Dumb Political Correctness

Speaking of racism and politics; Malcolm Jenkins of the Super Bowl champion Eagles raised a fist during the anthem today. Prior to the game he tweeted the following:

"Before we enjoy this game lets take some time to ponder that more than 60% of the prison population are people of color. The NFL is made up of 70% African Americans. What you witness on the field does not represent the reality of everyday America. We are the anomalies..."

The implication without explanation is that a large percentage of these black prisoners are innocent. What are we supposed to do?
 
Last edited:
Are they inherently racist? No, I don't think so. Maybe inherently anti-capitalist. Definitely inherently anti-libertarian. And I must admit to posting without looking for statistics as to the number of African Americans serving time for such non-violent offenses. It is entirely possible the implementation of my proposal would not alter the racial make-up of the prison population. I did presume there are a whole lot of black guys serving time for minor drug offenses.
 
bystander said:
Ok, decriminalize. But are the laws against non-violent drug offenses inherently racist or is this now just another legalize marijuana demonstration?
Click to expand...
I don't have anything but anecdotal evidence for this, but it appears that whites from good neighborhoods smoking dope are much less likely to end up in jail than blacks or Hispanics from rough areas. Maybe that's because the cops are out in the rough areas more often and are looking for a reason to throw a few suspect hoods in jail. But the end result seems to be you have a racial difference, which is really a class difference, in the enforcement of a law. This is wrong in my opinion and is one argument to legalize pot completely.
 
bystander said:
I hear you about the media spotlight. I don't know anything about her. There are two kinds of people; a flip-flopping politician who remains Liberal or Conservative and a flip-flopper who completely changes sides. The former happens all the time
4th_floor said:
I don't have anything but anecdotal evidence for this, but it appears that whites from good neighborhoods smoking dope are much less likely to end up in jail than blacks or Hispanics from rough areas. Maybe that's because the cops are out in the rough areas more often and are looking for a reason to throw a few suspect hoods in jail. But the end result seems to be you have a racial difference, which is really a class difference, in the enforcement of a law. This is wrong in my opinion and is one argument to legalize pot completely.
Click to expand...

Many studies have shown a disparity in sentences for the same crime/criminal history based on race and socioeconomic factors. Our justice system is biased. Not sure you can correct for the suburban white male getting a more lenient sentence than an urban black male because the former doesn't have to rely on a public defender.
Click to expand...
 
"Many studies have shown a disparity in sentences for the same crime/criminal history based on race and socioeconomic factors. Our justice system is biased. Not sure you can correct for the suburban white male getting a more lenient sentence than an urban black male because the former doesn't have to rely on a public defender."

I'm not qualified to comment as I've not read those studies. I have no reason to dispute them. But I think your comment about public defenders is the real story. Even OJ was acquitted but while many people focus on the racial make-up of the jury, I'd say his dream team legal team was the real story. There is another black man who was acquitted recently of fraud. His name is John Wiley Price. He is a Dallas County Commissioner and it looked like they had him on kick-backs but he was acquitted. He had a good attorney. Black people are not always losing.

I think we all know that thousands and thousands of white kids will be smoking in the dorms in about three weeks (even at the beloved University of Texas). When's the last time you heard a major bust on campus? When I was in college there was some pretty serious dealing going involving POUNDS of marijuana and ounces of coke. I don't know if you've ever seen a big pile of dope or coke laid out in front of you in the dorm room but I have and it's a real thing that seems to be ignored.

I get it.
 
Some of us argued in here during the 2016 general election about whether or not libertarians and/or pouty Republicans should suck it up and vote for Trump anyway. The effect on the federal courts was always my hammer #1

And so here it is in real life -- In Tam, the Supremes reaffirmed last summer that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the 1st A. Would you agree that this was a timely reminder in light of the anti-speech climate liberals have created? BTW, the decision was unanimous

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”​

And Kennedy, writing separately --

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf
 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
Some of us argued in here during the 2016 general election about whether or not libertarians and/or pouty Republicans should suck it up and vote for Trump anyway. The effect on the federal courts was always my hammer #1

And so here it is in real life -- In Tam, the Supremes reaffirmed last summer that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the 1st A. Would you agree that this was a timely reminder in light of the anti-speech climate liberals have created? BTW, te decision was unanimous

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”​

And Kennedy, writing separately --

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf
Click to expand...


The fact that politicians are hopelessly political is reason alone to allow freedom of speech, even for "hate speech." Those B*stards would abuse the law to no end. This is a fact of life as far as I am concerned. Who decides is the biggest question. And when you see how sensitive people have become then it would be a travesty if someone attempted to label hate speech as a crime.
 
bystander said:
The fact that politicians are hopelessly political is reason alone to allow freedom of speech, even for "hate speech." Those B*stards would abuse the law to no end. This is a fact of life as far as I am concerned. Who decides is the biggest question. And when you see how sensitive people have become then it would be a travesty if someone attempted to label hate speech as a crime.
Click to expand...
You called a politician a bastard! Off with your head!!!
 
The fact that politicians are hopelesslypolitical is reason alone to allow freedom ofspeech, even for "hate speech." ThoseB*stards would abuse the law to no end.
Click to expand...

Alien and Sedition Acts - Wikipedia

^ it already happened. See the above link for why John Adams and Alexander Hamilton are the worst founding fathers.

Matthew Lyon - Wikipedia

^ I still cannot get over this. It makes sense Hamilton would be the big liberal hero nowadays since he hated free speech and all.
 
bystander said:
"Many studies have shown a disparity in sentences for the same crime/criminal history based on race and socioeconomic factors. Our justice system is biased. Not sure you can correct for the suburban white male getting a more lenient sentence than an urban black male because the former doesn't have to rely on a public defender."

I'm not qualified to comment as I've not read those studies. I have no reason to dispute them. But I think your comment about public defenders is the real story. Even OJ was acquitted but while many people focus on the racial make-up of the jury, I'd say his dream team legal team was the real story. There is another black man who was acquitted recently of fraud. His name is John Wiley Price. He is a Dallas County Commissioner and it looked like they had him on kick-backs but he was acquitted. He had a good attorney. Black people are not always losing.

I think we all know that thousands and thousands of white kids will be smoking in the dorms in about three weeks (even at the beloved University of Texas). When's the last time you heard a major bust on campus? When I was in college there was some pretty serious dealing going involving POUNDS of marijuana and ounces of coke. I don't know if you've ever seen a big pile of dope or coke laid out in front of you in the dorm room but I have and it's a real thing that seems to be ignored.

I get it.
Click to expand...

Justice can be bought, or at least the sentence can be vastly diminished with more qualified legal counsel.

While in college I had a class with a white kid that was dealing, had been since high school. He attended a private catholic HS and informed me that drug use was more rampant there than the public Seattle schools because kids had money or access to it via their parents. This dude had no fear of being busted although he was in college to get a "legit career".
 
Seattle Husker said:
Justice can be bought, or at least the sentence can be vastly diminished with more qualified legal counsel.

While in college I had a class with a white kid that was dealing, had been since high school. He attended a private catholic HS and informed me that drug use was more rampant there than the public Seattle schools because kids had money or access to it via their parents. This dude had no fear of being busted although he was in college to get a "legit career".
Click to expand...

Yes, there is no doubt that more money means more access to drugs. It does open up the ability to deal because you can afford the up-front cost of the inventory. I saw that happen in college and the kids had the money. I was donating plasma and working in the library, as a life-guard, an usher, stage crew; whatever I could find to help pay. The guys I'm talking about didn't need to work. Their parents were very generous to them.
 
The implication without explanation is that a large percentage of these black prisoners are innocent. What are we supposed to do?
Click to expand...

While I don't think it's true that a large percentage of black prisoners, nor prisoners in general, are innocent, it does seem that a disproportionate amount of people who have been proven to have been wrongly convicted are black. Oddly enough a very large number of these convictions were for rape or sexual assault, and it's the "pro-black" left and not the "racist" right who contain the majority of advocates for changing the standard for conviction off of "innocent until proven guilty", which would result in far greater number of black men wrongfully convicted.

Is posting this meme "hate speech?" Is pointing out the hate speech of others hate speech in and of itself? Or, does the only thing that really matter who posted it?
Click to expand...

No. No. Yes.
 
I thought this was kind of funny

Boris Johnson got himself into trouble for saying Muslim women wearing burkas "look like letter boxes" and for comparing them to "bank robbers."
The left predictably exploded, calling it "hate speech." And, of course, as always, they want him fired. If not jailed.

So he is being hounded by the media. Here, he brings them all tea. His collection of mismatched mugs could be in my cabinet.

 
Dke-PqFUwAIsX4b.jpg
 
Those, I am betting, would be covered under the "Inappropriate Slogans and Emblems" item but it is instructive they had to single out the US Flag since many people would disagree that it is inappropriate and they know it.
 
Phil Elliott said:
Those, I am betting, would be covered under the "Inappropriate Slogans and Emblems" item but it is instructive they had to single out the US Flag since many people would disagree that it is inappropriate and they know it.
Click to expand...

Probably true. It sickens me that the anthem, flag and pledge has been co-opted by the extreme left as political, controversial or symbols of hate. Those f*ckers can stick it as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, I'm pissed. They brought us Trump yet have the nerve to complain about him. Their extremism IS the problem; not Trump.
 
Seattle Husker said:
It's a win for those desiring to push the White Nationalists back into the shadows.
Click to expand...
This is the part I disagree with the authoritarian left: what difference does it make if racists or anybody for that matter are in the shadows or not? Are you afraid you will lose the argument? So stupid.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top