Foreword
The following series of pieces are broken up into subjects as best as they can be (links to those at the end of this piece). I try to make a position and defend it as best I know how with a limited amount of time then try to provide some more in depth resources in the form of videos.
I do make some tongue-in-cheek statements for humor. Don't hold those against me.
My "attacks" if you will, are always on ideologies and ideas or narratives... I don't attack anyone on a personal level (Other than I think I do call a couple of mentioned people idiots or similar.... I mean those ones.)
Anything I say is open for challenge and I am happy to expand on, or provide complete evidence for any of my statements. It is certainly possible I have gotten something mixed up.
I often pose open questions meant to create thought. I like to assume a proposition is correct then see if it can handle anything other than that specific circumstance. If it can't, that might be a red flag.
That being said.... enjoy!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have come to the conclusion that there is no way to debunk the idea as a whole because that is how it has evolved. Like how "Climate Change" used to be "Global Warming" until scientific evidence surfaced that proved the Earth was, in fact, not globally warming. The narrative must go on and the idea morphed into the same thing but under a different guise. It didn't matter what the facts were, it was the idea and the narrative that was important. Nothing changed even when the entire fundamental base for the movement was proven false. It's the same with the ideas surrounding racism today. The facts don't seem to be important... it's all about the narrative and the goals of the controlling groups to achieve their aim.. whatever that may turn out to be (but I think I know).
This is, of course, different. However the idea remains when there are so many topics covered from police brutality, to slavery, to institutional racism, to unconscious bias, to white privilege... Each one taking books upon books to actually define. I believe it's because these things don't actually exist and it takes a lot of word fluff to convince people that it does.
Phil Vischer Video
I have nothing against the guy but he has about as much authority to speak to complex socio-economic theory and statistics as a highschooler on a stage properly occupied by people who have multiple degrees in such studies. He is either regurgitating others' arguments or has the same credibility of a cucumber or tomato (See what I did there? I am hilarious.). I have no qualms with regurgitating arguments... we all do it to one degree or another but it doesn't make him special.
No Knock Warrants: Apparently these are racist? I've seen a lot of then and been privy to some of the more nuanced procedures for serving these warrants. No knock simply means they aren't going to wait for someone to come to the door.... it doesn't mean they don't declare themselves as police serving a warrant. This came about due to the increasing frustrations relating to higher levels of organization in criminal activity mainly with firearms. More sophisticated drug trade means that more serious groups are going to take part. This meant that the odds that officers serving a search warrant would be met with armed resistance increased significantly. They stopped knocking because the bad guys would just grab their guns and start shooting.... or have enough time to run out the back door. No-knock entries consist of entering a place without warning (usually in what they call a dynamic entry involving breaking through a door) and screaming "Police! Search Warrant!" as they move quickly to secure all people in the area and prevent violence from happening. Now, it's not perfect and there have been some fantastic screw-ups where innocent people did get killed and I don't defend that... but what do high-risk search warrants have to do with black people other than the police hate black people? It's a stupid argument.
Sentencing Differences: The major difference was that in mostly black communities, the community leaders got sick and tired of drugs destroying their towns. So it was black legislators that pushed for harsher sentencing for the types of criminal activity that tended to take place in black communities. Yes, it did result in more black people being convicted and serving harsher sentences but it was at the behest of black leaders and not some racist white folks as implied.
He goes on to talk about the various studies that present data. They don't make conclusion as to why those numbers are they way they are because that is significantly harder than just crunching numbers. Sadly, people who look at these studies have already formed a conclusion about what those numbers mean and jump to the easy conclusion that the criminal justice system is racist at some systemic level. His wording is misleading when he cites that white people were twice as likely to be carrying drugs in their cars but arrested at significantly lower rates... he said "drugs"... all drugs including marijuana which has for the past 10 years or so been largely just a ticket. He doesn't (and the study may not say) which drugs were arrested for more? It's a lot more likely you'll get arrested for crack cocaine and methamphetamine than for weed. But it fits the narrative so we go with it instead of taking the necessary intellectual rigor to look deeper.
Now white teachers are biased and not putting black students into gifted programs. That could be true. Bias (as I go into later) is human not based on skin tone. What is they are just lousy teachers? We blame the education system for a lot of things but the Teachers Unions have made it almost impossible to fire a teacher for being a crappy teacher. In some cases crappy teachers are retained and just told to sit in a room all day instead of teach because it is cheaper to keep paying them then to try and fire them. It could also be affected by the current black demographics (which I go into further later).
