Trending Topics

      Next match: Leeds v LFC [Premier League] Mon 19th Apr @ 8:00 pm
      Elland Road

      Today is the 16th of April and on this date LFC's match record is P30 W15 D7 L8

      George Floyd : Aftermath

      Read 3239 times
      0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
      Swab
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 13,080 posts | 3224 
      Re: George Floyd : Aftermath
      Reply #150: Oct 30, 2020 04:39:26 pm
      Kind of like this post.

      I'm far from right wing, thank you. What i'm describing is rampant over here, especially on social media. Not trying to make anything better, but just bashing opposing opinions in context of "isn't it good that we're better than they are?"

      What I'm opposed to is mob mentality or groupthink and demagoguing differences of opinion. There is little to no free thought or open discourse anymore, and therefore, very little chance for the world becoming a better place.

      "Making" the world a better place will by nature have to be the result of the collective, not just one side asserting their moral superiority over the knuckle-draggers. It will take all of us for it to happen. We are nowhere close to that being possible.

      When I was a lad, and we supported people being oppressed, we called it "solidarity".
      It didn't mean we had been through or completely understood the facts of their oppression, just that we recognised it, and stood with those being oppressed, as in "on their side".
      For 40 years now, the right and far right on both sides of the Atlantic have been waging a culture war, that gathered pace with the widespread use of the internet.
      People found that debating and trying to talk to these folk didn't work, so some started fighting fire with fire.

      Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, but a minority want to be able to say whatever they feel like with no comebacks.
      So we see arseholes shouting that they want to be able to say whatever they choose. They want to say it to BAME people, muslims, women, Jews, LGBT or whoever they feel like turning their ire on at any given time.
      In other words, they want freedom to bully those they perceive as different.

      They don't want to be educated, they don't want to listen to reason, they don't want to hear we're all human beings, they want to be cu*ts for the sake of being cu*ts.

      Well, when you get people like that, sometimes you have to fight their intolerance with intolerance of their bigotry, and let me tell you, if more Germans had done that in the 1920's and 30's the world would be a much different place today.

      When I see scum, I call them scum, and if that hurts their feelings, f**k them.
      Sometimes you have to stand up and fight scum.

      Of course we also have other scum like Murdoch.
      Every country where his rags and news channels preach to the scum (and he knows exactly what he's doing) this problem exists a lot more than where he has no influence.

      So because ordinary folk call this sh*t out, it needed a label, and one of those labels is "virtue signalling", used exclusively by right wing scum to try and belittle and crush opposition to their hideous agenda's.
      It's gained traction and taken to mean something else becaue scum media and politicians push the same agenda.

      I will never apologise for standing up to cu*ts who want to vicmitise and bully other people, and if that means I'm accused of the childish trope that is "virtue signalling", then so be it.
      Robby The Z
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 7,287 posts | 2005 
      Re: George Floyd : Aftermath
      Reply #151: Oct 30, 2020 05:13:10 pm
      When I was a lad, and we supported people being oppressed, we called it "solidarity".
      It didn't mean we had been through or completely understood the facts of their oppression, just that we recognised it, and stood with those being oppressed, as in "on their side".
      For 40 years now, the right and far right on both sides of the Atlantic have been waging a culture war, that gathered pace with the widespread use of the internet.
      People found that debating and trying to talk to these folk didn't work, so some started fighting fire with fire.

      Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, but a minority want to be able to say whatever they feel like with no comebacks.
      So we see arseholes shouting that they want to be able to say whatever they choose. They want to say it to BAME people, muslims, women, Jews, LGBT or whoever they feel like turning their ire on at any given time.
      In other words, they want freedom to bully those they perceive as different.

      They don't want to be educated, they don't want to listen to reason, they don't want to hear we're all human beings, they want to be cu*ts for the sake of being cu*ts.

      Well, when you get people like that, sometimes you have to fight their intolerance with intolerance of their bigotry, and let me tell you, if more Germans had done that in the 1920's and 30's the world would be a much different place today.

