller is working with Trump, right? It may look like Trump’s incompetent, but he’s only pretending to be retarded. Trust in the plan. Trumpism should have the following Orwellian slogan:

    Talk is Action
    Nothing is Something
    Losing is Winning

  49. @dfordoom
    @216


    The most effective move is to call on his supporters to cancel their cable/netflix subscriptions and boycott a small number, but highly visible, of corporations that have backed BLM.
     
    An effective boycott can only be carried out by a group that is capable of acting as a well-organised highly motivated highly disciplined bloc.

    Back in the 1930s Hollywood caved in to threats of a Catholic boycott because at that time they believed Catholics were sufficiently well organised (they had the entire apparatus of the Church) and sufficiently motivated. They also had some elite support and some support from the Press.

    I very much doubt that Trump supporters have the necessary discipline and motivation and they certainly aren't well organised.

    A failed boycott simply makes you look weaker. For quite a while now people on the far right have repeated the mantra Get Woke, Go Broke. So far no Woke mega-corporation has gone broke.

    This is a variation on the "there's gonna be a massive backlash from the Silent Majority any day now" fantasy.

    There's also the problem that Trump is unlikely to want to make bitter enemies in the corporate sector.

    In purely cynical political terms (the only terms Trump understands) the smartest move is to keep churning out lots of rhetoric while doing nothing.

    Replies: @A123

    A failed boycott simply makes you look weaker.

    Yes. Politics vs has one clear lesson:

    FAILURE = WEAKNESS = DEFEAT

    Trying to generate a boycott and failing would be bad. Trying to intervene in the BLM riots and failing would be worse.

    There is also limited upside to trying in pushing a boycott. Unless one can wipe out a high visibility target, the political gains are limited.

    Back in the 1930s Hollywood caved in to threats of a Catholic boycott because at that time they believed Catholics were sufficiently well organised

    Going to a physical location was required in the 1930’s. Thus, monitoring the flock for scabs was straightforward.

    With living room transactions, how does a protesting group identify and apply social pressure on NetFlix scabs? There is an entire class of boycotts that is much harder now, because there is nowhere to place the picket line.

    PEACE 😇

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @216
    @A123

    Cons could ensure compliance the same way that BLM does, through social media.

    If every normiecon that mentions NFL anything got dogpiled, it might scare some into line.

    Replies: @A123

  50. @Rosie
    @Realist


    Your earlier comment; If you threaten women’s rights, then you are an enemy of women. Implies that women have rights, that men don’t…what are they?
     
    This kind logic makes me want to curl up in the fetal position and cry myself to sleep.

    Replies: @Realist, @Daniel Chieh

    This kind logic makes me want to curl up in the fetal position and cry myself to sleep.

    You wouldn’t recognize logic if it bit you on the ass.

    You are skirting the issue…answer the question. Why do you call it women’s rights if it is not exclusively for women???

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Realist


    You are skirting the issue…answer the question. Why do you call it women’s rights if it is not exclusively for women???
     
    I'm not a dog that barks on command. Somehow, I have used this term repeatedly on this site, and not a single person has been so petty and obtuse as to pretend they don't understand what the meaning of this term, whether they agree with nor not. You are in a class all your own.

    Replies: @Realist

    , @Twinkie
    @Realist


    skirting
     
    Don’t trigger her. Women, too, can wear pants. Or even “the pants” sometimes. Indeed women who experience what one researcher calls “marriage of low quality” eventually end up wearing only pants. ;)
  51. There is a test coming for how “Woke” corporations actually are: (1)

    President Donald Trump on Tuesday extended a ban on training involving race- and sex-based discrimination for federal contractors to include various “divisive concepts.”

    Concepts included in the executive order signed by Trump on Tuesday include the idea that one race or sex is superior, that the United States is fundamentally racist and that an individual should feel “discomfort, guilt, anguish” and other forms of physiological distress or be considered inherently racist, sexist or oppressive based on their race or sex.

    Earlier this month, Trump directed federal agencies to stop anti-racism training including concepts such as “White privilege,” and “critical race theory” as well as training that “suggests either (1) the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or (2) that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil.”

    When “Woke” was cash positive in terms of avoiding race based lawsuits… Being “Woke” made sense.

    Now… How many corporations are willing to be excluded from federal contracts to stay “Woke”?

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://www.breitbart.com/news/trump-extends-ban-on-anti-racism-training-for-federal-contractors/

  52. @Rosie
    @Realist


    Older, White, very conservative men are the smartest of all Americans. And that is what our founding fathers knew.
     
    This is, of course, a totally uncalled-for jab at women, but I must say, it's a great deal less obnoxious than what I used to see here. It's good to see the backs of one's enemies in retreat.

    Replies: @Realist, @Chrisnonymous

    It’s good to see the backs of one’s enemies in retreat.

    Culo es muy bueno!

  53. @Realist
    @Rosie

    This kind logic makes me want to curl up in the fetal position and cry myself to sleep.

    You wouldn't recognize logic if it bit you on the ass.

    You are skirting the issue...answer the question. Why do you call it women's rights if it is not exclusively for women???

    Replies: @Rosie, @Twinkie

    You are skirting the issue…answer the question. Why do you call it women’s rights if it is not exclusively for women???

    I’m not a dog that barks on command. Somehow, I have used this term repeatedly on this site, and not a single person has been so petty and obtuse as to pretend they don’t understand what the meaning of this term, whether they agree with nor not. You are in a class all your own.

    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Realist
    @Rosie


    Somehow, I have used this term repeatedly on this site, and not a single person has been so petty and obtuse as to pretend they don’t understand what the meaning of this term, whether they agree with nor not.
     
    Yet you can't or won't give me your definition.

    You are in a class all your own.
     
    That's for sure..a very good class.

    The fact that someone like Daniel Chieh agrees with you...is not a good thing for you
  54. @Rosie
    @Realist


    Your earlier comment; If you threaten women’s rights, then you are an enemy of women. Implies that women have rights, that men don’t…what are they?
     
    This kind logic makes me want to curl up in the fetal position and cry myself to sleep.

    Replies: @Realist, @Daniel Chieh

    Sounds like that logic should be applied more, then.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Daniel Chieh


    Sounds like that logic should be applied more, then.
     
    You just insulted Rosie...and I don't think you realize it.

    But I agree, Rosie should curl up in the fetal position and cry herself to sleep...it may do her good.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

  55. @Rosie
    @Realist


    You are skirting the issue…answer the question. Why do you call it women’s rights if it is not exclusively for women???
     
    I'm not a dog that barks on command. Somehow, I have used this term repeatedly on this site, and not a single person has been so petty and obtuse as to pretend they don't understand what the meaning of this term, whether they agree with nor not. You are in a class all your own.

    Replies: @Realist

    Somehow, I have used this term repeatedly on this site, and not a single person has been so petty and obtuse as to pretend they don’t understand what the meaning of this term, whether they agree with nor not.

    Yet you can’t or won’t give me your definition.

    You are in a class all your own.

    That’s for sure..a very good class.

    The fact that someone like Daniel Chieh agrees with you…is not a good thing for you

  56. @Daniel Chieh
    @Rosie

    Sounds like that logic should be applied more, then.

    Replies: @Realist

    Sounds like that logic should be applied more, then.

    You just insulted Rosie…and I don’t think you realize it.

    But I agree, Rosie should curl up in the fetal position and cry herself to sleep…it may do her good.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @Realist

    She should be pleased that she got attention in this moronic tangent completely divorced from the original subject.

  57. @Realist
    @Daniel Chieh


    Sounds like that logic should be applied more, then.
     
    You just insulted Rosie...and I don't think you realize it.

    But I agree, Rosie should curl up in the fetal position and cry herself to sleep...it may do her good.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    She should be pleased that she got attention in this moronic tangent completely divorced from the original subject.

  58. @Anon
    @Cloudbuster

    Most of what we call "anti-social behavior" is the normal, healthy condition. It is populations with a higher mutational load who have a higher compliance with laws/social norms. The population with the lowest mutational load (Sub Saharan Africans) have the highest offense rate in the USA. The population with the highest mutational load (East Asian) is the best behaved.


    It requires deleterious mutations to produce obedient, law-abiding citizens who study hard and play less. The genetically healthy humans drop out of high school, twerk, punch people at the bar, and murder working grandparents in convenience store robberies. What you describe (selective application of homicide to one specific segment of the population for hundreds of years) can only lead to homozygosity and Ashkenazi Jew-like genetic disaster.


    https://www.pnas.org/content/113/4/E440


    Distance from sub-Saharan Africa predicts mutational load in diverse human genomes

    Human genomes carry hundreds of mutations that are predicted to be deleterious in some environments, potentially affecting the health or fitness of an individual. We characterize the distribution of deleterious mutations among diverse human populations, modeled under different selection coefficients and dominance parameters. Using a new dataset of diverse human genomes from seven different populations, we use spatially explicit simulations to reveal that classes of deleterious alleles have very different patterns across populations, reflecting the interaction between genetic drift and purifying selection. We show that there is a strong signal of purifying selection at conserved genomic positions within African populations, but most predicted deleterious mutations have evolved as if they were neutral during the expansion out of Africa
     

    Replies: @Peter Frost

    Most of what we call “anti-social behavior” is the normal, healthy condition. It is populations with a higher mutational load who have a higher compliance with laws/social norms. The population with the lowest mutational load (Sub Saharan Africans) have the highest offense rate in the USA. The population with the highest mutational load (East Asian) is the best behaved.

    The reference you cite doesn’t really support your argument:

    There is an ongoing debate on whether selection has been equally or more efficient in African versus non-African populations due to the major bottleneck that occurred in the ancestors of OOA populations. Two studies found no significant differences in mutation load between European Americans and African Americans under an additive model with two classes of alleles: deleterious and neutral. Fu et al. (11) identified small but significant differences in the average number of alleles and the SFS, potentially due to a different algorithm for predicting mutation effect than earlier studies. We argue that estimates of the efficacy of selection should take into account not only the number of mutations per individual but also the predicted severity of mutational effect. […]

    For variants that have putatively moderate (2 ≤ GERP < 4) or extreme deleterious effect (GERP ≥ 6), we do not see a significant difference between African and non-African populations in the number of mutations per individual. Significant per-individual differences are only observed for the intermediate large-effect category. […]

    We note that the observed differences between populations are relatively small compared with the within-population variance. Nonetheless, a novel measure of the efficacy of selection, RH, is significantly different across all three mutational categories between sub-Saharan Africans and non-Africans in our dataset. That is, the observed heterozygosity at deleterious loci is greater in non-Africans than in Africans—after correcting for neutral genetic diversity in each group. This is particularly significant for moderate- and large-effect mutations

    In short, the number of harmful mutations is the same for Africans and non-Africans, but non-Africans tend to have more harmful mutations with large effects (although the difference is small).

    This is because the rate of evolutionary change has been more rapid outside Africa than in Africa. There has been selection for alleles that are beneficial in the more common heterozygous state and harmful in the less common homozygous state.

    You sort of understand this point. Well, sort of:

    What you describe (selective application of homicide to one specific segment of the population for hundreds of years) can only lead to homozygosity and Ashkenazi Jew-like genetic disaster.

    Uh, the genetic problems develop only with homozygosity. In any case, I wouldn’t call the Ashkenazi Jews “a genetic disaster.” On balance, they’ve done rather well, and out-marriage will probably be their undoing.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Peter Frost


    In short, the number of harmful mutations is the same for Africans and non-Africans, but non-Africans tend to have more harmful mutations with large effects (although the difference is small).
     
    No, two studies found that European-Americans and African-Americans have roughly the same number of harmful mutations. That's a huge leap to "in short, the number of harmful mutations is the same for Africans and non-Africans (i.e., including Asians and purebred Africans)".

    Uh, the genetic problems develop only with homozygosity. In any case, I wouldn’t call the Ashkenazi Jews “a genetic disaster.” On balance, they’ve done rather well, and out-marriage will probably be their undoing.
     
    Jewish people suffer immensely under the weight of their mutational load; you only have to visit a care facility to witness the horrors of Jewish genetics. Some of these diseases are not fully debilitating and occur among seemingly ordinary looking people, who nevertheless have to carry on with the same drudgery as the rest of us with an additional burden.

    I'll never forget the suffering and the humilation that my childhood friend (an Ashkenazic Jew) endured due to his Crohn's disease, which in this form is about 6 times more common in Ashkenazic Jews than in Europeans. As intelligent as he was, it's an open question whether his life was worth living. And yet, according to you, it's no biggie, since at least his parents didn't have the disease. It's only the homozygous who suffer -- but among Jews there are more of them.

    As for Jews "doing rather well" for themselves, if we look at the full history of Ashkenazic Jewry, we see that their recent success is an oddity, and that their earlier, more modest successes in history were balanced out by constant deportations and persecutions which retutned them to poverty. A zero sum game. The industrial revolution and the historical outcomes of various wars 19th and 20th century wars seem to have facilitated their transformation from a heavily lower class minority to a fully elite group within European and American societies. It was the industrial revolution that allowed them to fully exploit their verbal talents, and if the Allies had not won WW2, it is doubtful they would have the socio-political prominence they enjoyed in the 20th century. And the fact is that, even today, having enjoyed much success, they still have failed to succeed over their genetic burdens and continue to be related to be the parents, siblings and cousins of people with nightmarish genetic disorders.