We just need to care? That f*cker! Like those of us who disagree with the screaming lunatics carrying decapitated pig heads yelling to "kill all cops" are heartless bastards who don't care about anyone but themselves. Like we don't care about every life lost. As if my acknowledgement of his statistics and not agreeing with his conclusion makes me the problem. It just makes him come off like a self-righteous, virtue-signaling prick.
At the end he makes that disgusting comparison on the ratios of probability of imprisonment between the cute little white baby and the cute little black baby. Probabilities are just that... it's an abstract rendering of chance. He's saying that all those kids are equally guilty of some crime and only a small number of white kids will end up being punished but the hammer will fall with vengeance on the black kids. I speak to this idea in a later piece.
End Video (and rant.... sorry the video just triggered me. Where's my safe space?)
This issue of racism and privilege is, I believe, a part of a greater effort to instill a fundamental change in the culture of the United States. Far-left ideologies are pushing harder and harder towards a Socialist or Marxist utopia state. It starts very slowly and sounds quite good at the early stages (remember Hitler was elected in a landslide in Austria in 1938). We can learn a lot from history and see where it is repeating itself today. Here are a couple of things that I see being pushed for that further the ideology:
1. Continued development of group identity politics. This idea pits different groups against each other and creates division. It is based on the idea that groups of people should or will have certain political beliefs based solely on their membership in a particular group. It also adds other attributes that may or may not have basis in fact. A prime and recent example is when presumptive Democrat Presidential Nominee Joe Biden told a black radio host: "I tell you, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black". It was a bit of a slip up (he has many) but it was a clear call that he believes black people should all vote democrat simply because they are black...not on the value of the issues at hand. The same goes for white people, males and females, poor, middle class, upper class, immigrants, people of color, LGBTQ, etc. The danger is that it becomes tribal... if you don't behave like your group is supposed to, you are a traitor at best. We see this in a glaring example of the current attacks on a black female conservative commentator named Candice Owens. Simply because she doesn't support what black females are supposed to support, she has been attacked with some of the most extreme vitriol and hatred that can be hurled. She has been demonized, called a race traitor, Uncle Tom, had death threats, and many other things not appropriate for polite discourse. Had that abuse come from conservatives to a liberal, it would have been national news. If you don't conform to your group you are wrong and will be punished.
2. Demonetization of police. The police have been indicted as brutal, racist, killers who get up in the morning just itching to find some minority to oppress and lift up anyone who happens to be white. The police have been grouped and judged together - again identity politics. There are a few bad cops.... and they need to be gone. But to accuse every cop of being a terrible person at their very core is completely ignorant. Notice this issue isn't as much about policy or institutional issues (as it may be with other things).... no, here it is the individual that is at fault. De-fund the police because of a few bad cops or thugs happening to get shot? Why? That is the first step that must be accomplished if you like the idea of creating an enforcement group that is focused on social justice. It happened in Germany as part of the rise of fascism. The regular police forces were minimized and the Brownshirts were created. They (the far left) don't respect the rule of law because the law tends (tends... not always but tends) to treat people equally regardless of group identity.... something these protesters rabidly want done away with.
3. Disarming the population. The left would like nothing quite so much as to remove all firearms from private ownership. Why do they care? They say it is because of "gun violence" as if that kind of violence is worse than stabbing, or any other kind. That it's the evil "assault weapon" despite the fact that the vast majority of murders are committed with handguns. It's because it's a political stunt. They really aren't concerned with murders or they would try to address the massive gang violence happening in various spots around the country. Know what happened when they banned almost all guns in Australia? The murder rate stayed almost the same for at least 6 years afterward.... but now people were being killed with knives and other lethal objects. The reason the fer left wants to get rid of guns is because it is impossible to terrorize an armed population. Take no mind that there are almost 400 million privately held firearms in the US.... that's enough for every person in the country to have a gun with some left over. If you want to proceed towards a socialist society, you cannot have an armed population. It has happened in every socialist country yet to exist. (I could go into great detail on the fallacies associated with gun propaganda)
4. Victimhood. This is the idea that everyone is a victim of something. If you are gay, you are victim of discrimination. If you are black, the racist police are out to get you. If you are a female, you face sexual harassment daily by virtually every male you meet. If you are a guy who happens to be feminine leaning... you are bullied constantly by testosterone fueled neanderthals. If you are an immigrant you are a victim because the country that takes in the most immigrants in the world hates immigrants. Illegal aliens are victims because when you break a countries laws, you aren't afforded the same privileges as citizens. If you are poor, you are a victim of an oppressive capitalist society. Simply by existing, you can perpetrate "violence" on someone you've never met just because you disagree.... more victims. So what? If you are a victim, you want retribution and false victimhood creates a desire for retribution that cannot be achieved.... that fosters hatred. Hatred is good for one thing: destruction. You want to destroy a civilization? Put everyone into different groups and make them believe they are all victims of each other. Being the victim creates anger and an angry person is an easy to control person.