      When I see scum, I call them scum, and if that hurts their feelings, f**k them.
      Sometimes you have to stand up and fight scum.

      Of course we also have other scum like Murdoch.
      Every country where his rags and news channels preach to the scum (and he knows exactly what he's doing) this problem exists a lot more than where he has no influence.

      So because ordinary folk call this sh*t out, it needed a label, and one of those labels is "virtue signalling", used exclusively by right wing scum to try and belittle and crush opposition to their hideous agenda's.
      It's gained traction and taken to mean something else becaue scum media and politicians push the same agenda.

      I will never apologise for standing up to cu*ts who want to vicmitise and bully other people, and if that means I'm accused of the childish trope that is "virtue signalling", then so be it.

      So, I quoted Les Ferdinand about the relative value and effectiveness of pre-game kneeling. It resonated with me because I see a lot of symbolic action but little done to concretely make the world a better place. I DO want the world to be a better place, for everybody. I tend to disagree with a lot of people on here about the policies that make that happen. When I worked on Capitol Hill, I disagreed with fellow Republican on a regular basis. But I've seen a lot of things from our government in my lifetime, and it doesn't seem to be that poverty has really been dented. Instead you have cycles of hopelessness. I think that's tragic.Also shameful is how divided we are as a society.

      Without getting into the much more nuanced and extensive policy debate, FL Red - said he thought what I was referring to (re Ferdinand's quote) is "virtue signaling." I responded that my definition of virtue signaling isn't symbolism per se, but rather the sort of snarky, belittling and self-adulating posts I tend to see on social media. Now, you can call that a method of fighting a good battle, but my thought is it isn't very effective, especially with reasonable people who hold opposite views. Starting with a punch in the nose isn't really ideal.

      Now does this work both ways? Of course it does. There's no corner on lacking diplomacy or trying to appeal to reason. I'm sure there are narratives about the chronology of the culture debate (or the policy debate) that differ from yours.

      My hope is to see a return of constructive dialogue, with people actually listening, considering other views and together working out better approaches than what we've done so far. At this point, that hope is fading because there seems little appetite on either side for such an effort, even on a soccer bulletin board.

      And after all that, when I said "kind of like this post," I was referring to your earlier line about "belittling the actions of those they disagree with" and I took that personally because what I want to be above all other things is respectful. I don't have a problem with the idea of kneeling as a statement against true racism, which is evil, but agree with Les that in the end, it's not kneeling that is going to make the difference.

      But I shouldn't have said that in my post because it isn't fair to you and it definitely isn't constructive. My apologies. I did take it personally.

      I would only add here that "the right" and "the left" are such broad groupings that it really calls for some considerable defining as to what is meant by each. There's no way that in terms of policy or even temperament, that there aren't way more than TWO groupings of positions and mindsets. We have to understand where individual people are, as individuals.
      Swab
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 13,080 posts | 3224 
      Re: George Floyd : Aftermath
      Reply #152: Oct 30, 2020 05:29:16 pm
      So, I quoted Les Ferdinand about the relative value and effectiveness of pre-game kneeling. It resonated with me because I see a lot of symbolic action but little done to concretely make the world a better place. I DO want the world to be a better place, for everybody. I tend to disagree with a lot of people on here about the policies that make that happen. When I worked on Capitol Hill, I disagreed with fellow Republican on a regular basis. But I've seen a lot of things from our government in my lifetime, and it doesn't seem to be that poverty has really been dented. Instead you have cycles of hopelessness. I think that's tragic.Also shameful is how divided we are as a society.

      Without getting into the much more nuanced and extensive policy debate, FL Red - said he thought what I was referring to (re Ferdinand's quote) is "virtue signaling." I responded that my definition of virtue signaling isn't symbolism per se, but rather the sort of snarky, belittling and self-adulating posts I tend to see on social media. Now, you can call that a method of fighting a good battle, but my thought is it isn't very effective, especially with reasonable people who hold opposite views. Starting with a punch in the nose isn't really ideal.

