I don't believe you, with your record of fairness and sincerity. Many also believed in the insurrection being led by Trump, no matter how stupid it looks.
Now comes the gaslighting, if the media holds true to form.The FBI has found no evidence that Trump was directly involved in organizing Capitol-riot violence.
It also found little evidence of an organized plot to overturn the election results.
"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said one former official.
Thanks. I knew you would. Just like the time you posted a picture of someone's grandmother inside the capitol in order to persuade us that the insurrectionist were just visitors having a look at the capitol.
Sure. Lots of them.
Insurrection.
Well, Trump spent an hour on the morning of the 6th of January telling an assembled crowd to march into the capitol and stop the democratic process of installing the person who just won the presidential election into office.
Oh, I was under the impression that none had yet been charged with insurrection.
You're welcome to your opinion Cunt, but I call it like I see it. You're trolling again.Cunt wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 6:47 pmOh, I was under the impression that none had yet been charged with insurrection.
Doesn't stop a lying, biased media from promoting the idea. Doesn't stop a lying, biased media from demoting the idea either.
I'll be sure to watch for that charge, and adjust my opinion of this statement accordingly.
And Joe, when you troll so often, with trolling accusations, it could make you look like a troll.
Give Hermit a chance to cite his sources, or make a convoluted argument as to why there hasn't been any justice for MONTHS on this (except Trump being acquitted of inciting it in the Senate)
Nobody has been charged, and it would surprise me if anyone will be. Just the same, the intent was to stop the democratic process of installing the person who just won the presidential election into office by undemocratic means, and the loser of the presidential election spent an hour encouraging them to do so. Looks pretty insurrectionist by all concerned that day.
Yep. It's that zero-sum thinking that Heather McGee wrote about in The Sum of Us:Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 2:27 pmWhich is where we might talk about the anti-CRT sentiments that getting the 'concerned' so all up in a froth at the moment. CRT was rooted in the idea that when the civil rights act was brought in it only made certain forms of discrimination illegal but did nothing to address the institutions or the individuals who had, until that point, lived by and benefited from racist polices: which is to say, the existence of the law didn't in and of itself change racist structures or attitudes. Not that one would necessarily expect it to - that was not the law's purpose. To some extent this was understood at the time. As Kendi notes in the first chapter of his book mentioned above...Seabass wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 2:04 am...
Basically, US conservatives think that in order to lift black people out of the bottom caste in the US, you'd have to do it at the expense of white people. So they feel that once you achieve equality under the law, you're done. Pass the Civil Rights act, and wash our hands of the matter. Never mind that centuries of racism in the US have led to black people having far less wealth than white people. Nothing we can do about that because to pursue equity would be punishing current white people for something whites in the past did.
If you've been brought up to consider that the exercise of one's rights and protections under the law are somehow conditional on someone else being denied those rights and protections, or at least not being able to exercise them to the same extent as you--say, that you and people like you should naturally be the first in line for a job or a loan etc and that some other people should be put to the back of the line; that you and people like you should have unrestricted access to land or be allowed to amass personal wealth and that some other people should have their access and that ability limited; etc--then you're probably more likely to think that granting everybody an equal shot at a job or a loan or a decent lawyer etc is not very just or fair, to you and people like you, because it bumps you off the top of the list. This is how conservatives and their minions and masters like to frame things: that on the basis of justice and fairness equality is essentially inequitable, because it removes certain rights, protections, and privileges which you have a natural right to expect, and to which you had traditionally lay greater claim.As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in 1978, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”
Hermit wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 6:36 amThose figures prove systematic inequality inflicted on 13% of the US population on account of being black. There's a word for that: racism. You dismiss this as unimportant?
- 71% of White families lived in owner-occupied homes while
45 % of Latinx families lived in owner-occupied homes and
41 % of Black families lived in owner-occupied homes- $70,642 was the average family income of White people while
$41,692 was the average family income of Black people- $171,000 was the median family net worth of White people while
$17,150 was the median family net worth of Black people- Black child poverty rates are regularly triple white rates
- Black unemployment is consistently almost double white unemployment
What do the stats mean, Cunt?
Exactly, her public pool example you posted is a terrific illustration. In the end, the white kids from lower income families lost out as a result of just that kind of thinking.Seabass wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 8:04 pmYep. It's that zero-sum thinking that Heather McGee wrote about in The Sum of Us:Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 2:27 pmWhich is where we might talk about the anti-CRT sentiments that getting the 'concerned' so all up in a froth at the moment. CRT was rooted in the idea that when the civil rights act was brought in it only made certain forms of discrimination illegal but did nothing to address the institutions or the individuals who had, until that point, lived by and benefited from racist polices: which is to say, the existence of the law didn't in and of itself change racist structures or attitudes. Not that one would necessarily expect it to - that was not the law's purpose. To some extent this was understood at the time. As Kendi notes in the first chapter of his book mentioned above...Seabass wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 2:04 am...
Basically, US conservatives think that in order to lift black people out of the bottom caste in the US, you'd have to do it at the expense of white people. So they feel that once you achieve equality under the law, you're done. Pass the Civil Rights act, and wash our hands of the matter. Never mind that centuries of racism in the US have led to black people having far less wealth than white people. Nothing we can do about that because to pursue equity would be punishing current white people for something whites in the past did.
If you've been brought up to consider that the exercise of one's rights and protections under the law are somehow conditional on someone else being denied those rights and protections, or at least not being able to exercise them to the same extent as you--say, that you and people like you should naturally be the first in line for a job or a loan etc and that some other people should be put to the back of the line; that you and people like you should have unrestricted access to land or be allowed to amass personal wealth and that some other people should have their access and that ability limited; etc--then you're probably more likely to think that granting everybody an equal shot at a job or a loan or a decent lawyer etc is not very just or fair, to you and people like you, because it bumps you off the top of the list. This is how conservatives and their minions and masters like to frame things: that on the basis of justice and fairness equality is essentially inequitable, because it removes certain rights, protections, and privileges which you have a natural right to expect, and to which you had traditionally lay greater claim.As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in 1978, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 4#p1908024
As usual Cunt's playing pointless word games, and we've been through all this before. His argument is, to be politically correct, developmentally disabled, and a transparent attempt to deflect from his failure to answer your question about obvious racial inequity.Hermit wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 7:48 pmNobody has been charged, and it would surprise me if anyone will be. Just the same, the intent was to stop the democratic process of installing the person who just won the presidential election into office by undemocratic means, and the loser of the presidential election spent an hour encouraging them to do so. Looks pretty insurrectionist by all concerned that day.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests
