Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Gumball Gumption
Jan 7, 2012

The Elites like both parties since both parties are their role in government is to protect corporations and free markets. People lean democratic for PR as can be seen here

PT6A posted:

Have you considered that the people who you consider "elite" might become and stay elite by, among other things, having the barest modicum of simple human decency, making modern conservatism anathema to them?

I think there might be something to that, myself.

You publicly show that you're a prodem rich person then you want PR and being a "good person" and a prorepub rich person then you want money. And in practice you support both parties who work together while pretending to fight.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Gumball Gumption
Jan 7, 2012

toterunner posted:

What's something as egregious as the Hunter Biden laptop censorship that went the other way?

I already covered this. Its the difference between disparate impact and discrimination.

A number of high ranking politicians and former intelligence officials said that the intelligence community would get back at Trump for dissing them. Chuck Schumer said they had "six ways from Sunday" for getting back at him. and then Russiagate happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_4_Trump

If your counter argument is that this Trump rally full of regular Trump supporters was attacked because there were a few Proud Boys there, remember that I just said Antifa attacked Trump supporters. I obviously wasn't excluding cases like this just because you "presumed" something I didn't say.

Media reports on Antifa violence routinely claim that its unclear which side started it. Even though Antifa and their supporters make sure to clarify that they believe in using violence to deplatform fascists, always claim that the people they fight are fascists, and every fight I've seen that has a clear instigation captured on video is always started by Antifa.

I've seen reporters on twitter apologize for covering Antifa because people claimed it would expose them to harassment.

I can show three incidents where the mainstream media didn't retract demonstrably wrong claims that favored Antifa, though one of these incidents involves the Proud Boys and one involves actual white supremacists.

Portland police had a policy of letting people fight it out and not intervene, because leftists had complained that they had previously been too heavy handed in breaking up political fights.

I've already addressed this.

I started out saying that the rich were a wash in terms of partisan split, and I quickly shifted from claiming that elites were pro-democrat to saying they favored democrats over Trump. All those other groups are demonstrably democratic or anti-Trump on net, and its hard to believe that people being biased in favor of their side is a "hysterical lie."

I just addressed this.

If your response to my points is that maybe right wingers started those fights with Antifa, or the portland police policy benefitted the right, or that Russiagate was legitimate, remember that I said from the start that I believed these takes on intuition and couldn't prove them. I also said that you couldn't prove they were hysterical lies, which you wouldn't do by saying its unclear who started those fights etc.

I'm getting disappointed in the conspiracy theorists of today. Just a bunch of warmed over propaganda from the Republican party. Open an actual book for once. I recommend "poisoner in chief" or "The Jakarta method" to get an actual understanding of the agencies that control the US and are primarily controlled through it's elite due to nothing more than basic classism, all of the three letter agencies are full of the rich because whoops, the only people the presidents knew to recruit for them were other rich people.

In short, the people in power don't lean towards either political party. The political parties are for poor idiots like us to argue over so we can't figure out how to fight back.

Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Apr 25, 2022

Gumball Gumption
Jan 7, 2012

toterunner posted:

Like what? A common criticism of BLM is that they don't make concrete demands. The two responses to this I see are that they are making the clear demand to stop killing black people, or provision of lists of hundreds of demands, neither of which is helpful.

It seems plausible that policy demands associated with BLM are unpopular with the electorate (defunding the police polls terribly but I've heard its substance isn't so unpopular when phrased differently) and its also plausible that accomodating BLM leads to increases in crime since both eruptions of the movement happened concurrently with spikes in the murder rate. Its also plausible that police officers who kill black people are more likely to be charged that they were a few years ago and that there have been changes in how police operate (there are studies claiming that police have become more passive to avoid situations where they'd have to defend themselves). So I doubt there is any evidence from supposed lack of response to BLM's demands that proves elites aren't overhwlmingly pro BLM.

If elites are just paying lip service to BLM, then why are they doing this despite the movement not being particularly popular and the narrative being really easy to criticize?

What I mean by the narrative being really easy to criticize is that black people account for less than 30% of fatal police shooting victims, but around 40% of cop killers and violent criminals in general. These numbers don't prove that police shootings are racially unbiased (I've seen a number of arguments about why this is, some better than others) but its suspicious that they're rarely mentioned, given that Trumpists are accused of being disinformers. Perhaps more importantly, well over 90% of police shooting victims whose names become well known are black. I've heard a number of explanations for this and the only one that isn't obviously flawed or doesn't involve a conscious attempt to amplify stories of black victims is that whites are more likely to be shot by police in rural areas. Why do mainstream media and corporate takes on BLM act like the narrative is obviously true, and never point out that media coverage wildly overrepresents the portion of victims who are black?

An individual black person is twice as likely to be killed by police. You're understanding those stats a little backwards and also letting them just kind of hang out there in the air without much context or understanding. First, there's less black people in America so the proportional share of people killed by the police of higher for them than white people. And you're missing context. Ok 40% of violent criminals are black. Why? Without any attempt to say why you're just giving us a number.

However, I think you are absolutely noticing something with the media and public support of BLM. There is no one BLM group. There is no one set of demands or asks. You have Democrats who were making noises about defunding the police two years ago and now talking about how the police actually need more money and covering it all in supporting BLM and the police will use the money to finally learn how not to kill. And the news absolutely avoids talking about the police killing white people in the same way even though they do. Poor white people with mental health problems are often targets for the police but the majority of stories are of the police taking extreme pitty on white people. But I think what you have backwards here is the why. It's not out of some love of the Democrats. It's because it needs to be a fully racial issue to keep people divided. That's why you see these institutions and people who are very interested in the status quo latching into BLM and other movements. It makes them look good, defangs those movements, and keeps the conversation on race and actively attacking any class conversation which surprise, ends up driving away people like you who could be allies. It's to create false divisions.

Honestly I think if you are noticing this and are asking questions you can figure this out but you need to stop seeing it as a racial issue or a Democrats vs. Republicans issue. There are few actual conspiracies out there. There are however many instances of humans who want the same things working in tandem because well, they want the same thing. There isn't some grand plan, they're just copying each other like the great apes we are. What you're seeing is just a bunch of people who are currently really successful being invested in the status quo wanting to keep things the way they are because, well, they're really successful. And because they have that interest they make similar decisions and share ideas and use their influence to change the world around them like anyone else would. They just have a lot of influence because again, they're currently really successful. Mind you, success doesn't mean anything but luck. You know, the reason it seems like everyone in the media talks and thinks the same is because the only people who can afford to go to school and then take those jobs are the kids of the rich. They have the connections that give them the way in and you and I, regardless of skin color, will not be allowed in. We are denied.

Also, to try to answer the original question, eh, not really. They are just a bunch of people who rule the world because they have a lot of money and the way things currently work having a lot of money let's you rule the world. They lean each way based on what they think will continue their success, improve it, and keep you from succeeding because they are successful in a world where only many people can win. Both parties and the upper class are all playing defense.

Gumball Gumption
Jan 7, 2012

toterunner posted:

This shows that 1595/5950 ~ 27% of police shooting victims between 2015 and 2022 were black. This says that 224/563 ~ 40% of cop killers from 2005-2014 were black (afaik this is the last time this data were published) and this says that 36.4 % of violent criminals in 2019 were black.

Could you explain to the class what those numbers mean to you?

Gumball Gumption
Jan 7, 2012

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

Where did the op go?? Hoping we can open the discussion up to phrenology so we can find the elites he can't seem to identify

Mods are afraid of his truth

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply