*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

Here's another question, and I'd kinda like you to be honest.

Who do you think is more likely to use their gun to kill someone? A white person? Or a black person?

What I believe is that black people, communities, and leaders have been falsely criminalize by intentionally racist laws that target black communities and leaders. I believe that news agencies for decades have pressed a false narrative by selectively showing images of black people as violent while not showing white people as violent. I believe that police are enforcing those scandalous laws with discrimination. I believe police officers are too quick to claim they're afraid of black people and using that as an excuse to kill them.

I don't know the answer to that, and maybe this is just falling victim to propaganda, but I'd bet the black person is.

Why do you think that? What is the evidence that motivates your assumption that black people are more criminal than white people? What is the origin, and who perpetuated that message? What was their bias? Can they be trusted?


***
Educate yourself, ong. Of course, you shouldn't listen to me or my opinions to form your world view on this. You also shouldn't use Twitter, FB, and whatever other echo chambers and bastions of insular thinking, either.

Click the links we've posted that show data collected on this subject, and argue from a position of knowledge.
Find your own data and post that and we can discuss it.

[OngBonga]

Sorry I kind of had to take a couple of days away from politics.

I mean we're going round in circles. You tell me to read the data. I already said I don't trust the data. But you're right to point out I can't really trust anything, including what I read that helps form my opinions.

I believe blacks are more likely to use a gun because they are, on average, poorer, and thus more likely to turn to crime, especially if they live in an area already rife with crime. The reasons I think blacks are more likely to use a gun are cultural, not racial. It's not that I think black people are, on average, more dangerous, it's that I think poor people are, on average, more dangerous.

I don't need to find data. It's a waste of time. We both surely agree black people are poorer. Do you think crime and poverty are related? It's a logical conclusion to draw, without it being racist.

And if we can agree that black people are more likely to use a gun, then can we understand the increased sense of caution a white cop might have when entering the hood to deal with an incident?

We do agree on one thing. It's the system that is to blame. The system is what's racist. It intentionally keeps black people poor. But it has been for a very long time, through Rep and Dem administrations. Even a black president couldn't fix the system. Any concessions given by the state will be superficial, we both know it. True change is tearing the system down, but to do that black and white people need to be united, because if they're not, then what replaces the fallen system is a lot worse than what we had.

White guilt is not the way to bring about unity.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If you want to step away from this conversation, then I wont push it on you.

However, you said you wanted to step away, then delivered a number of arguments which are a continuation of this discussion. You can't have it both ways. If you don't want to discuss, then don't discuss. If you discuss, then you choose to.


It's worth pointing out that your luxury of turning away from these issues is a white privilege.
It's worth pointing out that you're right that white people shouldn't feel personal responsibility for the history, and that white guilt is just another part of the problem.

[oskar]

article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...est-gun-mayor/

I predict these two will have a pretty exciting next couple of weeks.

[oskar]

Oh and the president retweeted and praised a video of one of his supporters pumping fists and shouting "white power"

I thought it was a little too on the nose.

[Poopadoop]

I predict these two will have a pretty exciting next couple of weeks.

Looks like Karen got married.

[Poopadoop]

Oh and the president retweeted and praised a video of one of his supporters pumping fists and shouting "white power"

I thought it was a little too on the nose.

WH is saying he 'probably didn't watch it' before re-tweeting. So yeah, it's all good.

[oskar]

Looks like Karen got married.

... to another Karen. It's amazing that we didn't have a word for one kind of person until recently.

Here's an interesting take on the explosion of Karen cops making false accusations against food workers:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/cops-k...g-black-people

[oskar]

WH is saying he 'probably didn't watch it' before re-tweeting. So yeah, it's all good.

I'm sure it's an innocent mistake that will only happen a couple more times before November.

[OngBonga]

It's worth pointing out that your luxury of turning away from these issues is a white privilege.It's worth pointing out that you're right that white people shouldn't feel personal responsibility for the history, and that white guilt is just another part of the problem.

White privilege is white guilt. If you realised this, maybe you'd understand why some people, not necessarily racist, take issue with the phrase.

Black people can step away from these issues too. Many do.