      Now does this work both ways? Of course it does. There's no corner on lacking diplomacy or trying to appeal to reason. I'm sure there are narratives about the chronology of the culture debate (or the policy debate) that differ from yours.

      My hope is to see a return of constructive dialogue, with people actually listening, considering other views and together working out better approaches than what we've done so far. At this point, that hope is fading because there seems little appetite on either side for such an effort, even on a soccer bulletin board.

      And after all that, when I said "kind of like this post," I was referring to your earlier line about "belittling the actions of those they disagree with" and I took that personally because what I want to be above all other things is respectful. I don't have a problem with the idea of kneeling as a statement against true racism, which is evil, but agree with Les that in the end, it's not kneeling that is going to make the difference.

      But I shouldn't have said that in my post because it isn't fair to you and it definitely isn't constructive. My apologies. I did take it personally.

      I would only add here that "the right" and "the left" are such broad groupings that it really calls for some considerable defining as to what is meant by each. There's no way that in terms of policy or even temperament, that there aren't way more than TWO groupings of positions and mindsets. We have to understand where individual people are, as individuals.

      Let me dial this back a bit to the "culture war" I spoke of.

      Did you know that "political correctness" is a phrase invented by the right in order to mock the fight for equality?

      This is what normal, ordinary, tolerant folk are up against.

      This is nothing new by the way.
      It has been happening for a long time now.
      Look at UK election posters from before and after WW2 and indeed WW1.
      Look at the rhetoric used, look at how the media reinforce the narratives.

      Then remember US history and how it is relatively recently that even a semblance of equality was gained.

      What we have, are right wing ideologue politicians who believe the free market (which of course doesn't exist) should control everything, but this is really a cover for a tiny minority to grab as much as they can.
      Every time there is a recession, more assets and money end up in fewer hands. Recessions concentrate wealth and power, and increase unrest and bigotry.
      In order to do this, they use a tactic as old as politics itself, and seek to divide people so that they are so busy fighting amongst themselves, they don't notice how all their hard won rights, and benefits are being taken away, and when they get the idiots on board, it becomes much easier for them to do.
      People blame minorities, older people, younger people, gay people, other religions for their own shortcomings or lack of life chances, because the media who control the narrative tell them it's so.
      In reality, people are poor or have limited life chances because the people at the very top always want more. In many cases, more money than they could spend in a hundred lifetimes.

      It is, quite literally, divide and conquer.
      The British establishment didn't just do it overseas for hundreds of years, they did it to their own citizens, and still do.
      The American model is based on this; corporatocracy backed by military might.

      The traditional left has always fought against this, and will continue to do so.
      The centrists, not so much.
      The right will do anything to keep this going, because they also get rich by supporting this system.

      There is no middle ground in this, regardless of what some talking head on the BBC or in the media has been prompted to say.

      It is literally class war, and the wealthiest, the tiny minority are winning.
      Until that changes, things will only get worse.
      Robby The Z
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 7,287 posts | 2005 
      Re: George Floyd : Aftermath
      Reply #153: Oct 30, 2020 05:45:15 pm
      Let me dial this back a bit to the "culture war" I spoke of.

      Did you know that "political correctness" is a phrase invented by the right in order to mock the fight for equality?

      This is what normal, ordinary, tolerant folk are up against.

      This is nothing new by the way.
      It has been happening for a long time now.
      Look at UK election posters from before and after WW2 and indeed WW1.
      Look at the rhetoric used, look at how the media reinforce the narratives.

      Then remember US history and how it is relatively recently that even a semblance of equality was gained.