    The fact that Jews have such a high rate of outbreeding is a kind of a biological truth, which shows us that it is more desirable to be normal than to be the byproduct of a selection event that produces a niche genetic architecture, favorable to one or two forms of intelligence and a wide variety of genetic disorders, which turns Ashkenazi Jews in to a one-trick pony who can succeed financially as long as an imperialistic gentile government gives them a special status. We are told that the ultimate objective of all of this is to preserve Jewish textual scholarship and a Jewish "identity" -- even though anyone who cares can read the Talmud or Jewish history online in several languages today.

    Outbreeding may undo the Jewish phenotype, and reduce interest in the Talmud, but it won't fully undo Jewish political power in the mideast and America. That is kept alive by America's Evangelical-dominated military industrial complex, not by Jewish talent alone.

    Replies: @anarchyst

  59. Mr Frost says:

    Uh, the genetic problems develop only with homozygosity. In any case, I wouldn’t call the Ashkenazi Jews “a genetic disaster.” On balance, they’ve done rather well, and out-marriage will probably be their undoing.

    I say:

    If all the Yenta Jews looked like that ugly bow wow broad Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then the Jews wouldn’t have to worry too much about out-marriage like that clod Jew boob Dershowitz does.

    If all the female Jews looked like Jew beauties Bar Refaeli or Erin Heatherton, then there would be out-marriage out the you know what.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Charles Pewitt

    Is this supposed to be some kind of sick joke? These girls have repulsive, harsh faces and a "male-to-female" look. Ruth at their age was a far more attractive woman, and with refined features. She also had a better body -- a much narrower waist than your troglodytes.


    https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-justice-young-photo-31.jpg?quality=85&w=447



    https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/w_480/https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F190823154237-07-alt-justice-ruth-bader-ginsberg.jpg



    Your claim seems to rest on a strange comparison between a late-age RGB and prime-aged Rafaeli/Heatherton. Kind of reeks of a weird, cucky desperation to prove the superiority of these two utterly mediocre people.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @Charles Pewitt

    , @Ian Smith
    @Charles Pewitt

    Bar Paly > Bar Rafaeli

    https://img.srgcdn.com/e/w:1740/NFFyaFgzdkhGcjJ4M21PQkVlR0MuanBn.jpg

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F779896860451846224%2F&psig=AOvVaw1AXxaM6-UxmH21KrEHoK5l&ust=1601051571105000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCPCBz4ecguwCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAe

  60. Mr Epigone says:

    The streets will settle it.

    As the second graph shows, this contingent is disproportionately young, far-left, and non-white. They’re not settling for performative half measures. They’re angry and they want to make things happen. One suspects they’ll have plenty more opportunities to do so over the next few months.

    I say:

    After all the rioting and mayhem, the government worker ruling class plutocrat functionaries at Homeland Security still keep their eyes on the only cohort that could dislodge the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire from power: European Christian Middle American Radicals.

    The rabble throwing rubble in the streets ain’t no threat to the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire, but millions of White Core Americans — organized and grimly determined to reclaim their nation — are certainly capable of taking over the electronic command and control of the US military and all other power centers in space and sea and ocean and land.

    At least this government worker boob is being honest about the fact that the JEW/WASP Ruling Class sees regular, ordinary European Christian Americans as the enemy to be feared.

    The evil and treasonous and hostile JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire is revealing its ugly and grotesque face to the world and that is good.

    The JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire is a clear and present threat to the safety and security and sovereignty of the United States of America.

    GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    @Charles Pewitt

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1308771370919231489?s=20

  61. @Charles Pewitt
    Mr Epigone says:

    The streets will settle it.

    As the second graph shows, this contingent is disproportionately young, far-left, and non-white. They’re not settling for performative half measures. They’re angry and they want to make things happen. One suspects they’ll have plenty more opportunities to do so over the next few months.

    I say:

    After all the rioting and mayhem, the government worker ruling class plutocrat functionaries at Homeland Security still keep their eyes on the only cohort that could dislodge the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire from power: European Christian Middle American Radicals.

    The rabble throwing rubble in the streets ain't no threat to the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire, but millions of White Core Americans -- organized and grimly determined to reclaim their nation -- are certainly capable of taking over the electronic command and control of the US military and all other power centers in space and sea and ocean and land.

    At least this government worker boob is being honest about the fact that the JEW/WASP Ruling Class sees regular, ordinary European Christian Americans as the enemy to be feared.

    The evil and treasonous and hostile JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire is revealing its ugly and grotesque face to the world and that is good.

    The JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire is a clear and present threat to the safety and security and sovereignty of the United States of America.

    GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    https://twitter.com/ReutersUS/status/1308820947118559234?s=20

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt

  62. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    @Anon

    Most of what we call “anti-social behavior” is the normal, healthy condition. It is populations with a higher mutational load who have a higher compliance with laws/social norms. The population with the lowest mutational load (Sub Saharan Africans) have the highest offense rate in the USA. The population with the highest mutational load (East Asian) is the best behaved.

    The reference you cite doesn't really support your argument:


    There is an ongoing debate on whether selection has been equally or more efficient in African versus non-African populations due to the major bottleneck that occurred in the ancestors of OOA populations. Two studies found no significant differences in mutation load between European Americans and African Americans under an additive model with two classes of alleles: deleterious and neutral. Fu et al. (11) identified small but significant differences in the average number of alleles and the SFS, potentially due to a different algorithm for predicting mutation effect than earlier studies. We argue that estimates of the efficacy of selection should take into account not only the number of mutations per individual but also the predicted severity of mutational effect. [...]
     

    For variants that have putatively moderate (2 ≤ GERP < 4) or extreme deleterious effect (GERP ≥ 6), we do not see a significant difference between African and non-African populations in the number of mutations per individual. Significant per-individual differences are only observed for the intermediate large-effect category. [...]
     

    We note that the observed differences between populations are relatively small compared with the within-population variance. Nonetheless, a novel measure of the efficacy of selection, RH, is significantly different across all three mutational categories between sub-Saharan Africans and non-Africans in our dataset. That is, the observed heterozygosity at deleterious loci is greater in non-Africans than in Africans—after correcting for neutral genetic diversity in each group. This is particularly significant for moderate- and large-effect mutations
     
    In short, the number of harmful mutations is the same for Africans and non-Africans, but non-Africans tend to have more harmful mutations with large effects (although the difference is small).

    This is because the rate of evolutionary change has been more rapid outside Africa than in Africa. There has been selection for alleles that are beneficial in the more common heterozygous state and harmful in the less common homozygous state.

    You sort of understand this point. Well, sort of:

    What you describe (selective application of homicide to one specific segment of the population for hundreds of years) can only lead to homozygosity and Ashkenazi Jew-like genetic disaster.

    Uh, the genetic problems develop only with homozygosity. In any case, I wouldn't call the Ashkenazi Jews "a genetic disaster." On balance, they've done rather well, and out-marriage will probably be their undoing.

    Replies: @Anon

    In short, the number of harmful mutations is the same for Africans and non-Africans, but non-Africans tend to have more harmful mutations with large effects (although the difference is small).

    No, two studies found that European-Americans and African-Americans have roughly the same number of harmful mutations. That’s a huge leap to “in short, the number of harmful mutations is the same for Africans and non-Africans (i.e., including Asians and purebred Africans)”.

    Uh, the genetic problems develop only with homozygosity. In any case, I wouldn’t call the Ashkenazi Jews “a genetic disaster.” On balance, they’ve done rather well, and out-marriage will probably be their undoing.

    Jewish people suffer immensely under the weight of their mutational load; you only have to visit a care facility to witness the horrors of Jewish genetics. Some of these diseases are not fully debilitating and occur among seemingly ordinary looking people, who nevertheless have to carry on with the same drudgery as the rest of us with an additional burden.

    I’ll never forget the suffering and the humilation that my childhood friend (an Ashkenazic Jew) endured due to his Crohn’s disease, which in this form is about 6 times more common in Ashkenazic Jews than in Europeans. As intelligent as he was, it’s an open question whether his life was worth living. And yet, according to you, it’s no biggie, since at least his parents didn’t have the disease. It’s only the homozygous who suffer — but among Jews there are more of them.

    As for Jews “doing rather well” for themselves, if we look at the full history of Ashkenazic Jewry, we see that their recent success is an oddity, and that their earlier, more modest successes in history were balanced out by constant deportations and persecutions which retutned them to poverty. A zero sum game. The industrial revolution and the historical outcomes of various wars 19th and 20th century wars seem to have facilitated their transformation from a heavily lower class minority to a fully elite group within European and American societies. It was the industrial revolution that allowed them to fully exploit their verbal talents, and if the Allies had not won WW2, it is doubtful they would have the socio-political prominence they enjoyed in the 20th century. And the fact is that, even today, having enjoyed much success, they still have failed to succeed over their genetic burdens and continue to be related to be the parents, siblings and cousins of people with nightmarish genetic disorders.

    The fact that Jews have such a high rate of outbreeding is a kind of a biological truth, which shows us that it is more desirable to be normal than to be the byproduct of a selection event that produces a niche genetic architecture, favorable to one or two forms of intelligence and a wide variety of genetic disorders, which turns Ashkenazi Jews in to a one-trick pony who can succeed financially as long as an imperialistic gentile government gives them a special status. We are told that the ultimate objective of all of this is to preserve Jewish textual scholarship and a Jewish “identity” — even though anyone who cares can read the Talmud or Jewish history online in several languages today.

    Outbreeding may undo the Jewish phenotype, and reduce interest in the Talmud, but it won’t fully undo Jewish political power in the mideast and America. That is kept alive by America’s Evangelical-dominated military industrial complex, not by Jewish talent alone.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    @Anon

    It starts with "male genital mutilation" on the 8th day after birth. Without anesthetic, the foreskin of the infant is removed.
    The dirty "mohel" fellates the male infant after the deed is done.
    You can bet that whatever STDs the "mohel" possesses gets passed on to the infant.
    As many STDs do not manifest themselves until adulthood, that may be a reason why many jewish males are so susceptible to mental illness.

  63. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @Charles Pewitt
    Mr Frost says:

    Uh, the genetic problems develop only with homozygosity. In any case, I wouldn’t call the Ashkenazi Jews “a genetic disaster.” On balance, they’ve done rather well, and out-marriage will probably be their undoing.

    I say:

    If all the Yenta Jews looked like that ugly bow wow broad Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then the Jews wouldn't have to worry too much about out-marriage like that clod Jew boob Dershowitz does.

    If all the female Jews looked like Jew beauties Bar Refaeli or Erin Heatherton, then there would be out-marriage out the you know what.

    https://twitter.com/SI_Swimsuit/status/1181962560205152256?s=20

    https://twitter.com/SI_Swimsuit/status/906985748477464576?s=20

    Replies: @Anon, @Ian Smith

    Is this supposed to be some kind of sick joke? These girls have repulsive, harsh faces and a “male-to-female” look. Ruth at their age was a far more attractive woman, and with refined features. She also had a better body — a much narrower waist than your troglodytes.

    Your claim seems to rest on a strange comparison between a late-age RGB and prime-aged Rafaeli/Heatherton. Kind of reeks of a weird, cucky desperation to prove the superiority of these two utterly mediocre people.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @Anon

    The young RGB looks beautiful to me yet I was repulsed by how masculine she looked as an older lady. Jewish women aren't that different from any other when it comes to appearance. There is a wide range from beautiful to unattractive and their looks decline with age.

    , @Charles Pewitt
    @Anon

    Mr Anon 402 says:

    Is this supposed to be some kind of sick joke? These girls have repulsive, harsh faces and a “male-to-female” look. Ruth at their age was a far more attractive woman, and with refined features. She also had a better body — a much narrower waist than your troglodytes.

    I say:

    He's got it bad...got it bad...got it bad...so bad...he's hot for Ginsburg.

  64. Self-Determination

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @216

    Wow. The replies to that Tweet seem awfully upset that Kentuckians want to defend their city. I wonder how many of them are expressing the same disapproval about the Antifa/BLM rioters in cities around the nation.

    Few of them seem to realize that open carry is completely legal in Kentucky with no permit required.

    https://handgunlaw.us/states/kentucky.pdf

    To most of them the mere possession of a gun in civilian hands seems to equal violence.

    Replies: @216

    , @Cloudbuster
    @216

    I guess I'm supposed to believe this is White Supremacist violence in Louisville:

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/louisville-metro-police-officer-shot-during-riots-following-breonna-taylor-indictment/

    Fires being started up and down 6th Street in downtown Louisville

    And tonight, someone opened fire on some of the assembled police officers, hitting one of them.

    BREAKING VIDEO - Louisville Rioters shoot live rounds at police, injuring at least 1 so far

    Metrosafe: LMPD officer shot at Brook and Broadway in downtown Louisville

    UPDATE: NBC now reports that two police officers have been shot.

  65. @216
    Self-Determination

    https://twitter.com/JesseDamiani/status/1308882768269631488

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Cloudbuster

    Wow. The replies to that Tweet seem awfully upset that Kentuckians want to defend their city. I wonder how many of them are expressing the same disapproval about the Antifa/BLM rioters in cities around the nation.

    Few of them seem to realize that open carry is completely legal in Kentucky with no permit required.

    https://handgunlaw.us/states/kentucky.pdf

    To most of them the mere possession of a gun in civilian hands seems to equal violence.

    • Replies: @216
    @Cloudbuster


    To most of them the mere possession of a gun in civilian hands seems to equal violence.