[OngBonga]

That Daily Beast article reads like it was written by a high school student. Do you actually consider that a "source"?

[CoccoBill]

https://www.reddit.com/r/the_donald

[oskar]

ugh... T_D wasn't under control of Trumpists for months. They cracked down on actual hate subs about a year ago. This is a PR move. They try to keep advertisers, but they also banned harmless subs. T_D was harmless and had basically no traffic for months now. /r/conservative is still up which is miles worse than T_D ever was.

They also banned chapotraphouse which got qarantained a while ago for brigading animal subs like /r/dogswithjobs...

You're telling me this dog doen't have a job?





ridiculous!

[oskar]

That Daily Beast article reads like it was written by a high school student. Do you actually consider that a "source"?

I consider this opinion piece a source for the authors opinion, yes.

[oskar]

Black people can step away from these issues too. Many do.

If that's the case I really don't understand your opposition to wholesale wealth redistribution. How about we take everything you got, take away everything you receive, give it to a minority, and then you can "step away" from that issue.
You just put on your best stepping shoes and you steppedy step yourself away. Sounds good to me!

[OngBonga]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this "wealth distribution" thing. It's also quite laughable saying that to me, I have fuck all money and the only assets I have are records.

Do you actually think we should literally redistribute wealth on racial grounds? Or is this hyperbole to try and somehow make a point? Because if so, it's going over my head.

[oskar]

It's based on your dumbass assertion that institutionalized injustice should be tolerated because individuals can do well. To me that means you are ok with institutionalized injustice, so you should be the recipient of it. Those who would rather no longer be on the receiving end should then be made the benefactors of this transaction. You don't seem to mind it, they do. Easy game.

[OngBonga]

Oh I see, you think pointing out that people have a choice in their life decisions amounts to "tolerance" of systematic racism.

Your brain works in very strange ways.

I don't tolerate racism any more than I tolerate the persecution of Hindus in Pakistan, or domestic violence, or the shooting of elephants for sport. We all "tolerate" lots of terrible things, because it's completely out of our control. Institutional racism is out of my control. All I can do is not be racist, and not vote for political parties I think are racist. Now, in trying not to be racist, people like you think I'm racist because I come across as dismissive of racism when I'm actually dismissive of the current strategy to fight it; and all the political parties are, in my opinion, racist, because they promote identity politics, which is by its very nature racist.

What can either of us do to change the system?

[OngBonga]

I mean, we both know the system is racist, yet the system is supporting BLM. Doesn't that strike you as strange?

[CoccoBill]

Could you define what you mean by "the system"?

[OngBonga]

It's capitalism, democracy, law, media, education, the things that underpin our society. It's the people who control these things.

[CoccoBill]

Sounds a bit like George Soros, Clintons, The Man, Illuminati, Rothschilds, feminists, Bilderbergs etc?

[OngBonga]

Feminists? Where does that come from?

I can see you just want to reduce the "system" to conspiracy nonsense, using crackpot buzzwords like "Illuminati". I get it, you don't like to acknowledge democracy is a sham. It's a big deal.

I have no idea who the system is in terms of names. Soros, Clinton, Rothschild, these would be reasonable guesses but nothing more. At the very least these people are corrupt, but maybe that's all they are, maybe they just play the game well.

One thing I do not believe is that the general public have the democratic power to enforce change. On the rare occasion it looks like change might happen, bad things happen. See JFK. The powers that be, whatever you want to call them, will not tolerate any threats to their existence.

So when I see BLM getting widespread state support, and by that I mean football players taking the knee en masse, large capitalist companies funding them, and celebrities endorsing them, I see a system that supports BLM. If the system supports BLM, then BLM doesn't threaten the existence of the system.

[CoccoBill]

Feminists? Where does that come from?

I can see you just want to reduce the "system" to conspiracy nonsense, using crackpot buzzwords like "Illuminati". I get it, you don't like to acknowledge democracy is a sham. It's a big deal.

I have no idea who the system is in terms of names. Soros, Clinton, Rothschild, these would be reasonable guesses but nothing more. At the very least these people are corrupt, but maybe that's all they are, maybe they just play the game well.

