Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

Brian?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

This 'taking a knee' black lives matter thing is silly when you think about it.
I mean I know the idea is to highlight racism and so on.
But I felt it is only preaching to the choir 'people who are not racist'. But racists are always going to be racists - it won't make a difference to them.

I mean I saw on the soccer yesterday the players - 'took the knee'.
It was said by commentators today that it looked 'powerful'.

But to me firstly looked liked lads stretching. Plus way worse than this, it reminded me of 'Planet of the Apes' where the apes crouch down and make themselves submissive. All that was missing was the arm outstretched!

Then I realised oh jayus that could be interpreted as racist! Apes etc. But it honestly did remind me of the film because of the kneeling and submissiveness.

Am I the only one who thought this? How does it help?

It’s pretty simple. Everyone stands for the national anthem. Sitting would be just seen as lazy. So the NFL players decided the best way to be noticed was to kneel. It stands out when everyone else is standing.

BattleCorp

I'm not sure if this type of comment is allowed but here goes.

I think far less black people would be shot in the States if they didn't have such a confrontational attitute towards the police.

Fair enough, I'll concede that they may be unfairly picked upon and some are given a sh1tty time by the cops.

But if I was in a category that was being unfairly picked upon, I'd be doing my best to comply with lawful requests and not come to their attention instead of resisting their authority at every occasion.

partyguinness

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

It was Argentina that used force to claim them.

Britain's claim is based on an overwhelming democratic mandate.



Maybe we've found a new unpopular opinion: "Democracy should be ignored based on geography." Not one I'd subscribe to.

"Yeah let's claim a barren island. Fill it full of friendly ex pats and then take the high ground on 'democracy' when we hold elections.”

Sure, that is Israeli’s modus operandi-

“Let’s annex some more Palestinian territory, empty it of the native Arab population, fill it full of our own people and then hold ‘democratic’ elections confirming that is what the people want.”

Or even closer to home:

Let’s kick the natives off the land and turn them into tenants, take several thousand planters from Scotland, create a majority Unionist enclave expressly engineered to be ‘democratically’ opposed to any detachment from the UK. ‘Sure, isn’t that what the majority of people want- we are just following the ‘democratic’ wishes of the majority of people’. And that will be the stick used to counter any argument.

A la carte democracy.

Sheep_shear

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I mean I saw on the soccer yesterday the players - 'took the knee'.
It was said by commentators today that it looked 'powerful'.

Yeah, I laughed at that. Throughout history, kneeling has been an act of subservience or swearing loyalty or worship.

A bunch of megestar PL players "taking the knee" with their jerseys plastered with NHS and BLM logos, lol. Though the NHS worship over here is something else, and shows no signs of abaiting.

Sheep_shear

partyguinness wrote: »

"Yeah let's claim a barren island. Fill it full of friendly ex pats and then take the high ground on 'democracy' when we hold elections.”

Sure, that is Israeli’s modus operandi-

“Let’s annex some more Palestinian territory, empty it of the native Arab population, fill it full of our own people and then hold ‘democratic’ elections confirming that is what the people want.”

In one case, it's humans being displaced. In the other it was penguins... That's the same thing.

partyguinness

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not sure if this type of comment is allowed but here goes.

I think far less black people would be shot in the States if they didn't have such a confrontational attitute towards the police.

Fair enough, I'll concede that they may be unfairly picked upon and some are given a sh1tty time by the cops.

But if I was in a category that was being unfairly picked upon, I'd be doing my best to comply with lawful requests and not come to their attention instead of resisting their authority at every occasion.

The highlighted points kinda answer your own question. It is more the complete use of excessive force.

So a guy runs off. Ok- he should not do it. But they have his car, DNA, fingerprints and the car is probably registered in his name. Go after him then and arrest him at home over the next few days.

Why shoot him dead in the back as he is running in the opposite direction? What purpose did it serve? He was not dangering anyone and now 3 young girls have no father.

Next time somone gives a Guard some guff should they be just shot dead?

There is not much difference between these killings and extra judicial death squads in South America.

In LA a few years back there was this guy off his head on drugs and running around open some hills and scrub land completely bollock naked clearly having an episode- nothing in his hand and no other people around.

He settled down and was just standing there naked in front of the cops. For no reason the cops just released their dogs on the guy- he took an awful mauling. On the ground they hand cuffed him and still the dog was attacking him- never called off and completely defenceless. He suffured horrific injuries and a broken bones and a leg. Why?

I saw the body cam footage. Things like that don't even register in the public domain.

partyguinness

The Falkllands War was a battle to see who could be the most petty.

BattleCorp

partyguinness wrote: »

The highlighted points kinda answer your own question. It is more the complete use of excessive force.

Yes, there is a problem with how some cops deal with black folks, and that problem needs to be addressed in a hurry........but there is also a problem with how black folks respond during interractions with the cops. It doesn't make sense to aggravate cops and be confrontational with them.

If cops are likely to use excessive force on you because of your skin colour, wouldn't it be a tad more clever to do what they request you to do and don't give them a reason to bash your head in or plug you full of holes?

Brian?

partyguinness wrote: »

The Falkllands War was a battle to see who could be the most petty.

No one should ever take on the Brits in a pettyoff

partyguinness

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yes, there is a problem with how some cops deal with black folks, and that problem needs to be addressed in a hurry........but there is also a problem with how black folks respond during interractions with the cops. It doesn't make sense to aggravate cops and be confrontational with them.

If cops are likely to use excessive force on you because of your skin colour, wouldn't it be a tad more clever to do what they request you to do and don't give them a reason to bash your head in or plug you full of holes?

Yeah I get your point- why give the cops an excuse to beat your ass and even kill you. I think 99% of people would take that approach. Just stand there and comply.

But that amounts to victim blaming and even an acceptance that sure it happens so just deal with it.

It is about not letting the police act with impunity i.e. excessive force. If the the cops can 'get away' with shooting dead unarmed people at will God only knows what else they will do.

CrankyHaus

As a country that had to gain our self determination with great difficulty and suffering I can never understand Irish people wishing to deny it to the Falklands Islanders.

Irish nationalism should be based on something more positive than "Feck the Brits".

Similarly the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano was an entirely legitimate act of war .

partyguinness

CrankyHaus wrote: »

As a country that had to gain our self determination with great difficulty and suffering I can never understand Irish people wishing to deny it to the Falklands Islanders.

Conflating different points.

I am delighted to see the Falklands in UK hands and let them do what they want. Serves as a wonderful visual reminder of UK pettiness in all its exceptional glory

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Irish nationalism should be based on something more positive than "Feck the Brits".

What has Irish nationalism have to do with the Falklands War? Again you are conflating two separate issues.

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Similarly the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano was an entirely legitimate act of war .

Nothing to see here. Even the Argentinian navy agree.

Experience_day

partyguinness wrote: »

The highlighted points kinda answer your own question. It is more the complete use of excessive force.

So a guy runs off. Ok- he should not do it. But they have his car, DNA, fingerprints and the car is probably registered in his name. Go after him then and arrest him at home over the next few days.

Why shoot him dead in the back as he is running in the opposite direction? What purpose did it serve? He was not dangering anyone and now 3 young girls have no father.

Next time somone gives a Guard some guff should they be just shot dead?

There is not much difference between these killings and extra judicial death squads in South America.

In LA a few years back there was this guy off his head on drugs and running around open some hills and scrub land completely bollock naked clearly having an episode- nothing in his hand and no other people around.

He settled down and was just standing there naked in front of the cops. For no reason the cops just released their dogs on the guy- he took an awful mauling. On the ground they hand cuffed him and still the dog was attacking him- never called off and completely defenceless. He suffured horrific injuries and a broken bones and a leg. Why?

I saw the body cam footage. Things like that don't even register in the public domain.

Out of curiosity, could they not say that they thought having actually unlawfully towards the cops.....that they posed a danger to the public? Often someone who is facing serious charges (guessing they don't take lightly to cops being beaten over there...) would find themselves backed into a corner so to speak.


Not saying right or wrong but could be explanation?


(Also in a place the size of america surely its easy to disappear?)

CrankyHaus

partyguinness wrote: »

Conflating different points.

How are they different? In both cases self-determination is the same issue.

partyguinness wrote: »

I am delighted to see the Falklands in UK hands and let them do what they want. Serves as a wonderful visual reminder of UK pettiness in all its exceptional glory

No idea what you're tyring to say here, but it comes off like an unhinged rant.

partyguinness wrote: »

What has Irish nationalism have to do with the Falklands War? Again you are conflating two separate issues.

You know full well, or should if you're expressing an opinion on the subject, that Irish Nationalists take the Argentine side on the issue simply to oppose the British. Whether that's The Wofle Tones releasing songs about "Las Islas Malvinas, Argentinas" or Charlie Haughey's government switching from support for the British to a neutral position after the sinking of the Belgrano, which undermines your next point.

partyguinness wrote: »

Nothing to see here. Even the Argentinian navy agree.

Baggly

Mod

Lads - the thread is for unpopular opinions. Try not to get annoyed by them. If you click in here, expect something unpopular.

partyguinness

Experience_day wrote: »

Out of curiosity, could they not say that they thought having actually unlawfully towards the cops.....that they posed a danger to the public? Often someone who is facing serious charges (guessing they don't take lightly to cops being beaten over there...) would find themselves backed into a corner so to speak.


Not saying right or wrong but could be explanation?


(Also in a place the size of america surely its easy to disappear?)

It is not the role of any police force to go around shooting people whenever they feel like it. You can come up with every excuse under the sun to justify any course of action.

A danger to the public? Where do you draw the line? Who decides that? Some trigger happy testosterone fuelled 27 yr old? God help us.

With enough imagination everyone and anyone could be considered a danger to the public.

He was not backed into a corner. There were 3 armed cops in attendance. Brooks on his own was running off into the distance. Yes Brooks should not have acted in the manner he did and no doubt would have been charged and jailed but it did not warrant being shot dead.

The role of the police is to apprehend and bring suspects to justice. Not to act as judge, jury and executioner.

BattleCorp

partyguinness wrote: »

It is not the role of any police force to go around shooting people whenever they feel like it. You can come up with every excuse under the sun to justify any course of action.

It is the role of the police to enforce the law. That is a dangerous job sometimes. But when you resist arrest, assault police officers, steal their taser and shoot it at them, you can expect that they will respond in a violent manner.

Some cops have unjustly shot people in the past. I'll go so far as to say that it has often happened, but Brooks incident doesn't look like one of those times to me.

A danger to the public? Where do you draw the line? Who decides that? Some trigger happy testosterone fuelled 27 yr old? God help us.

Unfortunately it has to be the person there, on the spot. In this instance it was the cop who decided that. They don't have the benefit of hindsight. And the cop was after being assaulted and had a taser fired at him a couple of seconds earlier.

With enough imagination everyone and anyone could be considered a danger to the public.

There was no imagination in this case. There is video footage of Brooks acting in a dangerous and violent manner.

If I was being arrested for DUI, and allowed the cops to handcuff me and put me in the car, I wouldn't be considered a danger to the public.

All Brooks had to do was comply and he would be alive today.

He was not backed into a corner. There were 3 armed cops in attendance. Brooks on his own was running off into the distance. Yes Brooks should not have acted in the manner he did and no doubt would have been charged and jailed but it did not warrant being shot dead.

Where did the third cop come from? I thought there were only two cops there. Ah yes, 15 feet. Not exactly the distance either.

The role of the police is to apprehend and bring suspects to justice. Not to act as judge, jury and executioner.

It's not their role to be assaulted by a violent criminal and let them away either.

Iscreamkone

When playing football some people give out when a red card is issued. "That didn't deserve a red,ref". But did the player give the ref the opportunity to give that red?
When the perp legged it did he give the cops "the opportunity" to shoot him.
If it was me, knowing what I know about american cops, I'd have taken my medicine and not given anyone "an opportunity" to gun me down.

timsey tiger

Sheep_shear wrote: »

Yeah, I laughed at that. Throughout history, kneeling has been an act of subservience or swearing loyalty or worship.

A bunch of megestar PL players "taking the knee" with their jerseys plastered with NHS and BLM logos, lol. Though the NHS worship over here is something else, and shows no signs of abaiting.

Yea, goes to show that those who claim that it is disrespectful to the flag/troops etc. are complete aholes who just don't want to listen.

timsey tiger

partyguinness wrote: »

The Falkllands War was a battle to see who could be the most petty.

Maybe, now that the oil fields in the adjacent seas may prove to be never economically viable. Still, on the upside, still won Maggie the election.

partyguinness

BattleCorp wrote: »

It is the role of the police to enforce the law. That is a dangerous job sometimes. But when you resist arrest, assault police officers, steal their taser and shoot it at them, you can expect that they will respond in a violent manner.

Yes he did all that and the suspect was running away. Shot in the back.

'respond in a violent manner' perhaps 'forceful' would be a better word to attribute to a cop.

Forceful yes- excessive force- no.

When he pulled out his gun and shot a man running away in the back (danger abating)- it became excessive and unreasonable.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Unfortunately it has to be the person there, on the spot. In this instance it was the cop who decided that. They don't have the benefit of hindsight. And the cop was after being assaulted and had a taser fired at him a couple of seconds earlier.

'was after being assaulted'- past tense.

The cop has time to compose himself, pull out his gun, take aim at the guy's back and shoot.

Some posters are intent on creating an equivalance with a non lethal taser which only has 1-3 'shots' and a fully loaded hand gun in the hands of a trained marksman.

BattleCorp wrote: »

There was no imagination in this case. There is video footage of Brooks acting in a dangerous and violent manner.

If I was being arrested for DUI, and allowed the cops to handcuff me and put me in the car, I wouldn't be considered a danger to the public.

All Brooks had to do was comply and he would be alive today.

Sure he would but now you are victim blaming and deflecting to defend the indefensible.

Two wrongs do not make a right and all that.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Where did the third cop come from? I thought there were only two cops there. Ah yes, 15 feet. Not exactly the distance either.

My bad. Just the two armed cops then. Still not the poor defenseless cop backed in the corner up against a big bad suspect.

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's not their role to be assaulted by a violent criminal and let them away either.

I don't think that qualifies as a 'role'. Occupational hazard as a cop- find the culprit later, arrest, charge and let a judge throw the book at him.

That is why we have a judicial system.

Justin Credible Darts

I am sick of those antifa *****
sick of the black lives matter *****
sick of the needless rioting and looting

the protesting continuing solves nothing, in facts only makes the situation worse

Gregor Samsa

Nothing that involves dragons - Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Dragonheart, The Neverending Story, The Bible, How to Train Your Dragon, Game of Thrones, for instance - is any good. Dragons are indicative of base buffoonery masquerading as epic fantasy, and when you see a dragon in something, no self-respecting adult would have any interest in it. Horses aren't far behind.

EmmetSpiceland

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Nothing that involves dragons - Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Dragonheart, The Neverending Story, The Bible, How to Train Your Dragon, Game of Thrones, for instance - is any good. Dragons are indicative of base buffoonery masquerading as epic fantasy, and when you see a dragon in something, no self-respecting adult would have any interest in it. Horses aren't far behind.

No dragons in ‘Lord of the Rings’, G.

timsey tiger

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

No dragons in ‘Lord of the Rings’, G.

There is in the hobbit though and I'm sure they are referred to when Frodo gets to Holem's deep.

Gregor Samsa

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

No dragons in ‘Lord of the Rings’, G.

Oh please, spare me the nerd pedantry. The Hobbit, middle earth, Frodo and Bobo, whatever. Normal people don't care.

BattleCorp

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Nothing that involves dragons - Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Dragonheart, The Neverending Story, The Bible, How to Train Your Dragon, Game of Thrones, for instance - is any good. Dragons are indicative of base buffoonery masquerading as epic fantasy, and when you see a dragon in something, no self-respecting adult would have any interest in it. Horses aren't far behind.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. That opinion is very unpopular in my house. :eek::eek::eek::eek:

WrenBoy

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Nothing that involves dragons - Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Dragonheart, The Neverending Story, The Bible, How to Train Your Dragon, Game of Thrones, for instance - is any good. Dragons are indicative of base buffoonery masquerading as epic fantasy, and when you see a dragon in something, no self-respecting adult would have any interest in it. Horses aren't far behind.

Oh, You would so be in Slytherin.

EmmetSpiceland

timsey tiger wrote: »

There is in the hobbit though and I'm sure they are referred to when Frodo gets to Holem's deep.

Oh, I’m sure they get a “mention” but there are none in ‘The Lord of the Rings’, itself.

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Oh please, spare me the nerd pedantry. The Hobbit, middle earth, Frodo and Bobo, whatever. Normal people don't care.

Nothing “nerdy” about me, chief. Just pointing out your mistake, no need to get scorpy.

Takes a big man to admit when he’s wrong, you know but it takes an even bigger man to give a giraffe a haircut. As “they” say.

partyguinness

I am firmly of the opinion that this lockdown, social distancing BS should be scrapped completely. Let the world get on with it.

If people get sick so be it. The already sick and elderly are the most vunerable- let them lock themselves away.