     

    This is most people in the UK
  66. @Cloudbuster
    @JackOH

    The writer Jim Bishop noted that victims of property crime will react with the same sense of hurt and anger as victims of violent crime, which he found remarkable. Maybe not so remarkable when you consider property is earned by the sweat of your brow and often has good sentimental associations.

    I think the modern conceit that it is excessive to use lethal force in defense of property is a profoundly decivilizing idea. The knowledge that if you try to take a man's hard-earned property that your life may be forfeit and that the law will smile upon your death is a strong message to outlaws (as is the concept of outlawry itself), and the elimination of people who would willfully commit property crimes is ultimately good for society.

    One researcher, I can't remember who (Edward Dutton? Or someone he talks about?), thinks that high levels of capital punishment in medieval Europe served to weed out much of the anti-social population of the area, creating actual selective pressure, and that the more "humane" justice system we have now is reversing that pressure and, along with other benefits of civilization causing a rise in mutational load and resultant anti-social behavior.

    Replies: @Charlotte, @JackOH, @Anon, @Audacious Epigone

    There is something to the idea that property destruction is akin to slavery–someone’s time, effort, and resources went into creating something for your benefit without, or more accurately against, that someone’s consent.

    • Agree: Cloudbuster, JackOH
    • Replies: @A123
    @Audacious Epigone

    Local government can take on property destruction.

    Almost all of the heavy damage is taking place with the tacit approval of Blue City Mayors and Blue State Governors.

    Compare that to Florida: (1)


    Florida Governor Ron DeSantis introduced an absolutely perfect set of guidelines that will frame a new set of laws within Florida called the “Combating Violence, Disorder and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act.” The Florida House and Senate will take up the bill as their first order of business. Buckets of common sense.
     
    Some highlights


    New Criminal Offenses to Combat Rioting, Looting and Violence:

    -1- Prohibition on Violent or Disorderly Assemblies: 3rd degree felony when 7 or more persons are involved in an assembly and cause damage to property or injury to other persons.

    -2-Prohibition on Obstructing Roadways: 3rd degree felony to obstruct traffic during an unpermitted protest, demonstration or violent or disorderly assembly; driver is NOT liable for injury or death caused if fleeing for safety from a mob.
    ...
    Citizen and Taxpayer Protection Measures

    -4- Bail: No bond or bail until first appearance in court if charged with a crime related to participating in a violent or disorderly assembly; rebuttable presumption against bond or bail after first appearance.
     
    The only downside to this announcement is the delay before it can be actioned.

    Unless a special session is called, the Florida legislature only meets for 2 months each year. The next session starts March 2021.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/09/22/absolutely-perfect-florida-governor-introduces-law-enforcement-protection-act/
    , @JackOH
    @Audacious Epigone

    " . . . [S]omething to the idea that property destruction is akin to slavery . . . ." [my emphasis]

    cloudbuster uses "decivilizing" in context. Twinkie talks of "taking a part of my life".

    My point?

    Our punditocracy seems to have completely missed that some folks regard property crimes as having a much greater morally and civilly destructive effect than is being talked about. Are our "chattering classes" asleep?

  67. @Twinkie
    The way I see it, property is something that is earned* by expending a very scarce, precious, ever-disappearing commodity - time, in other words some portion of my limited lifespan.

    So when someone steals from me and takes or destroys my property, he is taking a part of my life, something that cannot be won or earned back - time gone is time gone, no amount of money or work can regain it.

    So in a decent society, a person ought to be able to use lethal force to defend property, especially property that relates to one's livelihood or life's work.

    *What about inherited or given property you ask? Well, it was still earned by somebody if not by the current possessor. The criminal is taking life from that somebody. If I worked all my life and built a business and gave it to my children and some thug came along and burnt it, there is still a victim (me, in this case) whose lifespan was stolen by the said thug.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @dfordoom

    I got the distinct impression that the people who play the apologist for property destruction are the kinds who never had to build anything for themselves over the course of decades and watch it get destroyed in one night: and don’t know people who have.

  68. @Cloudbuster
    @216

    Wow. The replies to that Tweet seem awfully upset that Kentuckians want to defend their city. I wonder how many of them are expressing the same disapproval about the Antifa/BLM rioters in cities around the nation.

    Few of them seem to realize that open carry is completely legal in Kentucky with no permit required.

    https://handgunlaw.us/states/kentucky.pdf

    To most of them the mere possession of a gun in civilian hands seems to equal violence.

    Replies: @216

    To most of them the mere possession of a gun in civilian hands seems to equal violence.

    This is most people in the UK

  69. @A123
    @dfordoom


    A failed boycott simply makes you look weaker.
     
    Yes. Politics vs has one clear lesson:

    FAILURE = WEAKNESS = DEFEAT

    Trying to generate a boycott and failing would be bad. Trying to intervene in the BLM riots and failing would be worse.

    There is also limited upside to trying in pushing a boycott. Unless one can wipe out a high visibility target, the political gains are limited.

    Back in the 1930s Hollywood caved in to threats of a Catholic boycott because at that time they believed Catholics were sufficiently well organised
     
    Going to a physical location was required in the 1930's. Thus, monitoring the flock for scabs was straightforward.

    With living room transactions, how does a protesting group identify and apply social pressure on NetFlix scabs? There is an entire class of boycotts that is much harder now, because there is nowhere to place the picket line.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @216

    Cons could ensure compliance the same way that BLM does, through social media.

    If every normiecon that mentions NFL anything got dogpiled, it might scare some into line.

    • Replies: @A123
    @216


    Cons could ensure compliance the same way that BLM does, through social media.

    If every normiecon that mentions NFL anything got dogpiled, it might scare some into line.
     

    Two problems with your plan:

    -1- Main Street Populists spend much less time with social media versus the SJW Globalists.
    -2- Populists are not 'sheeple'. Anyone trying to intimidate a Southern, Main Street Christian will experience failure, possibly pain.

    Your enforcement method is weak. At best it will only identify a small % of people who voluntarily admit the transgression. And, anyone willing to self admit is unlikely to care about social media whiners. Especially if you lead with elitist, SJW sounding, terminology like 'normiecon'.
    ____

    Trump has no need to try anything that is not guaranteed to be successful. Can you guarantee that your weak enforcement NFL boycott plan will work? If not, how are you going to sell the idea to Trump's campaign team?

    Also, consider the fact he can gain with a no-risk strategy. Trump says negative things about the NFL without setting a benchmark that could fail. Then, he associates himself with the declines that "wokeness" is generating. NFL ratings are down even without an organized boycott. (1)


    NFL television ratings plummeted for Texans-Chiefs opener

    According to Deadline, overall ratings were down a whopping 16.1% from last season’s “Thursday Night Football” opener between the Chicago Bears and Green Bay Packers. According to the note, this could end up being a 10-year low for the NFL on NBC. That’s just staggering.
     

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://sportsnaut.com/nfl-televison-ratings-anthem-protests/

    Replies: @216

  70. @Franz
    @Realist


    Older, White, very conservative men are the smartest of all Americans.
     
    True.

    Another often overlooked reason: They're much more likely to be veterans. From Eisenhower's draft till the early 70s military service was a given. Men joined a branch that might do them some good to avoid waiting till their draft number came up.

    Military service instills a certain level of experience and the right level of apprehension to consider what happens when laws are ignored.

    All the low numbers on the second graph are unsurprising. Liberals were more likely to avoid service back when the draft existed; often having had the means to go overseas or to Canada for education.

    Younger vets seem to catch this too. They have a seriousness their non-vet Affirmative Action comrades don't seem to understand. But older vets find that pretty familiar, having put up with some of that when we got out too.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >Military service instills a certain level of experience and the right level of apprehension to consider what happens when laws are ignored.

    Not the case if you don’t have a certain level of basic human capital to start out with. You ever heard of McNamara’s Morons? In the late 1960s, the Army was having trouble recruiting, so they lowered standards to allow mentally subnormal men in. In practice, all this achieved was giving enemy snipers and booby trap builders (something the Vietnamese excelled at) ridiculously easy targets.

    The American military’s professional warrior class-special operators, etc-tend to be very, very high class, but that’s not the majority of the intake, and it is a genuine question whether most 20-somethings could be taken in between piercings/tattoos, mental illness, and obesity. The IDF and the ROKA-two militaries that still rely off conscription-don’t deal with these problems, or at least on a negligible scale compared to the US.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @nebulafox


    The IDF and the ROKA-two militaries that still rely off conscription-don’t deal with these problems, or at least on a negligible scale compared to the US.
     
    Both the IDF and ROKA have had increasing problems with substandard recruit quality as well as the general increase in coddling. Do you know what kind of food ROKA has to supply to the conscripts now? Gone are the days of hard tack and plain ramen. Now it’s increasingly hipsterish.

    More drones, please!

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @Franz
    @nebulafox


    Not the case if you don’t have a certain level of basic human capital to start out with.
     
    True enough. Every military has a certain quota of royal bucketheads and nutjobs, I know.

    Lot's of Bob Mac's morons wound up dead. Supposedly there were lawsuits on that one, but I have not heard of any results. Bob was no genius himself except in his own mind.
  71. @Audacious Epigone
    @Cloudbuster

    There is something to the idea that property destruction is akin to slavery--someone's time, effort, and resources went into creating something for your benefit without, or more accurately against, that someone's consent.

    Replies: @A123, @JackOH

    Local government can take on property destruction.

    Almost all of the heavy damage is taking place with the tacit approval of Blue City Mayors and Blue State Governors.

    Compare that to Florida: (1)

    Florida Governor Ron DeSantis introduced an absolutely perfect set of guidelines that will frame a new set of laws within Florida called the “Combating Violence, Disorder and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act.” The Florida House and Senate will take up the bill as their first order of business. Buckets of common sense.

    Some highlights

    New Criminal Offenses to Combat Rioting, Looting and Violence:

    -1- Prohibition on Violent or Disorderly Assemblies: 3rd degree felony when 7 or more persons are involved in an assembly and cause damage to property or injury to other persons.

    -2-Prohibition on Obstructing Roadways: 3rd degree felony to obstruct traffic during an unpermitted protest, demonstration or violent or disorderly assembly; driver is NOT liable for injury or death caused if fleeing for safety from a mob.

    Citizen and Taxpayer Protection Measures

    -4- Bail: No bond or bail until first appearance in court if charged with a crime related to participating in a violent or disorderly assembly; rebuttable presumption against bond or bail after first appearance.

    The only downside to this announcement is the delay before it can be actioned.

    Unless a special session is called, the Florida legislature only meets for 2 months each year. The next session starts March 2021.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/09/22/absolutely-perfect-florida-governor-introduces-law-enforcement-protection-act/

  72. @216
    Self-Determination

    https://twitter.com/JesseDamiani/status/1308882768269631488

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Cloudbuster

    I guess I’m supposed to believe this is White Supremacist violence in Louisville:

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/louisville-metro-police-officer-shot-during-riots-following-breonna-taylor-indictment/

    Fires being started up and down 6th Street in downtown Louisville

    And tonight, someone opened fire on some of the assembled police officers, hitting one of them.

    BREAKING VIDEO – Louisville Rioters shoot live rounds at police, injuring at least 1 so far

    Metrosafe: LMPD officer shot at Brook and Broadway in downtown Louisville

    UPDATE: NBC now reports that two police officers have been shot.

  73. @Realist
    @Rosie

    This kind logic makes me want to curl up in the fetal position and cry myself to sleep.

    You wouldn't recognize logic if it bit you on the ass.

    You are skirting the issue...answer the question. Why do you call it women's rights if it is not exclusively for women???

    Replies: @Rosie, @Twinkie

    skirting

    Don’t trigger her. Women, too, can wear pants. Or even “the pants” sometimes. Indeed women who experience what one researcher calls “marriage of low quality” eventually end up wearing only pants. 😉

  74. @nebulafox
    @Franz

    >Military service instills a certain level of experience and the right level of apprehension to consider what happens when laws are ignored.

    Not the case if you don't have a certain level of basic human capital to start out with. You ever heard of McNamara's Morons? In the late 1960s, the Army was having trouble recruiting, so they lowered standards to allow mentally subnormal men in. In practice, all this achieved was giving enemy snipers and booby trap builders (something the Vietnamese excelled at) ridiculously easy targets.

    The American military's professional warrior class-special operators, etc-tend to be very, very high class, but that's not the majority of the intake, and it is a genuine question whether most 20-somethings could be taken in between piercings/tattoos, mental illness, and obesity. The IDF and the ROKA-two militaries that still rely off conscription-don't deal with these problems, or at least on a negligible scale compared to the US.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Franz

    The IDF and the ROKA-two militaries that still rely off conscription-don’t deal with these problems, or at least on a negligible scale compared to the US.

    Both the IDF and ROKA have had increasing problems with substandard recruit quality as well as the general increase in coddling. Do you know what kind of food ROKA has to supply to the conscripts now? Gone are the days of hard tack and plain ramen. Now it’s increasingly hipsterish.

    More drones, please!

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    It's nowhere near the scale of the problem the US faces, though, especially on the obesity front.

    Replies: @Talha, @Twinkie

  75. @Twinkie
    @nebulafox


    The IDF and the ROKA-two militaries that still rely off conscription-don’t deal with these problems, or at least on a negligible scale compared to the US.
     
    Both the IDF and ROKA have had increasing problems with substandard recruit quality as well as the general increase in coddling. Do you know what kind of food ROKA has to supply to the conscripts now? Gone are the days of hard tack and plain ramen. Now it’s increasingly hipsterish.