One thing I do not believe is that the general public have the democratic power to enforce change. On the rare occasion it looks like change might happen, bad things happen. See JFK. The powers that be, whatever you want to call them, will not tolerate any threats to their existence.

"The System" does sound like conspiracy nonsense, yes. That implies there's some invisible power structure scheming behind the scenes for world domination.

Of course people in power will want to stick to their power, especially if they're career politicians. That's not just power hungry greed, that's their profession and livelihood.

Of course people who are well off will try to maintain the status quo. Even many people who are not will fight against any change, because they perceive it as a threat.

The democratic power to change is very real, and there's numerous examples of it working. Do you have any non-conspiracy examples of it not working?

So when I see BLM getting widespread state support, and by that I mean football players taking the knee en masse, large capitalist companies funding them, and celebrities endorsing them, I see a system that supports BLM. If the system supports BLM, then BLM doesn't threaten the existence of the system.

There's a lot to unpack here. So athletes, private businesses and celebrities are also "system"? Do you mean that "the system" is everyone except private citizens whose names aren't widely known? How on earth would BLM threaten the existence of athletes and celebrities, unless they happen to be racist? What would perhaps be more telling, is that how many governments and police departments have endorsed BLM, but even that doesn't say anything. Neither governments, police departments, businesses nor athletes are hive-minds or centrally controlled homogenous masses, they consist of individuals with different opinions and morals. Some may support BLM while other may not. But I can guarantee you not one of them spend time worrying about the existence of "the system".

[OngBonga]

"The System" does sound like conspiracy nonsense, yes. That implies there's some invisible power structure scheming behind the scenes for world domination.

If there's no system, there's no systematic racism.

But yes, you're right. In the context I use the word, I do believe there's an "invisible power structure". They're not scheming for world domination, they are maintaining it. Nothing changes when different ideologies win power, so why would you believe power has actually changed hands? Why didn't Obama fix these racist laws? Either because he didn't want to, or he couldn't.

There's a lot to unpack here. So athletes, private businesses and celebrities are also "system"?

Elite athletes that have huge social influence and are used as pawns, yes. Major corporations, yes. Megacelebs who appear to lack any actual talent, yes. I mean, some people and businesses think BLM is a force for good. Others think it's good for business to be on their side. But BLM has large scale "system" support, that is obvious. So my point remains... if the system tolerates and even supports their existence, then they are not a threat to the system.

What do you think BLM are fighting against? Where is this racism if the "system" doesn't exist?

[MadMojoMonkey]

There's a difference between politicians popping in with their own agendas on their own accord and mass, widespread protests forcing politicians to notice and take action or risk their careers.

The corporations hopping on board are almost certainly just offering lip-service as a form of self-advertising virtue-signalling.

Individual athletes choosing to support human rights and express their beliefs is a bit in-between those 2, IMO. Some are probably actually personally fired up and invested in the protest movement, while others are just doing it to save face or try to push their personal brand to be in line with popular opinion.
Stuff like NASCAR banning the confederate flag from their races is fine and all, but it's not addressing the root causes of anything. It's just telling their fans that they need to keep their bottom-feeder level racism in private.


Those individuals and organizations you label as "the system" which are supporting BLM are not actually supporting the movement, by and large. They're not trying to do anything to affect change in the system, they're just saying a bunch of hollow crap and donating money to look good while not enacting any change.

Politicians all over the US are passing laws to outlaw police using choke holds. That's not addressing the problem, that's trying to pretend like they're taking action while not addressing the root causes of anything. That's not supporting the civil rights movement, that's paying lip-service in a manner that they hope they can point back to and lie that they've done something.

None of what you call "support" is doing so in a manner that will affect actual change. Taking down statues is fine and all, but it does nothing to repeal the laws that oppress minority groups. Banning choke holds is fine and all, but it doesn't address the real problem that police are not facing legal consequences for their illegal behaviors.


So I don't see much actual systemic support of BLM that you seem to see. I see a bunch of people finding the least they can do to virtue signal that they're doing something while not actually doing anything.

[OngBonga]

That's not addressing the problem, that's trying to pretend like they're taking action while not addressing the root causes of anything.