Process
I'd like to explain my process for determining what I believe to be the truth:
1. Facts don't care about your feelings. This is essentially a statement that means during the investigation of truth, emotional responses cannot be weighed for or against any particular conclusion. It doesn't matter how angry I may be that someone fell off a cliff and died... that doesn't change the immutable nature of gravity. (and as much as we may want to.... we can't defund gravity)
2. I will try to compress some things into more broader ideas to avoid getting caught up in what may be individual falsehoods. A problem created by the internet and instant communication is that statements travel at the speed of light regardless of content and without any kind of verification. As an example, just recently, a post went around twitter stating a police department had just shot and killed at 13 year old boy during riots. Turns out it was an armed 34 year old man, not associated with riots, that had just attempted to murder someone. Often, blanket statements that are patently false have been produced and circulate without anyone deciding to check their validity. ( I do mention some of these is specifics in other parts).
3. If we are to believe something exists, there must be some evidence to that fact. there must be some trend, some statistics, that supports at least some of the claim....while at the same time cannot be explained by other, more rational arguments. This would be like taking a look at car crash data, seeing that more for the cars involved are red and concluding that red cars cause crashes. The notion is ridiculous on it's face but I believe that is almost exactly what is happening.
4. Listen to the input of smart, credible people. I believe that it is a great opportunity to learn from those among us who are more intelligent than we are. I have taken a lot of time to search out people who are far smarter than I will ever be and listen to the things that they say. Both people who I agree with and those who I do not. There are a lot of average idiots out there hopping on Facebook to proclaim their stunted world view with not so much as a brain cell of thought behind it but with the fervor of a renowned academic scholar. This is across the board on beliefs from the far right to the far left... Atheists to ultra conservative Christians.... etc. To look for good ideas, find the people who have spent a great deal of time with an open mind thinking and studying the concepts and produce well thought out arguments (Often you will find the people I produce have changed their beliefs over the years and openly admit to it). Additionally, find the people who are specialties in the field.... A chess grand-master may be a great chess player and very, very smart, but that doesn't mean they can troubleshoot car trouble or provide a good opinion on foreign policy. I will provide some samples of what I find to be the most relevant of these people that support my claims and can do so with much more eloquence than I.
To hijack the oft-used phrase: "words matter". No one know this better than people who may wish to push a particular agenda and take over the good intentions of people. It is very important to listen to what is said but even more so what is not said.... the things that are not acknowledged.... why one word is chosen over another. How those words are used is also important. I am very familiar with this tactic as it relates to Leftist anti-gun rhetoric. How the words they use are carefully picked and presented for maximum impact. A classic example is the idea that assault weapons need to be banned... the truth is that assault weapons have been banned for public sale since the 80s. But then they hold up a gun that is scary looking but not an assault weapon and say "we must ban these evil assault rifles." Sadly it isn't challenged quickly enough because more knowledgeable people are too stunned at what they are hearing to say anything.
The racist argument has become so nuanced, so abstract, that it is impossible to nail down cause. If it isn't individual racism, it's implicit bias, if it's not that, it's institutional racism which isn't dependent on the individual, if inequality cannot be blamed to this point, then intersectionality is the culprit. The narrative is that if inequality exists, it must exist because something made it that way. If we can't blame a singular person or group of people, we can blame the system or the institution, or the unconscious actions of a thousand well meaning people across the entirety of someones life. This concept is equally applied to race, LGBTQ, sexism, etc. It's the same argument wrapped up in different terms: "If someone has it better than you (better car, better pay, better education, etc), it is impossible that any art of that disparity is the consequence of decisions you have made."