    More drones, please!

    Replies: @nebulafox

    It’s nowhere near the scale of the problem the US faces, though, especially on the obesity front.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Talha
    @nebulafox

    My brother in-law was a conscript in the Egyptian army. Apparently they ate bread that you could use as frizbees. Only the upper officers ate decently. The rest had to deal with normal stuff like the occasional bug(s) in food.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Wielgus

    , @Twinkie
    @nebulafox

    Yes, but US Armed Forces can be more selective since it doesn’t take conscripts.

  76. @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    It's nowhere near the scale of the problem the US faces, though, especially on the obesity front.

    Replies: @Talha, @Twinkie

    My brother in-law was a conscript in the Egyptian army. Apparently they ate bread that you could use as frizbees. Only the upper officers ate decently. The rest had to deal with normal stuff like the occasional bug(s) in food.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
    @Talha

    The USA pours quite a lot of money into Egypt but it obviously does not go into decent food for enlisted men.
    Officers in the Italian army in WW2 ate much better than enlisted men, and this was probably one of the reasons why that army was one of the more ineffective ones in that conflict.

    Replies: @Talha

  77. @216
    @A123

    Cons could ensure compliance the same way that BLM does, through social media.

    If every normiecon that mentions NFL anything got dogpiled, it might scare some into line.

    Replies: @A123

    Cons could ensure compliance the same way that BLM does, through social media.

    If every normiecon that mentions NFL anything got dogpiled, it might scare some into line.

    Two problems with your plan:

    -1- Main Street Populists spend much less time with social media versus the SJW Globalists.
    -2- Populists are not ‘sheeple’. Anyone trying to intimidate a Southern, Main Street Christian will experience failure, possibly pain.

    Your enforcement method is weak. At best it will only identify a small % of people who voluntarily admit the transgression. And, anyone willing to self admit is unlikely to care about social media whiners. Especially if you lead with elitist, SJW sounding, terminology like ‘normiecon‘.
    ____

    Trump has no need to try anything that is not guaranteed to be successful. Can you guarantee that your weak enforcement NFL boycott plan will work? If not, how are you going to sell the idea to Trump’s campaign team?

    Also, consider the fact he can gain with a no-risk strategy. Trump says negative things about the NFL without setting a benchmark that could fail. Then, he associates himself with the declines that “wokeness” is generating. NFL ratings are down even without an organized boycott. (1)

    NFL television ratings plummeted for Texans-Chiefs opener

    According to Deadline, overall ratings were down a whopping 16.1% from last season’s “Thursday Night Football” opener between the Chicago Bears and Green Bay Packers. According to the note, this could end up being a 10-year low for the NFL on NBC. That’s just staggering.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://sportsnaut.com/nfl-televison-ratings-anthem-protests/

    • Replies: @216
    @A123

    What I'd prefer is for the GOP to screw the NFL in backroom politics.

    Target the antitrust exemptions, government advertising, have the IRS audit a bunch of players, remove the eligibility for municipal bonds.

    I simply want Trump to tweet "Cancel your cable". Then most of his followers will go along.

  78. @A123
    @216


    Cons could ensure compliance the same way that BLM does, through social media.

    If every normiecon that mentions NFL anything got dogpiled, it might scare some into line.
     

    Two problems with your plan:

    -1- Main Street Populists spend much less time with social media versus the SJW Globalists.
    -2- Populists are not 'sheeple'. Anyone trying to intimidate a Southern, Main Street Christian will experience failure, possibly pain.

    Your enforcement method is weak. At best it will only identify a small % of people who voluntarily admit the transgression. And, anyone willing to self admit is unlikely to care about social media whiners. Especially if you lead with elitist, SJW sounding, terminology like 'normiecon'.
    ____

    Trump has no need to try anything that is not guaranteed to be successful. Can you guarantee that your weak enforcement NFL boycott plan will work? If not, how are you going to sell the idea to Trump's campaign team?

    Also, consider the fact he can gain with a no-risk strategy. Trump says negative things about the NFL without setting a benchmark that could fail. Then, he associates himself with the declines that "wokeness" is generating. NFL ratings are down even without an organized boycott. (1)


    NFL television ratings plummeted for Texans-Chiefs opener

    According to Deadline, overall ratings were down a whopping 16.1% from last season’s “Thursday Night Football” opener between the Chicago Bears and Green Bay Packers. According to the note, this could end up being a 10-year low for the NFL on NBC. That’s just staggering.
     

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://sportsnaut.com/nfl-televison-ratings-anthem-protests/

    Replies: @216

    What I’d prefer is for the GOP to screw the NFL in backroom politics.

    Target the antitrust exemptions, government advertising, have the IRS audit a bunch of players, remove the eligibility for municipal bonds.

    I simply want Trump to tweet “Cancel your cable”. Then most of his followers will go along.

  79. Target the antitrust exemptions, government advertising, have the IRS audit a bunch of players, remove the eligibility for municipal bonds.

    All of these are possibilities for Trump’s inevitable 2nd term.

    For IRS audits, Teams and possibly Team Owners are more likely than Players.

    I simply want Trump to tweet “Cancel your cable”. Then most of his followers will go along.

    There is little incentive for Trump to make cable cutting a priority before the election.

    — It would be twisted into, “Trump calls for Cancellation of Tucker Carlson” (who is on Cable).
    — High speed broadband and cable are the frequently the same provider. So it will do little damage to the big media firms.
    — The most offensive channels (e.g. ESPN, MSNBC, CNN) are already being punished with low advertising revenue.
    — Incentives can be deployed to boost cable subscriptions in the run up to the election.

    The last point about promotion based numbers is critical. Much like your prior NetFlix proposal, the opposition has an easy response that would be deployed to make the President appear weak.

    PEACE 😇

  80. @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    It's nowhere near the scale of the problem the US faces, though, especially on the obesity front.

    Replies: @Talha, @Twinkie

    Yes, but US Armed Forces can be more selective since it doesn’t take conscripts.

    • Agree: nebulafox
  81. @Twinkie
    The way I see it, property is something that is earned* by expending a very scarce, precious, ever-disappearing commodity - time, in other words some portion of my limited lifespan.

    So when someone steals from me and takes or destroys my property, he is taking a part of my life, something that cannot be won or earned back - time gone is time gone, no amount of money or work can regain it.

    So in a decent society, a person ought to be able to use lethal force to defend property, especially property that relates to one's livelihood or life's work.

    *What about inherited or given property you ask? Well, it was still earned by somebody if not by the current possessor. The criminal is taking life from that somebody. If I worked all my life and built a business and gave it to my children and some thug came along and burnt it, there is still a victim (me, in this case) whose lifespan was stolen by the said thug.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @dfordoom

    So in a decent society, a person ought to be able to use lethal force to defend property, especially property that relates to one’s livelihood or life’s work.

    In a decent society you’d have a police force to defend your property.

    You have to be very careful about encouraging the idea of people taking the law into their own hands. Vigilante justice is a dangerous thing.

    Personally I prefer the older method. You know, giving people a fair trial. Innocent until proven guilty, that sort of thing. All very unfashionable these days.

    Encouraging vigilante justice is an admission that you have a failed society, and vigilantes are likely to make things worse rather than better.

    • Disagree: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @dfordoom

    Police forces have never been very good at defending property, since they usually only show up after the property has already been stolen. Big city police reports are little more than insurance claim verification slips. They do virtually no investigation of most property crimes. We have had tenants burgled, empty units stripped of copper pipe and wiring, many many times and we have never had a single perp caught.

    To get a fair trial the perpetrator must first be captured, and the current system hobbles citizens -- the people likely to actually be there -- from effecting captures. You are in potentially more jeopardy from prosecution for your use of force in effecting a capture than the perpetrator is for his crime.

    You pull a gun on someone you catch burglarizing your property for your own safety, but if you are forced to just stand there and let him drive away because "your car or big screen TV isn't worth someone's life" no justice is done. Requiring the citizen to risk his own safety by trying to detain the suspect without use of a lethal weapon risks the safety of the citizen and is unreasonable -- police office

    Replies: @dfordoom, @JackOH, @Audacious Epigone

    , @Daniel Chieh
    @dfordoom

    Even an extremely authoritarian state such as China considers self-defense as exempt from criminal liability.

    , @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    In a decent society you’d have a police force to defend your property.
     
    What fantasy movie have you been watching? Police doesn’t exist to prevent crime nor is it legally obligated to do so. It largely exists to maintain general law and order.

    In a real deal decent society there isn’t a need for police to defend life or property. Decent people don’t harm or steal from one another.

    You have to be very careful about encouraging the idea of people taking the law into their own hands. Vigilante justice is a dangerous thing.
     
    What are you talking about?

    “Taking the law into my own hand,” would be if a neighbor was assaulted and if I went about the town, found the perpetrator and beat him up.

    It’s not vigilantism if some criminal came to my house and was about to attack my family and burn my house, and I put a few rounds into his head to prevent him from doing so. That’s called self-defense, and it’s a self-evident (except to moronic dolts) right and dignity due to any human being.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  82. @nebulafox
    @Franz

    >Military service instills a certain level of experience and the right level of apprehension to consider what happens when laws are ignored.

    Not the case if you don't have a certain level of basic human capital to start out with. You ever heard of McNamara's Morons? In the late 1960s, the Army was having trouble recruiting, so they lowered standards to allow mentally subnormal men in. In practice, all this achieved was giving enemy snipers and booby trap builders (something the Vietnamese excelled at) ridiculously easy targets.

    The American military's professional warrior class-special operators, etc-tend to be very, very high class, but that's not the majority of the intake, and it is a genuine question whether most 20-somethings could be taken in between piercings/tattoos, mental illness, and obesity. The IDF and the ROKA-two militaries that still rely off conscription-don't deal with these problems, or at least on a negligible scale compared to the US.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Franz

    Not the case if you don’t have a certain level of basic human capital to start out with.

    True enough. Every military has a certain quota of royal bucketheads and nutjobs, I know.

    Lot’s of Bob Mac’s morons wound up dead. Supposedly there were lawsuits on that one, but I have not heard of any results. Bob was no genius himself except in his own mind.

  83. @Audacious Epigone
    @Cloudbuster

    There is something to the idea that property destruction is akin to slavery--someone's time, effort, and resources went into creating something for your benefit without, or more accurately against, that someone's consent.

    Replies: @A123, @JackOH

    ” . . . [S]omething to the idea that property destruction is akin to slavery . . . .” [my emphasis]

    cloudbuster uses “decivilizing” in context. Twinkie talks of “taking a part of my life”.

    My point?

    Our punditocracy seems to have completely missed that some folks regard property crimes as having a much greater morally and civilly destructive effect than is being talked about. Are our “chattering classes” asleep?

  84. @Anon
    @Charles Pewitt

    Is this supposed to be some kind of sick joke? These girls have repulsive, harsh faces and a "male-to-female" look. Ruth at their age was a far more attractive woman, and with refined features. She also had a better body -- a much narrower waist than your troglodytes.


    https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-justice-young-photo-31.jpg?quality=85&w=447



    https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/w_480/https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F190823154237-07-alt-justice-ruth-bader-ginsberg.jpg



    Your claim seems to rest on a strange comparison between a late-age RGB and prime-aged Rafaeli/Heatherton. Kind of reeks of a weird, cucky desperation to prove the superiority of these two utterly mediocre people.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @Charles Pewitt

    The young RGB looks beautiful to me yet I was repulsed by how masculine she looked as an older lady. Jewish women aren’t that different from any other when it comes to appearance. There is a wide range from beautiful to unattractive and their looks decline with age.

  85. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    So in a decent society, a person ought to be able to use lethal force to defend property, especially property that relates to one’s livelihood or life’s work.
     
    In a decent society you'd have a police force to defend your property.

    You have to be very careful about encouraging the idea of people taking the law into their own hands. Vigilante justice is a dangerous thing.

    Personally I prefer the older method. You know, giving people a fair trial. Innocent until proven guilty, that sort of thing. All very unfashionable these days.

    Encouraging vigilante justice is an admission that you have a failed society, and vigilantes are likely to make things worse rather than better.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Daniel Chieh, @Twinkie

    Police forces have never been very good at defending property, since they usually only show up after the property has already been stolen. Big city police reports are little more than insurance claim verification slips. They do virtually no investigation of most property crimes. We have had tenants burgled, empty units stripped of copper pipe and wiring, many many times and we have never had a single perp caught.

    To get a fair trial the perpetrator must first be captured, and the current system hobbles citizens — the people likely to actually be there — from effecting captures. You are in potentially more jeopardy from prosecution for your use of force in effecting a capture than the perpetrator is for his crime.

    You pull a gun on someone you catch burglarizing your property for your own safety, but if you are forced to just stand there and let him drive away because “your car or big screen TV isn’t worth someone’s life” no justice is done. Requiring the citizen to risk his own safety by trying to detain the suspect without use of a lethal weapon risks the safety of the citizen and is unreasonable — police office

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Cloudbuster


    Police forces have never been very good at defending property, since they usually only show up after the property has already been stolen. Big city police reports are little more than insurance claim verification slips. They do virtually no investigation of most property crimes. We have had tenants burgled, empty units stripped of copper pipe and wiring, many many times and we have never had a single perp caught.
     
    I agree with all that, but the answer is better police who will actually do their jobs, and courts that will back them up. Citizens doing their own policing is not a very workable or desirable solution. It's something that worked a long time ago in small close-knit communities (raising the "hue and cry") but there were good reasons why such practices were abandoned as those traditional close-knit communities decayed.