Exactly. Nothing actually changes. The "support" is superficial, but it's still support, as it influences the general public. And the reason it won't create any meaningful change is because BLM are part of the system, and not fighting it. If they threatened meaningful change, they would not be getting the support they get. It's worth noting that political statements are banned in football matches here in the UK, the England team recently got fined for wearing poppies, a symbol of remembrance for the war dead. Players can be fined for publicly supporting the "wrong" kind of politics. That players are allowed to do this without consequence is a statement in itself that the system supports their actions.

Most people who "support" BLM are either politically manipulated, or motivated by money.

[OngBonga]

3m Hong Kong citizens given a route to the UK. Twitter in meltdown as the anti-British folk out there try to spin it into something terrible, like we created this "mess" (as though democracy and economic prosperity is a mess), comments like "but zomg Windrush", and incorrectly predicting that Brexiteers will be unhappy about it, even though this is exactly the kind of immigration we want, as opposed oppressive religious types.

I think this might have fucked up China's chances of gaining access to our 5G networks, anyway. We should probably stop using nuclear power stations that they helped build, too.

[Poopadoop]

3m Hong Kong citizens given a route to the UK. .. this is exactly the kind of immigration we want.

What kind is that?

If you look at our labour markets, we're short on tradesmen and seasonal manual labour (e.g.., fruit pickers). So unless you think HK is awash with plumbers and strawberry pickers, I'm not sure what kind of immigration you think is going to benefit us from there.

I'm not saying we shouldn't allow them, I'm sayiing we have a strange set of priorities regarding who we allow to immigrate here if we use the sins of our fathers as a criteria (and incidentally that same logic would suggest we should allow much of Asia and Africa to immigrate here as well).

[OngBonga]

We're allowing Hong Kong citizens born before 1997 because we have a legal obligation to. Boris isn't being kind here. It's not about the "sins of our fathers", it's about a contract we signed with China in 1997, which is binding until 2047.

Hong Kong folk will come here and find work. I expect it will be a challenge at first, they might have to take fruit picker jobs, and I reckon they will rather than absord welfare, but even if they do need support, in 5 or 10 years, when they have settled and the economy has recovered from covid, I expect the majority to be high achievers. It's in their DNA.

[OngBonga]

Correction - we signed the contract in 1985, but it became effective in 1997.

[Poopadoop]

We're allowing Hong Kong citizens born before 1997 because we have a legal obligation to.

So why is this interesting then? Because some uninformed people on twitter are outraged? What else is new?

they might have to take fruit picker jobs,

I would be surprised if a single one came here to pick fruit for two months a year or whatever it is.

in 5 or 10 years, when they have settled and the economy has recovered from covid, I expect the majority to be high achievers. It's in their DNA.

Obvious troll is obvious.

[OngBonga]

It's interesting to me because the plonkers on Twitter (and presumably on other platforms) can't wrap their heads around the fact that Brexiteer-type Brits are more welcoming to the idea than expected (and probably hoped).

I would be surprised if a single one came here to pick fruit for two months a year or whatever it is.

It obviously won't be their ambition, but those that arrive during the summer will have that option, and some will take it.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Surely you've heard that phrase before? I'm not trying to be funny with that, it just means it's part of their culture.

[CoccoBill]

Surely you've heard that phrase before? I'm not trying to be funny with that, it just means it's part of their culture.

I think it pretty explicitly means that it's nature, not nurture.

[OngBonga]

I think it pretty explicitly means that it's nature, not nurture.

It's just a phrase, nobody means it literally when they say it. It's not meant to be analysed in the context of nature/nurture.

[OngBonga]

Orwell called this "newspeak"...

Inclusive language plays a critical role in fostering an environment where everyone belongs. At Twitter, the language we have been using in our code does not reflect our values as a company or represent the people we serve. We want to change that. #WordsMatter

We’re starting with a set of words we want to move away from using in favor of more inclusive language, such as:

https://twitter.com/TwitterEng/statu...33305190342656

[oskar]

This is pointless virtue signalling so they can continue to selectively apply their TOS. Twitch did it right. When Trump's twitch channel rebroadcast the "they're sending rapists, they're sending murderers" speech, twitch temp banned his channel as they would with every other channel. When Trump tweets out targeted harassment and death threats, they look the other way.