      What we have, are right wing ideologue politicians who believe the free market (which of course doesn't exist) should control everything, but this is really a cover for a tiny minority to grab as much as they can.
      Every time there is a recession, more assets and money end up in fewer hands. Recessions concentrate wealth and power, and increase unrest and bigotry.
      In order to do this, they use a tactic as old as politics itself, and seek to divide people so that they are so busy fighting amongst themselves, they don't notice how all their hard won rights, and benefits are being taken away, and when they get the idiots on board, it becomes much easier for them to do.
      People blame minorities, older people, younger people, gay people, other religions for their own shortcomings or lack of life chances, because the media who control the narrative tell them it's so.
      In reality, people are poor or have limited life chances because the people at the very top always want more. In many cases, more money than they could spend in a hundred lifetimes.

      It is, quite literally, divide and conquer.
      The British establishment didn't just do it overseas for hundreds of years, they did it to their own citizens, and still do.
      The American model is based on this; corporatocracy backed by military might.

      The traditional left has always fought against this, and will continue to do so.
      The centrists, not so much.
      The right will do anything to keep this going, because they also get rich by supporting this system.

      There is no middle ground in this, regardless of what some talking head on the BBC or in the media has been prompted to say.

      It is literally class war, and the wealthiest, the tiny minority are winning.
      Until that changes, things will only get worse.

      OK - if there is no middle ground (talking policy here - not any notion that some people are better than others because of their ethnicity or wallet, or country of birth or gender or whatever), than we've got nothing left to talk about.
      Swab
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 13,080 posts | 3224 
      Re: George Floyd : Aftermath
      Reply #154: Oct 30, 2020 06:10:52 pm
      OK - if there is no middle ground (talking policy here - not any notion that some people are better than others because of their ethnicity or wallet, or country of birth or gender or whatever), than we've got nothing left to talk about.

      The "centre ground" in politics, is a myth in the UK and USA.
      What it means is that one group is slightly less neo-liberal than the other group, and they both serve the wealthiest, first and foremost.
      It's because of this, that politicians who are viewed as mainstream in European countries are derided as "far left" and "commies" in the UK and USA.

      What they never tell people is that those politics are practiced and implemented successfully all over Europe.
      MIRO
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • Started Topic
      • 12,977 posts | 3117 
      • I Love My A.M.G.
      Re: George Floyd : Aftermath
      Reply #155: Oct 30, 2020 11:30:31 pm
      https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/30/us/philadelphia-police-tasers-walter-wallace-jr-/index.html

      (CNN)The Philadelphia police shooting of Walter Wallace Jr. has raised questions about why the 27-year-old was shot and killed, rather than tasered and detained.

      Wallace, who had a knife in his hand, was described by family members as having bipolar disorder and was in crisis during the time of the shooting.
      "All I'm thinking in my head is,
      'Where the Tasers at?'" JaHiem Simpson, who took video of the police shooting, told CNN. He said he saw officers pull their guns as soon as they saw the knife.
      Police said the officers were not equipped with Tasers. Philadelphia Council President Darrell L. Clarke said Wednesday there is a five-year plan by the police calling for $14 million in expenditures for new Tasers.

      But some experts say that the officers choosing to use their guns was the correct amount of force on Wallace, because of the fact that he had a weapon.
      Darrin Porcher, Pace University criminal justice professor and retired New York Police Department lieutenant, said the officers could be seen backpedaling in the video because they were trying to maintain what's known as the "zone of safety," which is typically 10 feet.

      "Once Mr. Wallace impeded on that 10 feet, that's when they used deadly force, that's when they shot him," Porcher said. "Based on a knife entering the equation, I think that made the firearm the more probable weapon to be deployed in this situation."
      Charles Ramsey, former Philadelphia police commissioner, said while the outcome was not anything anyone wanted, he "didn't see anything criminal on the side of the officers."
      Wallace's family is not calling for the officers involved in his death to face murder charges, family attorney Shaka Johnson said. Instead, they want to see every officer equipped with less-than-lethal equipment to ensure better responses to mental health incidents.
      "They want to see change, meaning that, no one else who is suffering from a mental health crisis should be met by ill-trained, ill-prepared, ill-equipped police officers," Johnson said.

      The Philadelphia manual of directives says "aggressive action will not be taken by police personnel" when dealing with a severely mentally disabled person, "unless there is an immediate threat to life or physical danger" to that person, the police or others present.