    It won't work in a modern society. Citizens doing their own policing are just walking into a legal minefield. It's not worth the incredible legal nightmares (including possible murder charges) you're going to face just to save your big screen TV which is (if you have a brain) insured anyway. If your life is at risk (or the lives of your loved ones) then obviously it's a different story.

    If you can't trust the cops and the courts to do their jobs competently and honestly then you'd be foolish to trust them to deal fairly with you if you shoot someone trying to steal your TV.

    Your point that cops only enter the picture after you've been robbed is partly valid, but the point of having a criminal justice system is for the cops to catch a high proportion of the criminals and the courts to sentence them, thus providing a deterrent. And proper policing involves preventing crime as well as responding to it. To prevent crime you need cops walking the beat, not driving to the donut shop in their squad cars.

    I agree that there's a problem with ineffectual policing but encouraging citizens to take the law into their own hands just replaces one problem with another.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Cloudbuster

    , @JackOH
    @Cloudbuster

    Cloudbuster, your comment seems to have been cut off.

    We had a few pop-up stores in my area's 'hood with hand-lettered "architectural specialties" signs on them. Inside were home furnishings, beveled glass windows that framed the front doors, fireplaces, wood moldings of all sorts, copper tubing-yep, water and gas meters, etc. Maybe some of that was got legally. I didn't ask.

    "Big city police reports are little more than insurance claim verification slips." Yep. Low murder clearance rates in some of our cities are pretty scandalous. Any criminologists know what the arrests per thousand property crimes are, prosecutions per thousand crimes, jail or prison sentences? I'll guess astoundingly low, but I'm pretty much out of my depth.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Cloudbuster

    In the case of mass public riots, though, the police are there are already there. It's a different situation than the report filing game--or at least it could be.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

  86. @Cloudbuster
    @dfordoom

    Police forces have never been very good at defending property, since they usually only show up after the property has already been stolen. Big city police reports are little more than insurance claim verification slips. They do virtually no investigation of most property crimes. We have had tenants burgled, empty units stripped of copper pipe and wiring, many many times and we have never had a single perp caught.

    To get a fair trial the perpetrator must first be captured, and the current system hobbles citizens -- the people likely to actually be there -- from effecting captures. You are in potentially more jeopardy from prosecution for your use of force in effecting a capture than the perpetrator is for his crime.

    You pull a gun on someone you catch burglarizing your property for your own safety, but if you are forced to just stand there and let him drive away because "your car or big screen TV isn't worth someone's life" no justice is done. Requiring the citizen to risk his own safety by trying to detain the suspect without use of a lethal weapon risks the safety of the citizen and is unreasonable -- police office

    Replies: @dfordoom, @JackOH, @Audacious Epigone

    Police forces have never been very good at defending property, since they usually only show up after the property has already been stolen. Big city police reports are little more than insurance claim verification slips. They do virtually no investigation of most property crimes. We have had tenants burgled, empty units stripped of copper pipe and wiring, many many times and we have never had a single perp caught.

    I agree with all that, but the answer is better police who will actually do their jobs, and courts that will back them up. Citizens doing their own policing is not a very workable or desirable solution. It’s something that worked a long time ago in small close-knit communities (raising the “hue and cry”) but there were good reasons why such practices were abandoned as those traditional close-knit communities decayed.

    It won’t work in a modern society. Citizens doing their own policing are just walking into a legal minefield. It’s not worth the incredible legal nightmares (including possible murder charges) you’re going to face just to save your big screen TV which is (if you have a brain) insured anyway. If your life is at risk (or the lives of your loved ones) then obviously it’s a different story.

    If you can’t trust the cops and the courts to do their jobs competently and honestly then you’d be foolish to trust them to deal fairly with you if you shoot someone trying to steal your TV.

    Your point that cops only enter the picture after you’ve been robbed is partly valid, but the point of having a criminal justice system is for the cops to catch a high proportion of the criminals and the courts to sentence them, thus providing a deterrent. And proper policing involves preventing crime as well as responding to it. To prevent crime you need cops walking the beat, not driving to the donut shop in their squad cars.

    I agree that there’s a problem with ineffectual policing but encouraging citizens to take the law into their own hands just replaces one problem with another.

    • Disagree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @dfordoom

    How exactly will this better policing work? Or are you just hand-waving?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Cloudbuster
    @dfordoom

    your big screen TV which is (if you have a brain) insured anyway

    Insurance doesn't make me or society whole again. Insurance companies exist because they work very hard to make sure that on average I will pay them far more than I will ever collect in a claim.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  87. @Cloudbuster
    @dfordoom

    Police forces have never been very good at defending property, since they usually only show up after the property has already been stolen. Big city police reports are little more than insurance claim verification slips. They do virtually no investigation of most property crimes. We have had tenants burgled, empty units stripped of copper pipe and wiring, many many times and we have never had a single perp caught.

    To get a fair trial the perpetrator must first be captured, and the current system hobbles citizens -- the people likely to actually be there -- from effecting captures. You are in potentially more jeopardy from prosecution for your use of force in effecting a capture than the perpetrator is for his crime.

    You pull a gun on someone you catch burglarizing your property for your own safety, but if you are forced to just stand there and let him drive away because "your car or big screen TV isn't worth someone's life" no justice is done. Requiring the citizen to risk his own safety by trying to detain the suspect without use of a lethal weapon risks the safety of the citizen and is unreasonable -- police office

    Replies: @dfordoom, @JackOH, @Audacious Epigone

    Cloudbuster, your comment seems to have been cut off.

    We had a few pop-up stores in my area’s ‘hood with hand-lettered “architectural specialties” signs on them. Inside were home furnishings, beveled glass windows that framed the front doors, fireplaces, wood moldings of all sorts, copper tubing-yep, water and gas meters, etc. Maybe some of that was got legally. I didn’t ask.

    “Big city police reports are little more than insurance claim verification slips.” Yep. Low murder clearance rates in some of our cities are pretty scandalous. Any criminologists know what the arrests per thousand property crimes are, prosecutions per thousand crimes, jail or prison sentences? I’ll guess astoundingly low, but I’m pretty much out of my depth.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @JackOH

    See here.

    The clearance rate nationwide for property crimes is less than 20%. So 4 out of 5 times, thieves and vandals get away with it.

  88. @dfordoom
    @Cloudbuster


    Police forces have never been very good at defending property, since they usually only show up after the property has already been stolen. Big city police reports are little more than insurance claim verification slips. They do virtually no investigation of most property crimes. We have had tenants burgled, empty units stripped of copper pipe and wiring, many many times and we have never had a single perp caught.
     
    I agree with all that, but the answer is better police who will actually do their jobs, and courts that will back them up. Citizens doing their own policing is not a very workable or desirable solution. It's something that worked a long time ago in small close-knit communities (raising the "hue and cry") but there were good reasons why such practices were abandoned as those traditional close-knit communities decayed.

    It won't work in a modern society. Citizens doing their own policing are just walking into a legal minefield. It's not worth the incredible legal nightmares (including possible murder charges) you're going to face just to save your big screen TV which is (if you have a brain) insured anyway. If your life is at risk (or the lives of your loved ones) then obviously it's a different story.

    If you can't trust the cops and the courts to do their jobs competently and honestly then you'd be foolish to trust them to deal fairly with you if you shoot someone trying to steal your TV.

    Your point that cops only enter the picture after you've been robbed is partly valid, but the point of having a criminal justice system is for the cops to catch a high proportion of the criminals and the courts to sentence them, thus providing a deterrent. And proper policing involves preventing crime as well as responding to it. To prevent crime you need cops walking the beat, not driving to the donut shop in their squad cars.

    I agree that there's a problem with ineffectual policing but encouraging citizens to take the law into their own hands just replaces one problem with another.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Cloudbuster

    How exactly will this better policing work? Or are you just hand-waving?

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Cloudbuster

    You know the real answer to this. You have the police apprehend criminals and then have the judicial system execute or long-term incarcerate them (in the old days, you also exiled them into the wilderness from civilization).

    It works for Singapore.

    Of course, for most countries, this means authoritarian police state. Personally, I prefer the other solution that works - empowering civilians to defend their lives and property.

  89. @dfordoom
    @Cloudbuster


    Police forces have never been very good at defending property, since they usually only show up after the property has already been stolen. Big city police reports are little more than insurance claim verification slips. They do virtually no investigation of most property crimes. We have had tenants burgled, empty units stripped of copper pipe and wiring, many many times and we have never had a single perp caught.
     
    I agree with all that, but the answer is better police who will actually do their jobs, and courts that will back them up. Citizens doing their own policing is not a very workable or desirable solution. It's something that worked a long time ago in small close-knit communities (raising the "hue and cry") but there were good reasons why such practices were abandoned as those traditional close-knit communities decayed.

    It won't work in a modern society. Citizens doing their own policing are just walking into a legal minefield. It's not worth the incredible legal nightmares (including possible murder charges) you're going to face just to save your big screen TV which is (if you have a brain) insured anyway. If your life is at risk (or the lives of your loved ones) then obviously it's a different story.

    If you can't trust the cops and the courts to do their jobs competently and honestly then you'd be foolish to trust them to deal fairly with you if you shoot someone trying to steal your TV.

    Your point that cops only enter the picture after you've been robbed is partly valid, but the point of having a criminal justice system is for the cops to catch a high proportion of the criminals and the courts to sentence them, thus providing a deterrent. And proper policing involves preventing crime as well as responding to it. To prevent crime you need cops walking the beat, not driving to the donut shop in their squad cars.

    I agree that there's a problem with ineffectual policing but encouraging citizens to take the law into their own hands just replaces one problem with another.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Cloudbuster

    your big screen TV which is (if you have a brain) insured anyway

    Insurance doesn’t make me or society whole again. Insurance companies exist because they work very hard to make sure that on average I will pay them far more than I will ever collect in a claim.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Cloudbuster



    your big screen TV which is (if you have a brain) insured anyway
     
    Insurance doesn’t make me or society whole again. Insurance companies exist because they work very hard to make sure that on average I will pay them far more than I will ever collect in a claim.
     
    Hey, if you think that putting yourself at the tender mercy of the criminal justice system is a worthwhile price to pay to stop your TV being stolen that's your call. Me, I'd rather claim the insurance money than have my life destroyed by the ordeal of being dragged through the courts. And even if the courts finally decide not to send you to prison for murder, by then your life will have already been pretty much ruined.

    And realistically even if the laws were changed to give you the theoretical right to defend your property with lethal force you're still going to go through a legal nightmare.

    How exactly will this better policing work? Or are you just hand-waving?
     
    Weren't there lots of real-world examples within recent history of American cities dramatically reducing crime rates?

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

  90. @Cloudbuster
    @dfordoom

    your big screen TV which is (if you have a brain) insured anyway

    Insurance doesn't make me or society whole again. Insurance companies exist because they work very hard to make sure that on average I will pay them far more than I will ever collect in a claim.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    your big screen TV which is (if you have a brain) insured anyway

    Insurance doesn’t make me or society whole again. Insurance companies exist because they work very hard to make sure that on average I will pay them far more than I will ever collect in a claim.

    Hey, if you think that putting yourself at the tender mercy of the criminal justice system is a worthwhile price to pay to stop your TV being stolen that’s your call. Me, I’d rather claim the insurance money than have my life destroyed by the ordeal of being dragged through the courts. And even if the courts finally decide not to send you to prison for murder, by then your life will have already been pretty much ruined.

    And realistically even if the laws were changed to give you the theoretical right to defend your property with lethal force you’re still going to go through a legal nightmare.

    How exactly will this better policing work? Or are you just hand-waving?

    Weren’t there lots of real-world examples within recent history of American cities dramatically reducing crime rates?

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @dfordoom

    Answering my argument that the current system is unjust to people trying to protect their property with "Well, if you want to subject yourself to that unjust system, fine with me" actually concedes my point to me.

    I am not able to say with any confidence what all the important factors were in, say NYC's reduction in crime rates from the '90s to early 2000s. An awful lot of uncontrolled variables.

  91. @dfordoom
    @Cloudbuster



    your big screen TV which is (if you have a brain) insured anyway
     
    Insurance doesn’t make me or society whole again. Insurance companies exist because they work very hard to make sure that on average I will pay them far more than I will ever collect in a claim.
     
    Hey, if you think that putting yourself at the tender mercy of the criminal justice system is a worthwhile price to pay to stop your TV being stolen that's your call. Me, I'd rather claim the insurance money than have my life destroyed by the ordeal of being dragged through the courts. And even if the courts finally decide not to send you to prison for murder, by then your life will have already been pretty much ruined.

    And realistically even if the laws were changed to give you the theoretical right to defend your property with lethal force you're still going to go through a legal nightmare.

    How exactly will this better policing work? Or are you just hand-waving?
     
    Weren't there lots of real-world examples within recent history of American cities dramatically reducing crime rates?

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    Answering my argument that the current system is unjust to people trying to protect their property with “Well, if you want to subject yourself to that unjust system, fine with me” actually concedes my point to me.

    I am not able to say with any confidence what all the important factors were in, say NYC’s reduction in crime rates from the ’90s to early 2000s. An awful lot of uncontrolled variables.

  92. @Anon
    @Peter Frost


    In short, the number of harmful mutations is the same for Africans and non-Africans, but non-Africans tend to have more harmful mutations with large effects (although the difference is small).
     
    No, two studies found that European-Americans and African-Americans have roughly the same number of harmful mutations. That's a huge leap to "in short, the number of harmful mutations is the same for Africans and non-Africans (i.e., including Asians and purebred Africans)".

    Uh, the genetic problems develop only with homozygosity. In any case, I wouldn’t call the Ashkenazi Jews “a genetic disaster.” On balance, they’ve done rather well, and out-marriage will probably be their undoing.
     
    Jewish people suffer immensely under the weight of their mutational load; you only have to visit a care facility to witness the horrors of Jewish genetics. Some of these diseases are not fully debilitating and occur among seemingly ordinary looking people, who nevertheless have to carry on with the same drudgery as the rest of us with an additional burden.

    I'll never forget the suffering and the humilation that my childhood friend (an Ashkenazic Jew) endured due to his Crohn's disease, which in this form is about 6 times more common in Ashkenazic Jews than in Europeans. As intelligent as he was, it's an open question whether his life was worth living. And yet, according to you, it's no biggie, since at least his parents didn't have the disease. It's only the homozygous who suffer -- but among Jews there are more of them.

    As for Jews "doing rather well" for themselves, if we look at the full history of Ashkenazic Jewry, we see that their recent success is an oddity, and that their earlier, more modest successes in history were balanced out by constant deportations and persecutions which retutned them to poverty. A zero sum game. The industrial revolution and the historical outcomes of various wars 19th and 20th century wars seem to have facilitated their transformation from a heavily lower class minority to a fully elite group within European and American societies. It was the industrial revolution that allowed them to fully exploit their verbal talents, and if the Allies had not won WW2, it is doubtful they would have the socio-political prominence they enjoyed in the 20th century. And the fact is that, even today, having enjoyed much success, they still have failed to succeed over their genetic burdens and continue to be related to be the parents, siblings and cousins of people with nightmarish genetic disorders.


    The fact that Jews have such a high rate of outbreeding is a kind of a biological truth, which shows us that it is more desirable to be normal than to be the byproduct of a selection event that produces a niche genetic architecture, favorable to one or two forms of intelligence and a wide variety of genetic disorders, which turns Ashkenazi Jews in to a one-trick pony who can succeed financially as long as an imperialistic gentile government gives them a special status. We are told that the ultimate objective of all of this is to preserve Jewish textual scholarship and a Jewish "identity" -- even though anyone who cares can read the Talmud or Jewish history online in several languages today.

    Outbreeding may undo the Jewish phenotype, and reduce interest in the Talmud, but it won't fully undo Jewish political power in the mideast and America. That is kept alive by America's Evangelical-dominated military industrial complex, not by Jewish talent alone.

    Replies: @anarchyst

    It starts with “male genital mutilation” on the 8th day after birth. Without anesthetic, the foreskin of the infant is removed.
    The dirty “mohel” fellates the male infant after the deed is done.
    You can bet that whatever STDs the “mohel” possesses gets passed on to the infant.
    As many STDs do not manifest themselves until adulthood, that may be a reason why many jewish males are so susceptible to mental illness.

  93. @Talha
    @nebulafox

    My brother in-law was a conscript in the Egyptian army. Apparently they ate bread that you could use as frizbees. Only the upper officers ate decently. The rest had to deal with normal stuff like the occasional bug(s) in food.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Wielgus

    The USA pours quite a lot of money into Egypt but it obviously does not go into decent food for enlisted men.
    Officers in the Italian army in WW2 ate much better than enlisted men, and this was probably one of the reasons why that army was one of the more ineffective ones in that conflict.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Wielgus


    it obviously does not go into decent food for enlisted men.
     
    Yeah, it goes into things like buying random aircraft carriers (helicopter) from France that Russia didn't want any more...because...just because.

    Peace.
  94. @Wielgus
    @Talha

    The USA pours quite a lot of money into Egypt but it obviously does not go into decent food for enlisted men.
    Officers in the Italian army in WW2 ate much better than enlisted men, and this was probably one of the reasons why that army was one of the more ineffective ones in that conflict.

    Replies: @Talha

    it obviously does not go into decent food for enlisted men.

    Yeah, it goes into things like buying random aircraft carriers (helicopter) from France that Russia didn’t want any more…because…just because.

    Peace.

  95. @Charles Pewitt
    Mr Frost says:

    Uh, the genetic problems develop only with homozygosity. In any case, I wouldn’t call the Ashkenazi Jews “a genetic disaster.” On balance, they’ve done rather well, and out-marriage will probably be their undoing.

    I say:

    If all the Yenta Jews looked like that ugly bow wow broad Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then the Jews wouldn't have to worry too much about out-marriage like that clod Jew boob Dershowitz does.

    If all the female Jews looked like Jew beauties Bar Refaeli or Erin Heatherton, then there would be out-marriage out the you know what.

    https://twitter.com/SI_Swimsuit/status/1181962560205152256?s=20

    https://twitter.com/SI_Swimsuit/status/906985748477464576?s=20

    Replies: @Anon, @Ian Smith

  96. @Anon
    @Charles Pewitt

    Is this supposed to be some kind of sick joke? These girls have repulsive, harsh faces and a "male-to-female" look. Ruth at their age was a far more attractive woman, and with refined features. She also had a better body -- a much narrower waist than your troglodytes.


    https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-justice-young-photo-31.jpg?quality=85&w=447



    https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/w_480/https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F190823154237-07-alt-justice-ruth-bader-ginsberg.jpg



    Your claim seems to rest on a strange comparison between a late-age RGB and prime-aged Rafaeli/Heatherton. Kind of reeks of a weird, cucky desperation to prove the superiority of these two utterly mediocre people.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @Charles Pewitt

    Mr Anon 402 says:

    Is this supposed to be some kind of sick joke? These girls have repulsive, harsh faces and a “male-to-female” look. Ruth at their age was a far more attractive woman, and with refined features. She also had a better body — a much narrower waist than your troglodytes.

    I say:

    He’s got it bad…got it bad…got it bad…so bad…he’s hot for Ginsburg.

  97. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    So in a decent society, a person ought to be able to use lethal force to defend property, especially property that relates to one’s livelihood or life’s work.
     
    In a decent society you'd have a police force to defend your property.

    You have to be very careful about encouraging the idea of people taking the law into their own hands. Vigilante justice is a dangerous thing.

    Personally I prefer the older method. You know, giving people a fair trial. Innocent until proven guilty, that sort of thing. All very unfashionable these days.

    Encouraging vigilante justice is an admission that you have a failed society, and vigilantes are likely to make things worse rather than better.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Daniel Chieh, @Twinkie

    Even an extremely authoritarian state such as China considers self-defense as exempt from criminal liability.

  98. @The Alarmist

    One-in-ten people don’t want the police intervening at all, even when something like this happens:
     
    So, we’ve got the guns AND we’ve got the numbers.

    https://youtu.be/oOzpncIHCLs

    Replies: @Sollipsist, @Corvinus

    That same line has been bouncing around my head for a while.

    When people say “all art is political,” they don’t usually realize that the difference between mere propaganda and political art is that art lasts long enough to end up as a double-edged sword, cutting both ways…

  99. @Cloudbuster
    @dfordoom

    Police forces have never been very good at defending property, since they usually only show up after the property has already been stolen. Big city police reports are little more than insurance claim verification slips. They do virtually no investigation of most property crimes. We have had tenants burgled, empty units stripped of copper pipe and wiring, many many times and we have never had a single perp caught.

    To get a fair trial the perpetrator must first be captured, and the current system hobbles citizens -- the people likely to actually be there -- from effecting captures. You are in potentially more jeopardy from prosecution for your use of force in effecting a capture than the perpetrator is for his crime.

    You pull a gun on someone you catch burglarizing your property for your own safety, but if you are forced to just stand there and let him drive away because "your car or big screen TV isn't worth someone's life" no justice is done. Requiring the citizen to risk his own safety by trying to detain the suspect without use of a lethal weapon risks the safety of the citizen and is unreasonable -- police office

    Replies: @dfordoom, @JackOH, @Audacious Epigone

    In the case of mass public riots, though, the police are there are already there. It’s a different situation than the report filing game–or at least it could be.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @Audacious Epigone

    The actual empirical data for how property owners have fared during these riots does not support your idea.

    Rioters vastly outnumber police. Police have been helpless to prevent property damage.

  100. @JackOH
    @Cloudbuster

    Cloudbuster, your comment seems to have been cut off.

    We had a few pop-up stores in my area's 'hood with hand-lettered "architectural specialties" signs on them. Inside were home furnishings, beveled glass windows that framed the front doors, fireplaces, wood moldings of all sorts, copper tubing-yep, water and gas meters, etc. Maybe some of that was got legally. I didn't ask.

    "Big city police reports are little more than insurance claim verification slips." Yep. Low murder clearance rates in some of our cities are pretty scandalous. Any criminologists know what the arrests per thousand property crimes are, prosecutions per thousand crimes, jail or prison sentences? I'll guess astoundingly low, but I'm pretty much out of my depth.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    See here.

    The clearance rate nationwide for property crimes is less than 20%. So 4 out of 5 times, thieves and vandals get away with it.

    • Thanks: JackOH, Cloudbuster
  101. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    So in a decent society, a person ought to be able to use lethal force to defend property, especially property that relates to one’s livelihood or life’s work.
     
    In a decent society you'd have a police force to defend your property.

    You have to be very careful about encouraging the idea of people taking the law into their own hands. Vigilante justice is a dangerous thing.

    Personally I prefer the older method. You know, giving people a fair trial. Innocent until proven guilty, that sort of thing. All very unfashionable these days.

    Encouraging vigilante justice is an admission that you have a failed society, and vigilantes are likely to make things worse rather than better.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Daniel Chieh, @Twinkie

    In a decent society you’d have a police force to defend your property.

    What fantasy movie have you been watching? Police doesn’t exist to prevent crime nor is it legally obligated to do so. It largely exists to maintain general law and order.

    In a real deal decent society there isn’t a need for police to defend life or property. Decent people don’t harm or steal from one another.

    You have to be very careful about encouraging the idea of people taking the law into their own hands. Vigilante justice is a dangerous thing.

    What are you talking about?

    “Taking the law into my own hand,” would be if a neighbor was assaulted and if I went about the town, found the perpetrator and beat him up.

    It’s not vigilantism if some criminal came to my house and was about to attack my family and burn my house, and I put a few rounds into his head to prevent him from doing so. That’s called self-defense, and it’s a self-evident (except to moronic dolts) right and dignity due to any human being.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    What fantasy movie have you been watching? Police doesn’t exist to prevent crime nor is it legally obligated to do so.
     
    I see. So if a cop sees a crime about to occur it's OK for him to just look the other way?

    It largely exists to maintain general law and order.
     
    Preventing crime is part of maintaining general law and order.

    Your ideas on what policing should be all about are quite bizarre. Being a cop is not (or should not be) about making arrests. It's about maintaining a peaceful ordered a society. It's odd that you understand that policing is about maintaining general law and order, but you don't seem to understand what that concept means.

    It’s not vigilantism if some criminal came to my house and was about to attack my family and burn my house, and I put a few rounds into his head to prevent him from doing so. That’s called self-defense, and it’s a self-evident (except to moronic dolts) right and dignity due to any human being.

     

    I agree that vigilantism was perhaps the wrong term. But my general point stands.

    It's certainly self-defence to shoot someone in a situation where you have reason to believe that you (or a loved one) are in danger of your life or in danger of serious physical harm. Everyone agrees with that. That's what what we're talking about. We're talking about situations in which someone who is not in any physical danger shoots a person in the belief that the person is about to steal their property. That's a more complex and dangerous situation. It's a situation in which, in my view, it's neither wise nor desirable for people to play at amateur cop. Some situations in which there is a perceived threat to property are clear-cut. Some are not.

    There's also the danger of lethal force being used in situations where any normal person would consider that to be a wildly excessive response. How do you respond to the commenter who asked if it was OK to shoot 12-year-old shoplifters? How valuable does the property need to be to justify shooting someone? Is it worth it for the sake of a big screen TV? How about a candy bar? How about something in between, such as a handbag containing twenty bucks in cash?

    Once you encourage people to play at being Dirty Harry you're putting citizens in a position where they have to decide those things. I think that's unwise.

    There are good reasons for permitting killing in self-defence but there are also good reasons for limiting that right. Police forces do exist for a reason. The average person has neither the training nor the judgment to be given the right of life or death over other people, except in those situations where a threat is sufficiently serious and imminent to make it unavoidable.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Twinkie

  102. @Cloudbuster
    @dfordoom

    How exactly will this better policing work? Or are you just hand-waving?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    You know the real answer to this. You have the police apprehend criminals and then have the judicial system execute or long-term incarcerate them (in the old days, you also exiled them into the wilderness from civilization).

    It works for Singapore.

    Of course, for most countries, this means authoritarian police state. Personally, I prefer the other solution that works – empowering civilians to defend their lives and property.

  103. @Audacious Epigone
    @Cloudbuster

    In the case of mass public riots, though, the police are there are already there. It's a different situation than the report filing game--or at least it could be.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    The actual empirical data for how property owners have fared during these riots does not support your idea.

    Rioters vastly outnumber police. Police have been helpless to prevent property damage.

  104. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    In a decent society you’d have a police force to defend your property.
     
    What fantasy movie have you been watching? Police doesn’t exist to prevent crime nor is it legally obligated to do so. It largely exists to maintain general law and order.