This is very similar to the street naming and statue removing nonsense. It avoids the actual issue... but it's not orwellian. It's one companies naming policy. How does this affect you?

[MadMojoMonkey]

So it's not just that the police are enforcing racist laws, now.
It's that the modern day police grew out of a history of slave catchers.



Then a bunch of laws written to oppress voters and black communities were passed.

Then those police were militarized.

[OngBonga]

This is pointless virtue signalling so they can continue to selectively apply their TOS. Twitch did it right. When Trump's twitch channel rebroadcast the "they're sending rapists, they're sending murderers" speech, twitch temp banned his channel as they would with every other channel. When Trump tweets out targeted harassment and death threats, they look the other way.

This is very similar to the street naming and statue removing nonsense. It avoids the actual issue... but it's not orwellian. It's one companies naming policy. How does this affect you?

How does it affect me? It's social engineering, or at least an attempt at it. Of course, that's why it seem Orwellian to me.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Oh shit, wuf's gonna go balistic.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/enter...rnd/index.html

I'm gonna start to regret all those jokes I made about this.

[oskar]

I'd be surprised if he breaks 1%.
If he doesn't drop out the second the first polls come in, I think he's more likely to syphon votes from Trump than Biden. I wouldn't be too worried.

If there ever was a time for a 3rd party to break 5% it would be now, but Kanye is not the guy.

[Poopadoop]

Lol Kanye.

Then again I also said lol Trump.

So he'll probably win.

[CoccoBill]

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a9606081.html

[Poopadoop]

Not really MAGA news, but close enough.

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/sta...33376397008896

[Poopadoop]

There've been at least three major Trump scandals in the last little while that should disqualify him from office: Commuting the sentence of Roger Stone, doing nothing about Putin's bounty on US soldiers, and not speaking to Fauci since early June.

And I'm probably forgetting a few in there somewhere.

And yet, nothing from Oskar about any of them.

I think this is empirical proof that we have all become desensitized.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I shouldn't laugh, but this is the juiciest irony I've seen in days.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...19-coronavirus

[oskar]

I think this is empirical proof that we have all become desensitized.

Yup. I read the other day that his aides ordered big trucks to the White House lawn to cheer him up, and I just thought: of course that's true! I'm not even going to fact check that. That is so stupid, it has to be true.

I'm not too invested in Trumps trajectory right now because at this point a Biden victory seems unavoidable. I am surprised how much Biden leads. Maybe the "Biden is the most electable"-people saw something I didn't. Apparently when americans say: we want healthcare, affordable housing and a planet that's not on fire, and Biden's like: "no", they're like: "Fuck my shit up, daddy!"

I don't get it, but I don't have to. I'm not one to kink shame.

[Poopadoop]

I shouldn't laugh, but this is the juiciest irony I've seen in days.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...19-coronavirus

Build that wall! Build that wall!

[Poopadoop]

Yup. I read the other day that his aides ordered big trucks to the White House lawn to cheer him up, and I just thought: of course that's true! I'm not even going to fact check that. That is so stupid, it has to be true.

I'm not too invested in Trumps trajectory right now because at this point a Biden victory seems unavoidable. I am surprised how much Biden leads. Maybe the "Biden is the most electable"-people saw something I didn't. Apparently when americans say: we want healthcare, affordable housing and a planet that's not on fire, and Biden's like: "no", they're like: "Fuck my shit up, daddy!"

I don't get it, but I don't have to. I'm not one to kink shame.

I think this is going to be another 2016 'lesser of two evils' election. Only this time, no-one can pretend that Trump will change (except maybe to become even worse) if he's elected. So, the only voters left are the MAGA-tards and racists for whom facts don't matter.

[oskar]

I can't believe I haven't seen a single reporter ask Trump questions in the way he answers them to expose his stupidity. Like "Do you think you'll do good in regards to trade? Maybe very good in the next very short time?" Or "China has done very badly, do you think they'll have to do better? Maybe much better even?"

[Poopadoop]

I can't believe I haven't seen a single reporter ask Trump questions in the way he answers them to expose his stupidity. Like "Do you think you'll do good in regards to trade? Maybe very good in the next very short time?" Or "China has done very badly, do you think they'll have to do better? Maybe much better even?"

I always find the reporters who ask the POTUS questions strangely deferential. It's not just that they rarely ask him a hard question, it's that whenever they do and he invariably answers with some word salad bullshit, they don't press him but just move on.

I mean, if it were a UK leader acting like him, an interviewer would be like "C'mon mate, wtf are you on about?" pretty much every time.

Or, they could just have him stand up in the House and answer questions like they do here.

[Poopadoop]

The Fauch isn't taking any shit from the WH.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...campaign=share

[OngBonga]

It's nearly impossible to read criticism of Trump without it being massively biased. It's very clear that article is written by someone who opposes Trump. Journalism is dead.

[Poopadoop]

It's nearly impossible to read criticism of Trump without it being massively biased. It's very clear that article is written by someone who opposes Trump. Journalism is dead.

If you're Fauci and the WH is pissing on your reputation, do you talk to a sympathetic media outlet like the Atlantic, or to Fox News who will just spin your defense against you?

I agree all media is biased. Still seems possible to just look at the article and pick out what Fauci says and ignore the spin if you want.

[OngBonga]

"All media is biased".

Indeed, which is why journalism is dead. A talented journalist is capable of finding non-biased language to report on an event. Maybe 20 years ago, such journalists worked for leading agencies. Now, talented journalists are pushed to the "fringe" and have to publish their own blogs.

[CoccoBill]

What are some biased news articles from AP or Reuters?

[Poopadoop]

Now, talented journalists are pushed to the "fringe" and have to publish their own blogs.

...because if you have talent you therefore are unbiased.

Face it, everyone is biased. It's unavoidable.

Also I think Coco makes a good point that AP and Reuters are pretty neutral. There's bias and then there's BIAS.

[OngBonga]

Reuters is flagging up as "least biased" according to mediabiasfactcheck.com, while AP gets good reviews too. With that said, I just checked out the Reuters home page and the leading story is "Russia trying to steal COVID-19 vaccine data, say UK, U.S. and Canada", and goes on to publish British propaganda like the following quote... “While others pursue their selfish interests with reckless behaviour, the UK and its allies are getting on with the hard work of finding a vaccine and protecting global health”.

There is no balance here, there's no suggestion that the UK, USA and Canada are trying to keep their research from nations like Russia in order to protect profit from such vaccines. The fact Russia are claimed to be trying to "steal" such information shows we're not working with them on a vaccine. This is contrary to earlier statements from the UK which imply the world should work together to defeat covid19.

It's garbage propaganda. However, they are noteworthy because they are very careful with their language, their bias is much more subtle.

[OngBonga]

...because if you have talent you therefore are unbiased.

Face it, everyone is biased. It's unavoidable.

Also I think Coco makes a good point that AP and Reuters are pretty neutral. There's bias and then there's BIAS.

Of course everyone has bias. The point about "talented journalists" is that such journalists can put aside their natural bias and report on the facts.

Reuters is probably the least biased agency out there, yet they are still biased in the editing, if not the journalist's language.

[Poopadoop]

Reuters is flagging up as "least biased" according to mediabiasfactcheck.com, while AP gets good reviews too. With that said, I just checked out the Reuters home page and the leading story is "Russia trying to steal COVID-19 vaccine data, say UK, U.S. and Canada", and goes on to publish British propaganda like the following quote... “While others pursue their selfish interests with reckless behaviour, the UK and its allies are getting on with the hard work of finding a vaccine and protecting global health”.

There is no balance here, there's no suggestion that the UK, USA and Canada are trying to keep their research from nations like Russia in order to protect profit from such vaccines. The fact Russia are claimed to be trying to "steal" such information shows we're not working with them on a vaccine. This is contrary to earlier statements from the UK which imply the world should work together to defeat covid19.

It's garbage propaganda. However, they are noteworthy because they are very careful with their language, their bias is much more subtle.

I don't see a problem with this reporting as you describe it. The critical thinker sees this as "Russia trying to steal data, say x, y, z." Then they quote what you describe as propaganda from the UK gov't, which may or may not be propaganda. It's not their job to identify propaganda, it's their job to report what people say. And unless they have evidence that what they say is demonstrably untrue, they're doing their job in reporting it.

Quick Q: Do they also describe Russia's denial of the allegations? And if so, why do you assume it's a biased report?

Edit: Yeah, there you go.

Russian news agency RIA cited spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying the Kremlin rejected London’s allegations, which he said were not backed by proper evidence.

So, their story is basically 'these countries accused another country of X, and the accused country denied it.' That's about as objective a reporting of facts as you can get.

Now compare that to the DM, Fox, or MSNBC.

[OngBonga]

I certainly agree Reuters is significantly less biased than Fox or CNN, and have already said I believe they're likely the least biased agency out there. But you know what I think when I see "omg Russia" in the media. They're the bogey man that the UK govt always refer to when they need a distraction. There are no MSM agencies based in the UK or USA that apply critical thinking when it comes to Russia, and when a supposed unbiased agency prints this stuff, it gives it more credit than when the Daily Mail do so. So yes, I do believe it is their job to identify propaganda, at least if they wish to remain unbiased.

And yes, they print Russia's denial, with a quick one liner at the end.

[CoccoBill]

Ong you seem to be thinking any news media accusing Russia of anything is biased. Do you personally know many Russians or have you ever been there? Do you know how they see themselves and the rest of the world, what Russian media is like and how things operate there? Do you know Putin's history? Do you know who/what APT29 is, who finances them and what they have been caught doing in the past?

While I'm sure some accusations against Russia in the media are false or exaggerated, I don't think you're fully aware of what's going on there.

[oskar]

MSM is massively understating how problematic this is. You cannot let this happen. These are private security forces with no oversight, whose authority is being respected. This cannot be tolerated. If you live in the US and you like having human rights you should be out on the street until this is fixed.
Right now they are testing the waters with catch and release, but you don't want these guys on the ground in November when the only one they're accountable to is Donald Trump.

[OngBonga]

Ong you seem to be thinking any news media accusing Russia of anything is biased. Do you personally know many Russians or have you ever been there? Do you know how they see themselves and the rest of the world, what Russian media is like and how things operate there? Do you know Putin's history? Do you know who/what APT29 is, who finances them and what they have been caught doing in the past?

While I'm sure some accusations against Russia in the media are false or exaggerated, I don't think you're fully aware of what's going on there.

I think all geopolitical news is biased, not just when it comes to Russia.

This is all kind of irrelevant. I'm not pretending Russia are good guys. I just see through the bullshit. Russia is the go-to bogey man when the UK govt want to drum up jingoistic support. And it suits Russia just fine, because it helps them to drum up jingoistic support too. In turn, this means public support for foreign policy and military strategy & budgets. If the UK didn't have such a powerful "enemy", we wouldn't need to spend trillions on nuclear weapons. It's all business to the military industry.

Of course I'm not fully aware of what's going on there, and I'm the first to admit I might be wrong. I'm just highly skeptical when I read geopolitical propaganda.

[OngBonga]

MSM is massively understating how problematic this is. You cannot let this happen. These are private security forces with no oversight, whose authority is being respected. This cannot be tolerated. If you live in the US and you like having human rights you should be out on the street until this is fixed.
Right now they are testing the waters with catch and release, but you don't want these guys on the ground in November when the only one they're accountable to is Donald Trump.

Private? I heard "federal troops".

Don't get me wrong, anonymous troops on the street is definitely not something we should be cheerleading, but from what I can gather from that report, they are employed by the government, which makes them the opposite of "private security forces".

[OngBonga]

I guess you mean "Trump's private security" rather than "private sector security".

When I read "Private security" I think of companies like G4S, private companies operating for profit. We definitely do not want to see these guys on the streets, dealing with civil unrest, because they have a vested interest in disorder continuing. But we also don't want to see troops on the street that only answer to the President, especially badgeless. Any security actively employed by the government or anyone else for that matter need to be indentifiable and subject to law.