The idea that a person is free from any consequence of their own decisions is popular but immoral. It means someone can justify looting because their ancestors hardships. It means someone will not work harder to better their life because they are being oppressed and such effort wouldn't be effective. It means justifying the assault or murder of an innocent person because the assailant was angry and all white people are guilty to some extent of causing that pain.
It is useful to look at the picture painted in the last 150 years: from a nation where slaves were held under the law to a member of that same oppressed group of people being elected to the supreme leadership of that person in the span of so few years from a historical standpoint. We know of other places in history where changes much smaller happened over much longer amounts of time.
The first sections of this video are telling of the way these subjects have morphed into an out of control narrative and ideology that cannot lead to anything good. A lot of people do not like this guy but he is an intellectual of the modern age. When he says he's read a book, he actually has... and probably every other book by the same author.
https://www.prageru.com/video/ep-123-the-search-for-racism/
13th Documentary
I took in this documentary with an open mind and hoped for something that would be informative with basis in fact. There was some good information there, unfortunately the premise is laughable. The idea that the 13th amendment was specifically designed to allow the prison system to continue to legally enslave blacks using incarceration is one step down from the flat Earth conspiracy theory. They gather a series of jumbled facts, present them commentary from biased opinions and viola! you have a documentary.
The assumption that the exception from the 13th amendment for prisoners was racially motivated fails to understand the actual and more important reason. it actually has to be there if you were to have any kind of prison system. If that provision was not in the 13th amendment, then prisoners could sue the federal government on Constitutional grounds and win. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Constitutional Law and English Common law would conclude that imprisonment would be entirely illegal under the 13th amendment. Regardless of what a singular lunatic may have decided would be a good way to continue to subjugate blacks, it wasn't intended that way and was simply a required piece of mechanics. It's akin to saying roads are racist because we make them black then drive all over them. Hence, people who design roads, build roads, etc are all racist at heart. No, they are black because of the ingredients.... not racism. It's the same logic and it's faulty.
The filmmaker stakes a position well before the creation of the film and sets out to produce something that doesn't enlighten about the subject but serves to cloud the reality by presenting facts in a biased light. This wasn't a documentary so much as it was an opinion piece. If you want to document something, you should at least try to present some of the other side of the argument (oh wait, that would be racist). No one said anything except to tow the line for the movie and fails to include some very important ideas for consideration.
They go back and find something some politician said a hundred years ago.... like politicians never say stupid shit that could never be backed up in a million years. The whole "Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15s..." by Beto is a good example of stupid shit that could be dug up in a hundred years to fuel a false narrative. There were a lot of smart people who opposed slavery for a lot of reasons and the idea that they would have allowed this little prisoner exception to be included with the intent of continuing slavery is comical. They say we fought the Civil War over slavery and now after one of the bloodiest conflicts the world had ever seen, they were going to effectively throw that victory away? I don't think so.
The talk about laws that targeted black people (not really true but OK) were supported by black people who saw an increase in violence and drug use. The war on drugs, the war on crime, the Opioid crisis, etc are all political stunts aimed to gain political favor. They weren't part of some vast inter-generational conspiracy.
They briefly mention the prison manufacturing that goes on and jump up and down and say "Look! Look! Forced labor! Slavery!". The same people who also jump up and down and say that we need rehabilitation to teach job skills in order to reform criminals. And they aren't assembling missile guidance systems for the Military.... that is complete crap. There may be some component manufacturing happening but that's it. Would you rather they just sit in cells for 8 hours a day and have no opportunity to learn anything except how to be better criminals?
The film jumps on the backs of some of the truly horrific things that had been done in our history and kind of like" Look! Horrible stuff... also... something else that we are going to put right next to it" as if putting a black man in prison for armed robbery and assault is the same as what happened to Emmet Till. The video oozes with agenda and really has nothing to do with exposing reality, rather to push an ideology.
There are some logical principles that are being ignored consistently in all these arguments.
1. Consequence does not indicate motive
2. Correlation is not causation
3. Assumptions are not evidence
4. False statements cannot be used to build a valid conclusion
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
8 Can't Wait:
This has become a popular idea. But there are a few major issues I have.
1. Just because a department doesn't specifically state a particular policy in it's manual, doesn't mean officers are doing the exact opposite. That is, if a manual doesn't require de-escalation that doesn't mean officers are not attempting to do that ever. It's the same with exhausting all other options, etc. The assumption is something akin to saying that if a department doesn't say "Don't shoot black people." that officers will take that as free licence to kill black people.