      The use of a Taser, or electronic control weapon (ECW) is seen as an intermediate use of force.
      Verbal commands are considered no force and using a firearm is considered deadly force.

      According to Porcher, the only other non-lethal devices that could have been used during the confrontation would've been a baton or pepper spray.
      "It would've been a challenge using a baton" because if you swing and miss, an officer could've been cut, he said.
      And with pepper spray, "if you get the blow back while in the street, you become the victim in what you deployed."
      "They wouldn't have been prudent situations," he said.
      As far as shooting Wallace in the arm or leg, Porcher said aiming at limbs is a much smaller target and officers are trained to shoot center mass.
      "It's the largest target on the body," he said. "Police are trained to shoot to stop, not shoot to kill."
      Ramsey said when someone is armed, officers go with what they believe can counteract that weapon.
      "Everything is dependent on what's going on at the moment and the nature of the threat," he said.

      Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said Monday the department has the technology to flag a call that has a behavioral health component, but the person in that role was not working at the time of Wallace's shooting.
      Outlaw did emphasize that the department itself does not have a behavioral health program at this time.

      "Through other city entities, (there are) behavioral health resources," she said. "We are evaluating how we can bring our programs together."

      About 4,500 patrol officers make up Philadelphia's police force and the department has 2,300 Tasers, Outlaw said in a news conference Wednesday.
      "What the conversation is today is how do we ensure that we get enough Tasers so that every officer -- at least every officer that's working in operations -- has a Taser," Outlaw said.
      Ramsey was police commissioner from 2008 to 2016, during which time the department was assessed by the US Department of Justice and he requested more funding for Tasers.

      A 2015 report from the Justice Department found "serious deficiencies" in the Philadelphia Police Department's use of force, finding about 15% of police shootings were of unarmed suspects who were mistaken for being armed.

      The assessment also found that Philadelphia police officers do not receive the sufficient training required to de-escalate potentially violent confrontations. For some recruits, this training has been nothing more than lectures.
      The Justice Department recommended regular and consistent training of the department's deadly force policy and that ECWs be standard issue weapons for every officers.
      "We provide crisis intervention training to our officers to ensure there's not only a focus on de-escalation, but slowing things down if situations allow for that," Outlaw said.
      Not every officer in the city is equipped with Tasers, Outlaw said Tuesday. Officers who would be equipped with Tasers include lieutenants, sergeants and uniformed patrol officers, Porcher said.
      It's common for officers to respond to domestic disturbances with a gun because it's "one of the tools that we carry on our tool belt," she said.
      The department gets $900,000 a year for the electrical weapons, enough to buy a few hundred per year, Outlaw said.
      Philadelphia's City Council has funded the first year of the five-year plan to get more Tasers, which was $4.5 million, said Clarke, the Philadelphia Council President.
      "Year to year you have to get funding for that," Ramsey said, adding that 95% of the budget goes to personnel costs. "Police department budgets don't have money for equipment."

      CNN's Mark Morales, Steve Almasy, Eric Levenson, Andy Rose, Hollie Silverman and Ray Sanchez contributed to this report.

      « Last Edit: Oct 31, 2020 05:15:23 pm by MIRO »
      HUYTON RED
      • Forum Legend - Shankly
      • ******

      • 32,314 posts | 5172 
      Re: George Floyd : Aftermath
      Reply #156: Oct 31, 2020 11:30:05 am
      Your in dreamland if you think politics in Europe are successful.


      I'd take being German and having Merkel as a leader as being more successful than this shithole of a country and fuckwit Boris!



      MIRO
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • Started Topic
      • 12,977 posts | 3117 
      • I Love My A.M.G.
      Re: George Floyd : Aftermath
      Reply #157: Nov 03, 2020 01:36:56 pm
      WARNING     DISTURBING VIDEO .

      DEATH OF TONY TIMPA   2016.



      https://youtu.be/_MkCVA3Yu7k

      Quick Reply