[oskar]

It is being reported that they are federal officers but handling protests should not be in federal jurisdiction. They are not identifying themselves, aren't wearing any labels and drive in unmarked civilian SUV's. They are arresting people without a statement, and driving them away in rental vans. What they are doing could be done by just about anyone who owns a weapon and camouflage pants.

At the very least tolerating this sets the precedent that:
Anyone can be arrested for any reason.
The command of anyone dressed up like military has to be followed.

I think most people will agree that this is problematic. I think it's a lot more than that. This is the time you should start to panic if you live in the US. I think it's something that needs to be fought back immediately. You cannot allow fellow citizens to be arrested by unidentifiable and therefore unaccountable forces.

[OngBonga]

I pretty much agree with you. It's very much problematic. But is anarchy any better than fascism? Are you ready for anarchy? I sure as hell am not.

Here's the thing. He's not even subtle. Anonymous troops on the street is so blatantly against the very principles of our democratic freedoms that you can't call it anything other than fascist. If he actually gets voted in, in a fair election, this year, USA are basically voting for fascism and we have to respect that. I guess if that happens the USA have decided it was a choice between right wing fascists, or left wing neofascists. Overt vs covert.

The problem is, protest doesn't make a blind bit of difference, and civil war is either defeat or anarchy. Those are the two options when we talk about "fighting back". I wish I could say anarchy is a better choice than fascism, but I don't have enough faith in humans. If the system collapses, we enter an era of lawlessness, a world that will be orders of magnitude more racist than this world. I think when it comes to the collapse of the system, you have to be careful what you wish for.

Fascism has been with us for decades. They're just getting less subtle about it. They've conditioned us to accept it, and they've done that by keeping us divided and making sure we're cunts to each other. They ensured anarchy is a terrible alternative to their breed of fascism.

[OngBonga]

https://twitter.com/andreinawie/stat...18869902413824

This is London, last night, because some criminal got killed by a cop a couple of months ago in USA. This is the consequences of identity politics.

[Poopadoop]

https://twitter.com/andreinawie/stat...18869902413824

This is London, last night, because some criminal got killed by a cop a couple of months ago in USA. This is the consequences of identity politics.

Do you think black people might have a gripe with how the police operate here as well?

[oskar]

Do you think black people might have a gripe with how the police operate here as well?

No, couldn't be.

[OngBonga]

Of course, the problem is racism, not that there are black drug dealers from out of town, which incidentally is a problem in my town too. County lines, they call it, when city dealers come to rural towns to sell drugs. They don't tend to be white guys, and they don't tend to be reggae loving Rastas selling weed. They're gnarly bastards selling coke, crack and smack.

This copper is a nob, but he hasn't shown he's racist here. He's shown that he was assigned at that time to look for country lines dealers, and so it stands to reason he's going to pull over a car he's not seen before driven by a black driver. He was so afraid of being accused of racism that he did a fucking great job of looking like a racist twat. But the person he pulled over is going to vaguely match the description of suspects he's assigned to be on the lookout for. Racial profiling is inevitable. The colour of someone's skin forms an important part of that person's description.

Here's a fun exercise... find a case of a Chinese person being racially profiled by the police in the UK. Not so easy to find examples. Then ask why that might be, and consider if the system is racist, or if the problem is cultural.

[oskar]

Nobody's growing coca leaves in your climate, so ldo they come from out of town. Why is that a problem now?

[oskar]

Here's the thing. He's not even subtle. Anonymous troops on the street is so blatantly against the very principles of our democratic freedoms that you can't call it anything other than fascist.

I still remember when you defended exactly this when ICE did it to immigrants.

[oskar]

Here's a fun exercise... find a case of a Chinese person being racially profiled by the police in the UK. Not so easy to find examples. Then ask why that might be, and consider if the system is racist, or if the problem is cultural.

There are much better indicators for crime than race. Poverty for one thing. If it's good to profile and harass blacks, then wouldn't it be better to profile and harass people based on income? The police could very easily get that data and they could be at your door by monday. Would that be acceptable?
You are after all a real criminal who does bad scary crime like drugs, aren't you?