2. They look at numbers in a vacuum and clearly do not employ the standard practices in statistical reasoning in their claim that so many police killings can be avoided. The underlying tone is that the vast majority of killings could be avoided if these policies had been put in place. While it's not stated outright, it's a logical fallacy to claim those policies would have saved lives. Some? For sure... but not all.
3. Their numbers of deaths are dealing with such small numbers compared to the overall population that it creates a statistically insignificant change. This is a technical term meaning that from a statistical point of view, the change is no more than what could also be attributed to random noise. When you are talking about changes in their entirety that are around one one hundredth percent, that is not significant. The sample size is just too small to come to a meaningful conclusion.
4. Notice that the 8 can't wait only speaks about police violence. Why isn't it about violence towards blacks, since that is the prevailing theme? I know why. It's because they couldn't find even a handful of reasonable numbers to base a finding off of. There simply are not enough black people killed by police every year to make any kind of claim at all. It's a convenient notion: "Police are killing black people!" "Oh... the numbers don't support that?" "Well.... police are killing people!" The moment there is strong evidence their position is illegitimate, they switch to a different one.
5. Some things are quite vague and will be used to trap officers who do end up killing someone. It's very easy to criticize something after the fact and then say the officer didn't utilize all other options before using deadly force. Especially from people who have never been faced with a life threatening situation where milliseconds could determine if they survive or not. When the body is under the kind of physiological conditions that would be lethal if continued for more than a couple of minutes. Yet, somehow we expect a human being under the most intense pressure and stress they will most likely every endure at a singular point and insist they must make totally rational and thought out decisions in full compliance with thousands of pages of laws, policies, and procedures. As someone who has pent a great deal of time studying violence and life threatening encounters, it is amazing how people cannot understand this. Put any of those knuckleheads in a shoot house and they'll turn to a pile of mush in an instant.
6. A similar principle applies to comprehensive reporting. What does that even mean? Any recollection of an event will have flaws... so it's a "gotcha" when you say comprehensive reporting and then details are left out it will be used as a bludgeon to beat up people who genuinely didn't remember.
Every life lost is a tragedy... but we cannot make public policy on the outliers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The below video is a supplement to showcase how media has exasperated these problems as part of a larger narrative. I've followed this guy from his early days and have been impressed at his explicit denial of race or politics in the expression of his beliefs and hobbies (guns here). Yes, it is a biased platform but try to look beyond that to the nuggets of facts that he brings. Also, he's been saying these things for a long time and well before ever getting associated with the NRA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Au4I6gNwy0
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My take on several issues with more depth and supporting evidence:
Systemic Racism: Slavery
https://succinctandverbose.blogspot.com/2020/06/systemic-racism-slavery.html
Black Oppression
https://succinctandverbose.blogspot.com/2020/06/black-opression.html
Inequalities
https://succinctandverbose.blogspot.com/2020/06/inequalities.html
Black Lives Mater
https://succinctandverbose.blogspot.com/2020/06/black-lives-matter.html
The Church
https://succinctandverbose.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-church.html
White Privilege
https://succinctandverbose.blogspot.com/2020/06/white-privilege.html
Experiences, Lived Reality, Anecdotes, Etc.
https://succinctandverbose.blogspot.com/2020/06/experiences-lived-reality-anecdotes-etc.html
On Violence...
https://succinctandverbose.blogspot.com/2020/06/on-violence.html
Tuesday, June 30, 2020
Experiences, Lived Reality, Anecdotes, Etc
It is clear that some people have been victims of racism or other forms of bigotry. Some people have been the victims of discrimination. Others have been downright unlucky. The collection of these stories as evidence of some vague and shadowy boogeyman are not what is needed to prove it exists in the absence of any other evidence.
It's a carefully constructed narrative and the product of too many conflicting interests that create a problem so fluid that it cannot be concretely defined. Racism now can mean so many things from the sum of individually unbiased people to form an institution. To some kind of genetic racism instilled in us from the time of slavery. To the smallest "micro-regressions" that indicate and prove these ideas regardless of how innocent or harmless the intent.
I have read the stories of people who have had bad experiences and there is no justification for some of those things - I think of the young man who was harassed in New York under now illegal stop-and-frisk rules.