    In a real deal decent society there isn’t a need for police to defend life or property. Decent people don’t harm or steal from one another.

    You have to be very careful about encouraging the idea of people taking the law into their own hands. Vigilante justice is a dangerous thing.
     
    What are you talking about?

    “Taking the law into my own hand,” would be if a neighbor was assaulted and if I went about the town, found the perpetrator and beat him up.

    It’s not vigilantism if some criminal came to my house and was about to attack my family and burn my house, and I put a few rounds into his head to prevent him from doing so. That’s called self-defense, and it’s a self-evident (except to moronic dolts) right and dignity due to any human being.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    What fantasy movie have you been watching? Police doesn’t exist to prevent crime nor is it legally obligated to do so.

    I see. So if a cop sees a crime about to occur it’s OK for him to just look the other way?

    It largely exists to maintain general law and order.

    Preventing crime is part of maintaining general law and order.

    Your ideas on what policing should be all about are quite bizarre. Being a cop is not (or should not be) about making arrests. It’s about maintaining a peaceful ordered a society. It’s odd that you understand that policing is about maintaining general law and order, but you don’t seem to understand what that concept means.

    It’s not vigilantism if some criminal came to my house and was about to attack my family and burn my house, and I put a few rounds into his head to prevent him from doing so. That’s called self-defense, and it’s a self-evident (except to moronic dolts) right and dignity due to any human being.

    I agree that vigilantism was perhaps the wrong term. But my general point stands.

    It’s certainly self-defence to shoot someone in a situation where you have reason to believe that you (or a loved one) are in danger of your life or in danger of serious physical harm. Everyone agrees with that. That’s what what we’re talking about. We’re talking about situations in which someone who is not in any physical danger shoots a person in the belief that the person is about to steal their property. That’s a more complex and dangerous situation. It’s a situation in which, in my view, it’s neither wise nor desirable for people to play at amateur cop. Some situations in which there is a perceived threat to property are clear-cut. Some are not.

    There’s also the danger of lethal force being used in situations where any normal person would consider that to be a wildly excessive response. How do you respond to the commenter who asked if it was OK to shoot 12-year-old shoplifters? How valuable does the property need to be to justify shooting someone? Is it worth it for the sake of a big screen TV? How about a candy bar? How about something in between, such as a handbag containing twenty bucks in cash?

    Once you encourage people to play at being Dirty Harry you’re putting citizens in a position where they have to decide those things. I think that’s unwise.

    There are good reasons for permitting killing in self-defence but there are also good reasons for limiting that right. Police forces do exist for a reason. The average person has neither the training nor the judgment to be given the right of life or death over other people, except in those situations where a threat is sufficiently serious and imminent to make it unavoidable.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @dfordoom

    The average person has neither the training nor the judgment to be given the right of life or death over other people, except in those situations where a threat is sufficiently serious and imminent to make it unavoidable.

    Then maybe that should be part of the standard high school curriculum. It would be a lot more useful than a lot of what goes on in public schools.

    The idea that police are somehow paragons of restraint, good judgment, legal probity and virtue is mistaking the ideal for the real.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    , @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    So if a cop sees a crime about to occur it’s OK for him to just look the other way?
     
    It’s not okay with me, but what you and I think of the matter has no bearing on the law in the United States. In the U.S., the courts have repeatedly found that the police have no obligation to protect individuals or private property, unless they were in police custody. See:

    https://www.barneslawllp.com/blog/police-not-required-protect

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

    https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

    Most countries with developed legal systems have some sort of liability release/immunity for the police similarly. Again, whatever you and I may think of such police behavior, the police is not legally required to protect individuals and property, period.

    Preventing crime is part of maintaining general law and order.

    Your ideas on what policing should be all about are quite bizarre. Being a cop is not (or should not be) about making arrests. It’s about maintaining a peaceful ordered a society. It’s odd that you understand that policing is about maintaining general law and order, but you don’t seem to understand what that concept means.
     
    Good grief. Unlike you, I have real experience in combating crime (I used to work on organized crime long before I was transitioned to counter terrorism after 9/11). But even those with no such experience would realize the absurdity of what you wrote were they possessed of normal intelligence and gave even a cursory thought to the matter.

    Let’s use Los Angeles as an example. The Los Angeles Police Department has about 10,000 uniformed officers and is responsible for a locality with about 4 million people. That’s roughly 400 people for ONE police officer (and that is on the low side - there are many areas in the U.S. where the number of residents per uniformed officer is many multiples of that number). We go crazy when a teacher has to look out for more than 20 students in a confined area (class room). You think that one officer can prevent most (or even a small fraction of) crimes that might occur among 400 people? And that’s not even factoring in the issue of geographical dispersal that compounds the problem for the law enforcement.

    Of course, you might argue that only a small fraction of the 4 million people commit crimes. That is true. But the city of Los Angeles alone has something like 40,000 gang members alone - just gang members, not other kinds of criminals. So under this equation, ONE police officer has to be able to watch over 4 gang members and likely many more times of other criminals in order to prevent most of them from committing crimes.

    So it’s a basic question of numbers. Unless you have a massive surveillance apparatus and a huge police force, it is impossible to prevent most crimes - nor is the police expected to do so by most sane people. It’s only under the luckiest of circumstances - e.g. the criminals were particularly stupid and didn’t lookout for the police well and some police officers just happened to be at the target of a crime - is there real-time, on-the-scene police prevention (more accurately, interruption) of a crime.

    The fact of the matter is that only the ordinary citizens who are at the scene of a crime can actually disrupt crimes in real time, because there just aren’t enough police officers to patrol every corner, house, business, etc. Indeed, in the U.S., there are something like 2 million defensive uses of firearms each year, in the vast majority of which cases guns were produced by civilians to ward off a crime, but were not actually fired (Kleck & Gertz, 1998).

    When a police force is effective, it doesn’t lower the crime level, because it “prevents” crime. It does so, because it identifies an area with a high concentration of crime activity, substantially increases police attention to the area, and quickly arrests - in the aftermath of crimes - and forwards to the courts and, hopefully to the prison system, a large number of criminals and troublemakers even for “minor” crimes. In other words, it removes the criminal population as much as possible from the general public and deters the rest of that criminal population with the prospect of lengthy incarceration. It’s not a coincidence that the significant decline in crime in the United States in the last two decades coincided with the rise of a phenomenon known as “mass incarceration.” And predictably, mass incarceration means lots of black and Hispanic young males being locked up in the prime of their lives since crime in general, and violent crime in particular, skews heavily black and brown, young, and male.

    Once you encourage people to play at being Dirty Harry
     
    You ought to stop resorting to dumb ad hominem and do some reading on crime issues. Better yet, come to the U.S. and try spending a few days in a large American city with a large black population (a housing project would be even better). That will quickly disabuse you of the fantasy notions of law enforcement you have.

    Police forces do exist for a reason. The average person has neither the training nor the judgment to be given the right of life or death over other people
     
    I happen to be pretty pro-police, but your naïveté regarding the general competence of police officers is almost touching. Guess what? In the U.S., police officers have more unintentional discharges of firearms than civilian gun owners per capita.

    https://youtu.be/QNa5n2I_DUw

    Police officers are not super heroes. They get pretty minimal training in use of force doctrine and self-defense techniques. Most don’t shoot nearly as many rounds at the range per year than most civilian gun enthusiasts (most officers shoot enough to qualify and that’s it). Good officers pick up more knowledge, experience, and training along the way and improve their ability to make good judgments and handle themselves well in critical situations, but that’s exceptional rather than the norm. The fact that only a small fraction of shots fired by officers actually hits the intended target ought to disabuse you of the notion that they are somehow much more qualified to use lethal force than most armed civilians (especially those much maligned “gun nuts” who tend to know far more about firearms than ordinary officers).

    By the way, regulations vary by state, but numerous states require firearms training including classroom lectures on use of deadly force as a pre-condition for applying for concealed carry permits for civilians, and issuances of such permits have risen dramatically in the last couple of decades (including among women).
  105. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    What fantasy movie have you been watching? Police doesn’t exist to prevent crime nor is it legally obligated to do so.
     
    I see. So if a cop sees a crime about to occur it's OK for him to just look the other way?

    It largely exists to maintain general law and order.
     
    Preventing crime is part of maintaining general law and order.

    Your ideas on what policing should be all about are quite bizarre. Being a cop is not (or should not be) about making arrests. It's about maintaining a peaceful ordered a society. It's odd that you understand that policing is about maintaining general law and order, but you don't seem to understand what that concept means.

    It’s not vigilantism if some criminal came to my house and was about to attack my family and burn my house, and I put a few rounds into his head to prevent him from doing so. That’s called self-defense, and it’s a self-evident (except to moronic dolts) right and dignity due to any human being.

     

    I agree that vigilantism was perhaps the wrong term. But my general point stands.

    It's certainly self-defence to shoot someone in a situation where you have reason to believe that you (or a loved one) are in danger of your life or in danger of serious physical harm. Everyone agrees with that. That's what what we're talking about. We're talking about situations in which someone who is not in any physical danger shoots a person in the belief that the person is about to steal their property. That's a more complex and dangerous situation. It's a situation in which, in my view, it's neither wise nor desirable for people to play at amateur cop. Some situations in which there is a perceived threat to property are clear-cut. Some are not.

    There's also the danger of lethal force being used in situations where any normal person would consider that to be a wildly excessive response. How do you respond to the commenter who asked if it was OK to shoot 12-year-old shoplifters? How valuable does the property need to be to justify shooting someone? Is it worth it for the sake of a big screen TV? How about a candy bar? How about something in between, such as a handbag containing twenty bucks in cash?

    Once you encourage people to play at being Dirty Harry you're putting citizens in a position where they have to decide those things. I think that's unwise.

    There are good reasons for permitting killing in self-defence but there are also good reasons for limiting that right. Police forces do exist for a reason. The average person has neither the training nor the judgment to be given the right of life or death over other people, except in those situations where a threat is sufficiently serious and imminent to make it unavoidable.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Twinkie

    The average person has neither the training nor the judgment to be given the right of life or death over other people, except in those situations where a threat is sufficiently serious and imminent to make it unavoidable.

    Then maybe that should be part of the standard high school curriculum. It would be a lot more useful than a lot of what goes on in public schools.

    The idea that police are somehow paragons of restraint, good judgment, legal probity and virtue is mistaking the ideal for the real.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Cloudbuster



    The average person has neither the training nor the judgment to be given the right of life or death over other people, except in those situations where a threat is sufficiently serious and imminent to make it unavoidable.
     
    Then maybe that should be part of the standard high school curriculum. It would be a lot more useful than a lot of what goes on in public schools.
     
    You really think the average person wants to be a part-time unpaid cop? It's an idea that appeals to a few right-wing zealots who watched too many Death Wish movies. Why should people pay taxes to provide a police force and then have to do the job themselves? I think most people would prefer the police and the courts to just do their damned jobs.

    Apart from those right-wing zealots you think the average person wants to go back to the Wild West, to the rule of the gun?

    The idea that police are somehow paragons of restraint, good judgment, legal probity and virtue is mistaking the ideal for the real.
     
    So the police don't do the job properly but you think a bunch of amateurs can do it? You think it's a good idea to let loose a bunch of untrained amateurs with guns and Dirty Harry fantasies? You think that will make things better?

    Crime rates in the US peaked between the 70s and the early 90s. After that they declined dramatically. Which proves that the crime problem can be solved. The police are capable of dealing with crime. To listen to the hysteria of people here you'd think that crime rates were increasing. They've been falling for a quarter of a century. Crime is not a problem that is out of control.

    At the moment you have a problem wth rioters. They're a problem because the police are choosing not to do their jobs, not because they're incapable of doing so. There are bad cops who need to be weeded out. Not just bad cops on the streets, but bad cops at the top. Lazy incompetent cops and at the top incompetent politicised cops. So weed 'em out.

    There's a major problem with deaths due to medical malpractice. Do you think the answer to that is to encourage everyone to play at being amateur doctors? I'd say the answer is to weed out incompetent doctors and force hospitals to do their jobs properly. It's the same with cops. Being a doctor or a cop is not a job for amateurs.

    And let go of the Death Wish fantasies.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    , @Twinkie
    @Cloudbuster


    Then maybe that should be part of the standard high school curriculum. It would be a lot more useful than a lot of what goes on in public schools.
     
    Before the Boy Scouts went all gay- and trans-rights heavy, it used to be pretty common to see them practice marksmanship and engage in other firearms training and activities. An older friend of mine (I’m in my early 50’s) who lived in a mid-sized city in the South used to get on the bus with his rifle slung across his back to go to his Boy Scouts shooting practice. Nobody batted an eye and occasionally some adults (war veterans and such) would engage him in conversations and give him some pointers (good and bad).

    Can you imagine that scene today? The past is a foreign country.

    My boys belong to the local “ranger troop” at the parish church that separated from the Boy Scouts years ago. They go hunting and shooting quite often (I usually accompany them). Even my girls’ American Heritage Girls (rightist alternative to the Girl Scouts) group goes shooting every so often. The other parents and girls love me, because I bring lots of interesting stuff for them to shoot.

    Traditional America is disappearing, but it’s not dead yet.
  106. @Cloudbuster
    @dfordoom

    The average person has neither the training nor the judgment to be given the right of life or death over other people, except in those situations where a threat is sufficiently serious and imminent to make it unavoidable.

    Then maybe that should be part of the standard high school curriculum. It would be a lot more useful than a lot of what goes on in public schools.

    The idea that police are somehow paragons of restraint, good judgment, legal probity and virtue is mistaking the ideal for the real.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    The average person has neither the training nor the judgment to be given the right of life or death over other people, except in those situations where a threat is sufficiently serious and imminent to make it unavoidable.

    Then maybe that should be part of the standard high school curriculum. It would be a lot more useful than a lot of what goes on in public schools.

    You really think the average person wants to be a part-time unpaid cop? It’s an idea that appeals to a few right-wing zealots who watched too many Death Wish movies. Why should people pay taxes to provide a police force and then have to do the job themselves? I think most people would prefer the police and the courts to just do their damned jobs.

    Apart from those right-wing zealots you think the average person wants to go back to the Wild West, to the rule of the gun?

    The idea that police are somehow paragons of restraint, good judgment, legal probity and virtue is mistaking the ideal for the real.

    So the police don’t do the job properly but you think a bunch of amateurs can do it? You think it’s a good idea to let loose a bunch of untrained amateurs with guns and Dirty Harry fantasies? You think that will make things better?

    Crime rates in the US peaked between the 70s and the early 90s. After that they declined dramatically. Which proves that the crime problem can be solved. The police are capable of dealing with crime. To listen to the hysteria of people here you’d think that crime rates were increasing. They’ve been falling for a quarter of a century. Crime is not a problem that is out of control.

    At the moment you have a problem wth rioters. They’re a problem because the police are choosing not to do their jobs, not because they’re incapable of doing so. There are bad cops who need to be weeded out. Not just bad cops on the streets, but bad cops at the top. Lazy incompetent cops and at the top incompetent politicised cops. So weed ’em out.

    There’s a major problem with deaths due to medical malpractice. Do you think the answer to that is to encourage everyone to play at being amateur doctors? I’d say the answer is to weed out incompetent doctors and force hospitals to do their jobs properly. It’s the same with cops. Being a doctor or a cop is not a job for amateurs.

    And let go of the Death Wish fantasies.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @dfordoom

    You think it’s a good idea to let loose a bunch of untrained amateurs with guns

    The country is awash with untrained amateurs with guns. That's a fait accompli. I was suggesting that the public schools work toward the goal that they are better-educated amateurs with guns. We used to call this "civics" education. I had to take a class on the conditions for use of deadly force. It wasn't long or hard. It would be a good thing for every citizen to know along with all the education about our governmental system that kids aren't getting anymore.

    Your repeated Dirty Harry references are just emotional hand-wringing.

  107. @dfordoom
    @Cloudbuster



    The average person has neither the training nor the judgment to be given the right of life or death over other people, except in those situations where a threat is sufficiently serious and imminent to make it unavoidable.
     
    Then maybe that should be part of the standard high school curriculum. It would be a lot more useful than a lot of what goes on in public schools.
     
    You really think the average person wants to be a part-time unpaid cop? It's an idea that appeals to a few right-wing zealots who watched too many Death Wish movies. Why should people pay taxes to provide a police force and then have to do the job themselves? I think most people would prefer the police and the courts to just do their damned jobs.

    Apart from those right-wing zealots you think the average person wants to go back to the Wild West, to the rule of the gun?

    The idea that police are somehow paragons of restraint, good judgment, legal probity and virtue is mistaking the ideal for the real.
     
    So the police don't do the job properly but you think a bunch of amateurs can do it? You think it's a good idea to let loose a bunch of untrained amateurs with guns and Dirty Harry fantasies? You think that will make things better?

    Crime rates in the US peaked between the 70s and the early 90s. After that they declined dramatically. Which proves that the crime problem can be solved. The police are capable of dealing with crime. To listen to the hysteria of people here you'd think that crime rates were increasing. They've been falling for a quarter of a century. Crime is not a problem that is out of control.

    At the moment you have a problem wth rioters. They're a problem because the police are choosing not to do their jobs, not because they're incapable of doing so. There are bad cops who need to be weeded out. Not just bad cops on the streets, but bad cops at the top. Lazy incompetent cops and at the top incompetent politicised cops. So weed 'em out.

    There's a major problem with deaths due to medical malpractice. Do you think the answer to that is to encourage everyone to play at being amateur doctors? I'd say the answer is to weed out incompetent doctors and force hospitals to do their jobs properly. It's the same with cops. Being a doctor or a cop is not a job for amateurs.

    And let go of the Death Wish fantasies.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    You think it’s a good idea to let loose a bunch of untrained amateurs with guns

    The country is awash with untrained amateurs with guns. That’s a fait accompli. I was suggesting that the public schools work toward the goal that they are better-educated amateurs with guns. We used to call this “civics” education. I had to take a class on the conditions for use of deadly force. It wasn’t long or hard. It would be a good thing for every citizen to know along with all the education about our governmental system that kids aren’t getting anymore.

    Your repeated Dirty Harry references are just emotional hand-wringing.

  108. @The Alarmist

    One-in-ten people don’t want the police intervening at all, even when something like this happens:
     
    So, we’ve got the guns AND we’ve got the numbers.

    https://youtu.be/oOzpncIHCLs

    Replies: @Sollipsist, @Corvinus

    “So, we’ve got the guns AND we’ve got the numbers.”

    But you talk tough and won’t do anything about it.

    • Troll: GeneralRipper
  109. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    What fantasy movie have you been watching? Police doesn’t exist to prevent crime nor is it legally obligated to do so.
     
    I see. So if a cop sees a crime about to occur it's OK for him to just look the other way?

    It largely exists to maintain general law and order.
     
    Preventing crime is part of maintaining general law and order.

    Your ideas on what policing should be all about are quite bizarre. Being a cop is not (or should not be) about making arrests. It's about maintaining a peaceful ordered a society. It's odd that you understand that policing is about maintaining general law and order, but you don't seem to understand what that concept means.

    It’s not vigilantism if some criminal came to my house and was about to attack my family and burn my house, and I put a few rounds into his head to prevent him from doing so. That’s called self-defense, and it’s a self-evident (except to moronic dolts) right and dignity due to any human being.

     

    I agree that vigilantism was perhaps the wrong term. But my general point stands.

    It's certainly self-defence to shoot someone in a situation where you have reason to believe that you (or a loved one) are in danger of your life or in danger of serious physical harm. Everyone agrees with that. That's what what we're talking about. We're talking about situations in which someone who is not in any physical danger shoots a person in the belief that the person is about to steal their property. That's a more complex and dangerous situation. It's a situation in which, in my view, it's neither wise nor desirable for people to play at amateur cop. Some situations in which there is a perceived threat to property are clear-cut. Some are not.

    There's also the danger of lethal force being used in situations where any normal person would consider that to be a wildly excessive response. How do you respond to the commenter who asked if it was OK to shoot 12-year-old shoplifters? How valuable does the property need to be to justify shooting someone? Is it worth it for the sake of a big screen TV? How about a candy bar? How about something in between, such as a handbag containing twenty bucks in cash?

    Once you encourage people to play at being Dirty Harry you're putting citizens in a position where they have to decide those things. I think that's unwise.

    There are good reasons for permitting killing in self-defence but there are also good reasons for limiting that right. Police forces do exist for a reason. The average person has neither the training nor the judgment to be given the right of life or death over other people, except in those situations where a threat is sufficiently serious and imminent to make it unavoidable.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Twinkie

    So if a cop sees a crime about to occur it’s OK for him to just look the other way?

    It’s not okay with me, but what you and I think of the matter has no bearing on the law in the United States. In the U.S., the courts have repeatedly found that the police have no obligation to protect individuals or private property, unless they were in police custody. See:

    https://www.barneslawllp.com/blog/police-not-required-protect

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

    https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

    Most countries with developed legal systems have some sort of liability release/immunity for the police similarly. Again, whatever you and I may think of such police behavior, the police is not legally required to protect individuals and property, period.

    Preventing crime is part of maintaining general law and order.

    Your ideas on what policing should be all about are quite bizarre. Being a cop is not (or should not be) about making arrests. It’s about maintaining a peaceful ordered a society. It’s odd that you understand that policing is about maintaining general law and order, but you don’t seem to understand what that concept means.

    Good grief. Unlike you, I have real experience in combating crime (I used to work on organized crime long before I was transitioned to counter terrorism after 9/11). But even those with no such experience would realize the absurdity of what you wrote were they possessed of normal intelligence and gave even a cursory thought to the matter.

    Let’s use Los Angeles as an example. The Los Angeles Police Department has about 10,000 uniformed officers and is responsible for a locality with about 4 million people. That’s roughly 400 people for ONE police officer (and that is on the low side – there are many areas in the U.S. where the number of residents per uniformed officer is many multiples of that number). We go crazy when a teacher has to look out for more than 20 students in a confined area (class room). You think that one officer can prevent most (or even a small fraction of) crimes that might occur among 400 people? And that’s not even factoring in the issue of geographical dispersal that compounds the problem for the law enforcement.

    Of course, you might argue that only a small fraction of the 4 million people commit crimes. That is true. But the city of Los Angeles alone has something like 40,000 gang members alone – just gang members, not other kinds of criminals. So under this equation, ONE police officer has to be able to watch over 4 gang members and likely many more times of other criminals in order to prevent most of them from committing crimes.

    So it’s a basic question of numbers. Unless you have a massive surveillance apparatus and a huge police force, it is impossible to prevent most crimes – nor is the police expected to do so by most sane people. It’s only under the luckiest of circumstances – e.g. the criminals were particularly stupid and didn’t lookout for the police well and some police officers just happened to be at the target of a crime – is there real-time, on-the-scene police prevention (more accurately, interruption) of a crime.

    The fact of the matter is that only the ordinary citizens who are at the scene of a crime can actually disrupt crimes in real time, because there just aren’t enough police officers to patrol every corner, house, business, etc. Indeed, in the U.S., there are something like 2 million defensive uses of firearms each year, in the vast majority of which cases guns were produced by civilians to ward off a crime, but were not actually fired (Kleck & Gertz, 1998).

    When a police force is effective, it doesn’t lower the crime level, because it “prevents” crime. It does so, because it identifies an area with a high concentration of crime activity, substantially increases police attention to the area, and quickly arrests – in the aftermath of crimes – and forwards to the courts and, hopefully to the prison system, a large number of criminals and troublemakers even for “minor” crimes. In other words, it removes the criminal population as much as possible from the general public and deters the rest of that criminal population with the prospect of lengthy incarceration. It’s not a coincidence that the significant decline in crime in the United States in the last two decades coincided with the rise of a phenomenon known as “mass incarceration.” And predictably, mass incarceration means lots of black and Hispanic young males being locked up in the prime of their lives since crime in general, and violent crime in particular, skews heavily black and brown, young, and male.

    Once you encourage people to play at being Dirty Harry

    You ought to stop resorting to dumb ad hominem and do some reading on crime issues. Better yet, come to the U.S. and try spending a few days in a large American city with a large black population (a housing project would be even better). That will quickly disabuse you of the fantasy notions of law enforcement you have.

    Police forces do exist for a reason. The average person has neither the training nor the judgment to be given the right of life or death over other people

    I happen to be pretty pro-police, but your naïveté regarding the general competence of police officers is almost touching. Guess what? In the U.S., police officers have more unintentional discharges of firearms than civilian gun owners per capita.

    Police officers are not super heroes. They get pretty minimal training in use of force doctrine and self-defense techniques. Most don’t shoot nearly as many rounds at the range per year than most civilian gun enthusiasts (most officers shoot enough to qualify and that’s it). Good officers pick up more knowledge, experience, and training along the way and improve their ability to make good judgments and handle themselves well in critical situations, but that’s exceptional rather than the norm. The fact that only a small fraction of shots fired by officers actually hits the intended target ought to disabuse you of the notion that they are somehow much more qualified to use lethal force than most armed civilians (especially those much maligned “gun nuts” who tend to know far more about firearms than ordinary officers).

    By the way, regulations vary by state, but numerous states require firearms training including classroom lectures on use of deadly force as a pre-condition for applying for concealed carry permits for civilians, and issuances of such permits have risen dramatically in the last couple of decades (including among women).

  110. @Cloudbuster
    @dfordoom

    The average person has neither the training nor the judgment to be given the right of life or death over other people, except in those situations where a threat is sufficiently serious and imminent to make it unavoidable.

    Then maybe that should be part of the standard high school curriculum. It would be a lot more useful than a lot of what goes on in public schools.

    The idea that police are somehow paragons of restraint, good judgment, legal probity and virtue is mistaking the ideal for the real.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    Then maybe that should be part of the standard high school curriculum. It would be a lot more useful than a lot of what goes on in public schools.

    Before the Boy Scouts went all gay- and trans-rights heavy, it used to be pretty common to see them practice marksmanship and engage in other firearms training and activities. An older friend of mine (I’m in my early 50’s) who lived in a mid-sized city in the South used to get on the bus with his rifle slung across his back to go to his Boy Scouts shooting practice. Nobody batted an eye and occasionally some adults (war veterans and such) would engage him in conversations and give him some pointers (good and bad).

    Can you imagine that scene today? The past is a foreign country.

    My boys belong to the local “ranger troop” at the parish church that separated from the Boy Scouts years ago. They go hunting and shooting quite often (I usually accompany them). Even my girls’ American Heritage Girls (rightist alternative to the Girl Scouts) group goes shooting every so often. The other parents and girls love me, because I bring lots of interesting stuff for them to shoot.

    Traditional America is disappearing, but it’s not dead yet.

    • Agree: Cloudbuster
    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS