Is anyone else getting scared of where society is going?

Danzy

titan18 wrote: »

I think most people with common sense see a threat of violence when someone shouts I'll beat your white ass.

It's frightening how blinkered and cultish people have to be to have a problem with a pregnant woman defending herself from people that followed her for 200 yards saying they were going to beat her up.

It's understandable though any deviation from conformity, any reasoning or thinking outside of what is pure faith can mean a complete rejection, even the slightest can lead to that.

RasTa

Except she wasn't pregnant

ronivek

titan18 wrote: »

The comparison is cos Michigan court ruled that drawing a gun is non deadly force and that only means the defendant has to prove they reasonably believe that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

You're factually wrong on the Michigan Appeal Court's ruling.

The ruling relates to the instructions that were given to the jury in that specific case: namely that they were not allowed to even consider that non-deadly force could be used in self defence.

This absolutely does not mean that charges should not be brought in *this* completely separate case; only that if it gets to trial the judge will need to ensure the jury is instructed correctly. That's it.

titan18

Danzy wrote:

It's frightening how blinkered and cultish people have to be to have a problem with a pregnant woman defending herself from people that followed her for 200 yards saying they were going to beat her up.

Ya. Reverse the races in the scenario and if it was a white woman shouting I'll beat your black ass to a pregnant black woman, the same people would be saying it was acceptable to draw the gun.


Tbh, I consider the US gun laws to be ridiculous, but they are what they are there. The black woman continually escalated and comes off as trash. The white woman tries to de-escalate and leave until she had enough and pulled a gun. I think both parties are wrong really but what the white woman did is legal and not a crime. The white guy, I don't see why he got fired from his job, that part is the worst.

ronivek

Danzy wrote: »

It's frightening how blinkered and cultish people have to be to have a problem with a pregnant woman defending herself from people that followed her for 200 yards saying they were going to beat her up.

It's understandable though any deviation from conformity, any reasoning or thinking outside of what is pure faith can mean a complete rejection, even the slightest can lead to that.

You made an amazing contribution to thread by commenting on my question earlier yet failing entirely to answer it:

What would the relevance be if she were pregnant? Are pregnant women afforded special rights under the law that other people are not afforded w.r.t. self defence in Michigan?

Hannibal36

Danzy wrote: »

It's frightening how blinkered and cultish people have to be to have a problem with a pregnant woman defending herself from people that followed her for 200 yards saying they were going to beat her up.

It's understandable though any deviation from conformity, any reasoning or thinking outside of what is pure faith can mean a complete rejection, even the slightest can lead to that.

White middle class has just become extremely weak and subjugated,so much so,that they advise taking the knee and bowing to any Black aggression rather than stand up for themselves.

They are so used to bending over for and bowing down to everyone that when they see another White person not bend over and take it like them they don't like it,and expect you to take it just like them.

Some of us won't bow and that won't ever change and the weaker ones are doing it all the time so what's another bow down to random Black aggression for them.

GarIT

ronivek wrote: »

You made an amazing contribution to thread by commenting on my question earlier yet failing entirely to answer it:

What would the relevance be if she were pregnant? Are pregnant women afforded special rights under the law that other people are not afforded w.r.t. self defence in Michigan?

Do you think a woman with a small child should be shown more leniency if she takes proactive action to protect that child?

ronivek

ronivek wrote: »

You made an amazing contribution to thread by commenting on my question earlier yet failing entirely to answer it:

What would the relevance be if she were pregnant? Are pregnant women afforded special rights under the law that other people are not afforded w.r.t. self defence in Michigan?

A pregnant woman has two lives to protect. I would see it as her protecting her child and I would agree that she has no more rights, but would be rightly more concerned and proactive when it comes to protecting herself and her yet to be born child.

RasTa

titan18 wrote: »

Ya. Reverse the races in the scenario and if it was a white woman shouting I'll beat your black ass to a pregnant black woman, the same people would be saying it was acceptable to draw the gun.


Tbh, I consider the US gun laws to be ridiculous, but they are what they are there. The black woman continually escalated and comes off as trash. The white woman tries to de-escalate and leave until she had enough and pulled a gun. I think both parties are wrong really but what the white woman did is legal and not a crime. The white guy, I don't see why he got fired from his job, that part is the worst.

Why are you so focused on the race of the people? It's two idiots arguing over nothing. One idiot decides to pull a gun.

Race has nothing to do with it, thought she handled it well until she went into police officer mode.

sweet_trip

I've never seen so much pearl clutching in my life.

GarIT

RasTa wrote: »

Why are you so focused on the race of the people? It's two idiots arguing over nothing. One idiot decides to pull a gun.

Race has nothing to do with it, thought she handled it well until she went into police officer mode.

The black people were constantly claiming the altercation was happening because the white people were racist and made some racist comments themselves. The media is labelling it a racist attack.

sweet_trip

sweet_trip wrote: »

I've never seen so much pearl clutching in my life.

You must be new here. Care to expand on your thoughts though or just popping in to throw in a vague insult?

Danzy

sweet_trip wrote: »

I've never seen so much pearl clutching in my life.

What the f is pearl clutching, I'm not religious so I don't follow these terms.

titan18

RasTa wrote:

Race has nothing to do with it, thought she handled it well until she went into police officer mode.

It kinda does. The original video was edited to only show the part after the woman brings the gun out and was shown like before the longer video came out, and the black woman brings race into it by calling the white people racist despite shouting I'll beat your white ass (why bring white in there).

Was what the white woman did racist? No, but that was how it was originally spun and what the black woman wanted it to believe.

I'd agree on they're all idiots and if it all started cos the white woman accidentally walked into/nudged the black daughter, than it really shouldn't have escalated that far.

RasTa

titan18 wrote: »

It kinda does. The original video was edited to only show the part after the woman brings the gun out and was shown like before the longer video came out, and the black woman brings race into it by calling the white people racist despite shouting I'll beat your white ass (why bring white in there).

Was what the white woman did racist? No, but that was how it was originally spun and what the black woman wanted it to believe.

I'd agree on they're all idiots and if it all started cos the white woman accidentally walked into/nudged the black daughter, than it really shouldn't have escalated that far.

Well the only video I seen was the longer one I posted

Danzy

ronivek wrote: »

What would the relevance be if she were pregnant? Are pregnant women afforded special rights under the law that other people are not afforded w.r.t. self defence in Michigan?

Wow.
Frightening to think people like you are out there.

Your line reminds me of a quote from a woman in Bessborough and the attitude of the management there.

Ye never go away, just change sides and shirts over the years.

GarIT

Whether she is pregnant or not she also had three unseen kids in the back of the car according to police. That gives a small bit of context when the black woman was standing towards the back of the car and banging on the window/window pillar. The children may have been scared provoking a more proactive and protective reaction. You can see when the woman gets out with the gun she positions herself between her children and the black woman.

ronivek

GarIT wrote: »

Do you think a woman with a small child should be shown more leniency if she takes proactive action to protect that child?

It really depends on the circumstances; as do pretty much all self defence cases. However I don't think being pregnant gives you any more legal right to defend yourself than if you were not pregnant; although it certainly would have some bearing on the trial.

ronivek

Danzy wrote: »

Wow.
Frightening to think people like you are out there.

Your line reminds me of a quote from a woman in Bessborough and the attitude of the management there.

Ye never go away, just change sides and shirts over the years.

Amazing contribution yet again.

Second time you've ignored my questions; bravo.

ronivek

ronivek wrote: »

It really depends on the circumstances; as do pretty much all self defence cases. However I don't think being pregnant gives you any more legal right to defend yourself than if you were not pregnant; although it certainly would have some bearing on the trial.

No legal right. But absolutely more reason to be more proactive and would certainly expedite escalation of how vigorous I would expect them to defend themselves at any cost.

If the woman pulled a gun on a white woman after been threatened, she would not have been arrested, the husband would not of lost his job and these leftists - sjw here and elsewhere would not be attacking her. It's clear where the real racism is coming from.

They fact that these leftists/anarchists are so like the 1930s Nazis is the only frightening thing here.

sid waddell

SFC1895 wrote: »

Very strange conclusions you're coming up with here. You seem very upset, maybe you should have a lie down.


Tell me the views that I wish to impose on others then? Perhaps I object to being told that I should feel guilt about something that happened in another part of the world centuries ago because of the arbitrary nature of the colour I happened to have been born. Or perhaps I don't.



Some shout about straw man arguments from the poster who set up a false flag thread talking about dehumanising transgender people in the past couple of hours!

Telling somebody to have a lie down isn't an argument. It's an ad hominem to mask a lack of argument.

You're the person that claimed others are trying to impose views on people. I asked you to expand and you refused to so so.

In general I think posters on the far right here, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but the posts I've read from you here would indicate that that's where you lie on the political spectrum, are all about imposing their views on others.

I mean take the two recent high profile referendums we've had abut same sex marriage and the 8th Amendment.

In the same sex marriage referendum the Yes campaign was all about extending rights, it didn't want to impose anything on anybody. The No campaign however wanted to restrict the freedoms of gay people. ie. impose their views on everybody to restrict the rights of a group in society they had a problem with.

The 8th Amendment referendum was about abolishing the imposition of theocratic law on pregnant women. It was not abut forcing anybody to do anything. Only the No side wanted to impose their views.

I think what you mean when you claim others want to impose their views on you is that society considers it unacceptable to be racist, that you have a problem with that. You're going to have a problem in life if you consider it acceptable to be racist.

To me, it very much looked like you were trying to impose your views on others when you implied it was unacceptable for a white person to feel guilt about the many racist evils perpetrated by white people.

There's nothing wrong whatsoever with a white person feeling a level of guilt for racist outrages perpetrated by white people, both historical and contemporary.

In fact I would say it's both admirable and signifies a balanced, compassionate and historically literate mindset.

And you still haven't expanded at all on what is wrong with feeling such.

The other thread I set up was to lampoon the actual crazy views of the far right, in fact it wasn't even a lampooning - what I was taking the piss out of are the actual views you hear regularly from the far right - and judging by the irrational offence certain posters took to it, it looks like it was successful - it clearly touched a raw nerve as I exposed the ridiculousness of these far right views for what they are.

Danzy

ronivek wrote: »

Amazing contribution yet again.

Second time you've ignored my questions; bravo.

What question did your grace pose?

sid waddell

:eek:

sid waddell wrote: »

The other thread I set up was to lampoon the actual crazy views of the far right, in fact it wasn't even a lampooning - what I was taking the piss out of are the actual views you hear regularly from the far right - and judging by the irrational offence certain posters took to it, it looks like it was successful - it clearly touched a raw nerve as I exposed the ridiculousness of these far right views for what they are.

Hi again Sid. I can only assume you are referring to me as you accused me of taking offense on your satirical lampoon thread.

Just to clarify, absolutely no offense was taken by anyone. There was nothing in your thread which was offensive. It was just childish and belittled any cohesive and respectful discussion that was happening on the other threads.

I'm puzzled how you think it was successful as all you did was prove that anyone with what you consider a typical right wing mindset would be unable to air their views as they would get banned (as you did).

I'm pretty sure it's not cool to purposely start a thread to troll and to take the piss but hey, what can you do?

Would you consider me and my views far right?

Just for clarity and reference, I had issues with the repeal the 8th, no issue with gay marriage, I am not a fan of self ID for gender, absolutely against illegal immigration, vehemently against racism in all forms but also would never support BLM)

ronivek

Deleted User wrote: »

No legal right. But absolutely more reason to be more proactive and would certainly expedite escalation of how vigorous I would expect them to defend themselves at any cost.

For the most part I'm not really sure I agree. Certainly it might explain *why* someone reacted in a certain way; but I don't think it should give them any right to react more aggressively.

Although in some extreme cases such as a late pregnancy I can see how the threshold for deadly force could be lowered since presumably any blows which wouldn't be fatal or particularly dangerous to the woman may be fatal or extremely dangerous to a fetus.

I don't think in this case it really had any bearing on the situation: since it seems now that she had her 3 kids in the car already and she certainly wasn't in the late stages of pregnancy (if she was actually pregnant).

ronivek

ronivek wrote: »

For the most part I'm not really sure I agree. Certainly it might explain *why* someone reacted in a certain way; but I don't think it should give them any right to react more aggressively.

Although in some extreme cases such as a late pregnancy I can see how the threshold for deadly force could be lowered since presumably any blows which wouldn't be fatal or particularly dangerous to the woman may be fatal or extremely dangerous to a fetus.

I don't think in this case it really had any bearing on the situation: since it seems now that she had her 3 kids in the car already and she certainly wasn't in the late stages of pregnancy (if she was actually pregnant).

I kind of agree with you too. I'm just saying, if my other half was pregnant and in this situation, I would advocate for her behaviour to be similar. But that is a purely hypothetical and not specifically about this case.

I'm just saying a pregnant woman is (which may be a little old fashioned and mysogynist in this day and age) someone who should be, in most cases, afforded heightened protection (not by law but by common sense and decency)

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

I would say it is the common narrative on social media and media itself that all white people have white privilege and therefore anyone who signs up for that belief believes that white peoples opinion are diminished (even slightly) by virtue of their perceived privilege.

That is what I would consider an imposition.

There is nothing false about it either.

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to verbalise there but whatever it is, you haven't demonstrated any imposition of views on you.

I'll be quite up front in saying that I don't take seriously the views of white people who consistently try to diminish racism as a societal problem. That's not an imposition of views.

Why do I not take such views seriously?

Because white people with these views don't have to live it and thus, they haven't a clue what they're talking about.

I think it's very much a form of white privilege for a white person to dismiss or downgrade a major societal problem, ie. racism, which they have no personal experience of suffering from.

To do so means to dismiss black and other ethnic minority voices who say categorically and pretty much unanimously that it is a major problem.

I also consider it an imposition of views. How else would you describe somebody with no lived experience telling people with real, lifelong lived experience that they are wrong?

That's the right in a nutshell. They dismiss the voices of lived experience in favour of their own lack of knowledge (ie. ignorance) and inbuilt prejudice, and also expect and demand society to be shaped in accordance with their ignorance or prejuduce, to the detriment of those who have lived experience of those major societal problems.

My views on the subject would very much be formed by listening to black and other ethnic minority voices, and black and ethnic minority voices on the subject are almost unanimous on the main points of the issue. This also means I try to critically self-examine any inbuilt or unconscious racial prejudice I may have or have had in the past, and if necessary, change or adjust my views by virtue of greater understanding through listening.

That of course doesn't mean that I don't have white privilege myself, but I am very much aware that I have it.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to verbalise there but whatever it is, you haven't demonstrated any imposition of views on you.

I'll be quite up front in saying that I don't take seriously the views of white people who consistently try to diminish racism as a societal problem. That's not an imposition of views.

Why do I not take such views seriously?

Because white people with these views don't have to live it and thus, they haven't a clue what they're talking about.

I think it's very much a form of white privilege for a white person to dismiss or downgrade a major societal problem, ie. racism, which they have no personal experience of suffering from.

To do so means to dismiss black and other ethnic minority voices who say categorically and pretty much unanimously that it is a major problem.

I also consider it an imposition of views. How else would you describe somebody with no lived experience telling people with real, lifelong lived experience that they are wrong?

That's the right in a nutshell. They dismiss the voices of lived experience in favour of their own lack of knowledge (ie. ignorance) and inbuilt prejudice, and also expect and demand society to be shaped in accordance with their ignorance or prejuduce, to the detriment of those who have lived experience of those major societal problems.

My views on the subject would very much be formed by listening to black and other ethnic minority voices, and black and ethnic minority voices on the subject are almost unanimous on the main points of the issue. This also means I try to critically self-examine any inbuilt or unconscious racial prejudice I may have or have had in the past, and if necessary, change or adjust my views by virtue of greater understanding through listening.

That of course doesn't mean that I don't have white privilege myself, but I am very much aware that I have it.

Well then that's ok. I have no respect for your views because you have a racist opinion. I don't respect racism.

I do find it funny that you tell me I have no idea of what it is like to be black or Asian or any ethnic minority. I don't. But I also know they have no idea what it's like to be white. It's not about race.

Do poor black people know what it's like to be Barack Obama? Do they have shared life experiences? Do they know what it's like to be Bill Cosby? Does their shared skin colour make them the same?

Am I the same as Simon Cowell, Jeffrey Dahmer and PewDiePie because I share a skin colour?

People, regardless of race, are different and all lead different lives and have different experiences. I accept no responsibility or acceptance of any accusation of white privilege. In much the same way I would never think of accusing an entire race of people of anything. I judge people on their character not on their skin colour.

Show me a law that discriminates against people based on race and I will campaign for it to be changed.

Edit** with regards me not showing any evidence of imposition:

impose
/ɪmˈpəʊz/
verb
1.
force (an unwelcome decision or ruling) on someone.

That sounds exactly like someone insisting I am the beneficiary of white privilege

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet when you tried to open a thread posing as what you believe a right winger to be, it took three posts to get you thread banned.

You seem to view anyone who doesn't agree with you as right winger, racist, sexist, transphobic bigots.

I would like to know what you consider right wing extremists with regards to Ireland. Would people opposed to self ID laws be extremists? Would people who disagree with BLM be extremists?

You seem to think that any form of bigotry is acceptable.

I certainly consider anybody who disagrees with the general aim of the protests to be an extremist.

Like, objecting to and disagreeing with protests against racist police brutality and murder does seem a bit extreme, given that it very strongly implies that one actually supports racist police brutality and murder.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

You seem to think that any form of bigotry is acceptable.

I certainly consider anybody who disagrees with the general aim of the protests to be an extremist.

Like, objecting to and disagreeing with protests against racist police brutality and murder does seem a bit extreme, given that it very strongly implies that one actually supports racist police brutality and murder.

Disagreeing with BLM protests is enough for you to consider someone am extremist. Ok.