If every story or "lived reality" is one check-mark in the column of "racism is a systemic problem", can we allow for the counter argument of every story showcasing the opposite to put a check-mark in the "racism is not a systemic problem" column? Do the times people put down prejudices (real or imagined) and worked together in friendship and kindness mean nothing? Does the fact that white cops and firemen helped people of every color from the world trade centers on 9/11 mean nothing? Or the fact that black cops and firemen did the same? Or did the white cop save the black lady because he unconsciously believes black people are less capable and need help? Did the black fireman save the white guy because he's been subject to a system that has told him unconsciously that white people are worth more than black people? The argument could go on forever without resolution because no one can see the heart of a person. As I recall, only God can do that.
Are we to believe every time someone does something that the other doesn't agree with that it comes from an unconscious place of bias and hate? If a white salesman happens to show a black man a white car, is that racist? If a white salesman happens to show a black man a black car is that racist? Two completely opposite situations could both be interpreted as racist or a micro-aggression by different people. Is it fair to say the black man has the final say and criticize the guy who just happened to pick the wrong color? Who is to judge? Who can lay the blame on one party as being insensitive? What if the white salesman was adopted by a black couple and lived his whole life around black people? What if he just happens to think that white cars are the bomb? There is a fundamental problem with looking at an action and then attributing motive without evidence and even worse attributing motive that is uncontrolled and unconscious.
We all have had experiences that have been the product of bias. Can I tell the story of the time when I was assaulted and harassed by cops as proof of them being prejudiced towards me? Can I chalk other times up to a cop having a bad day? Am I to dismiss any time I have had a pleasant and cordial encounter with police as an outlier? People would say, "Well yes but it would have been worse if you were black." Maybe... maybe not. To say that is to make assumptions about the nature of reality which is the very question we are trying to determine.
They say we need to listen to people who have "black" experiences. But that is to form the conclusion before the experiment. If stories are evidence, then we must listen to all stories and see what comes from them all. We must listen to people who are different from ourselves and take their statements as absolute truth. We all see reality through our own personal lens and it is helpful to understand how other people view that same reality through their own lens. But we are all looking at the same reality.... just through different lens'. What we are told now is that our lens is broken because we are white and we must believe that what other people are telling us is the truth. Even when that truth is purposely distorted. A recent example was the arrest of a man named Robert Morton (black). A video was published of him being detained, he grows hostile as the officer (white) waits for backup. The dialogue indicates he was pulled over for speeding and that he was the subject of police brutality. Then the whole video came out and we see the real truth... he was driving over a hundred miles per hour (with his pregnant girlfriend and 4 year old child in the car), was stopped by police and refused to produce identification.... that is why he was out of the car and being detained. A lawful stop, lawful order to produce identification, then continued denial of the facts and resisting led to a forceful arrest and additional charges. Maybe the cop used excessive force... but he was forced to by Mr Morton. Are we to take that "lived experience" as facts of racism and police brutality? Even when we have all the facts? I've seen the exact same thing happen to white people trying to pull the same crap. it all ends the same.
I'd like to present an open letter written by a black man:
“Woke” white people, I’d like to ask you a favor:
Please stop asking for forgiveness for your “white privilege.”
You’re not fooling anybody. You’re not helping black people—or any other minority. And your public confessions don’t make you look virtuous. They make you look disingenuous, which is a really nice way of saying fake, phony, and fraudulent.
For starters, what is “white privilege” anyway? Because you were born with white skin, you have all these advantages that I don’t have?
Like what?
Like, you can get a mortgage loan that I can’t get?
Hmm. I got a loan—at a great rate, by the way—and I got the house. Why would a banker not give a loan to someone who met the loan requirements? He doesn’t want to make money? I’ve never heard of such a banker.
Or, how about this: You can enter a store and not be looked upon with suspicion, but I—a black person—cannot. Except...that has never happened to me.
But if I was a young dude with my pants hanging down to my butt, I could understand why a store owner would be concerned. I used to be a cop. Believe me, I understand. If I owned the store, I’d be tracking that kid, too—whether he was black, white, or anything else.
Or, what if I had a store that had a history of being shoplifted by young black women, and a young black woman with a bad attitude walked in. Would I be suspicious? Yeah, I would. Who wouldn’t?
I call that common sense, not bigotry.
But there’s another way of looking at this: In many ways, in today’s America, blacks have more privilege than whites. It’s been my experience that whites bend over backwards to give blacks every possible advantage.
If two people are equally qualified for a job, the black person will usually get it. Big companies and prestigious universities fall all over one another trying to sign up talented black people.
If you deny this, you are denying reality.
Which is what the person who dreamed up this whole thing did—a professor of women’s studies at Wellesley College by the name of Peggy McIntosh. She wrote an article in 1988 about all the “white privilege” she thought she had. She listed 46, including this one: “I can choose…bandages in ‘flesh’ color and have them more or less match my skin.” Wow, that’s some kind of privilege!
Soon others took up the cause.
Today, these so-called progressives dominate our colleges and universities, imposing this absurd notion of white privilege on their students. That’s too bad. Because it does nothing good for white students. And it does nothing good for black students. But of the two, ironically, the white students get the better of the deal.
Let me explain:
To acknowledge your white privilege is supposed to make you feel bad. Only it doesn’t. It makes you feel good because by acknowledging your white privilege, you’re declaring yourself to be enlightened. And as a virtue-bonus, it also makes you a better person than those whites who don’t acknowledge their privilege.
White privilege, which is supposed to make you feel bad, ends up making you feel good. Meanwhile, the real damage is to blacks. What makes whites feel good makes blacks angry.
More than 50 years after the start of the Civil Rights movement, the message is: “You’re still oppressed.” How can this not create a victim mentality? And anyone—of any color—who sees himself as a victim gets angry.
Now, I wouldn’t deny for a second that there are privileges in life. They’re all over the place. There’s two-parent family privilege (that’s huge); there’s being lucky to be born in America privilege; there’s good gene privilege. But white privilege? Doesn’t it depend on the person?
Let’s take this, for example: A black lawyer and his wife have a baby. And a meth addict, single white woman has a baby. Which kid has privilege? The white one? Because he’s white?
Come on now.
And here’s the kicker: Even if it were true—all those claims about white privilege, so what? Would it change a single thing I did? If white people apologize for being white, is that supposed to help me? In what way?
So, let’s be real: White privilege is an attempt by the left to divide Americans by race.
It’s all theory and all nonsense. If you want to fall for it, go ahead—it’s a free country. But don’t try to sell it to me.
I’m an American who deals with my fellow Americans one-on-one.
Try it. It works.
What about the black business owner who sent a private message in support to another black commentator (who happened to disagree with prevailing opinion) and was found out. The consequence being death threats, boycotts, and vandalism. And when a GoFundMe was started to help him out, the fund was shut down because it was found to be in "support of hate, violence, harassment, bullying, discrimination, terrorism, or intolerance .."
How can we point to these examples and lay them on the alter of evidence while ignoring any stories that contradict the conclusion? They are dismissed as "outliers" or "not evidence", or more often shouted down as "racist". It's racist to suggest that maybe white people have sometimes been mistreated by bad police? There are many stories like these that paint a different picture. I know about them because I follow law enforcement happenings that are not reported in mainstream (or even side-stream) news.
How do we deal with the times people have been clearly in the wrong and not reasonable in a police encounter? I think specifically of a video recording of an officer detaining two people who claimed to be "sovereign citizens" (A whole different group of lunatics). The car was going to be towed and the female passenger had to be removed from the passenger seat. She was in the wrong legally and being a jerk to the officer. He had to open the door and pull her out of the car. While on camera, she started screaming "rape" as he pulled her out. It leaves most people palming their faces. What do we make of those examples? Was it police brutality? or is it an example of white privilege that she wasn't just shot dead?
The point is: If we accept certain evidence of one proposition but categorically deny the same type of evidence of the opposing viewpoint, can the proponents truly claim evident superiority? It's akin to saying the court case is decided because there is no testimony for one side.... but then finding out the opposing side is not allowed to call witnesses.
"But we must believe people who say they'd been hurt." I have no problem listening to people. But apparently listening really means believing every word that comes out of their mouth. If someone comes up and says "I was raped" and we don't instantly believe them then we are sexist bigots. The same goes for when someone says "I was harassed by the cops." or "I was the victim if racism." If it is true then we must address it. However, just because someone "feels" one way doesn't make it objective fact. You can feel however you want but that doesn't change the facts. Maybe the girl was raped... maybe she regrets getting a little tipsy (not drunk) and going too far with that cute guy. Regrettable but not actually rape. Maybe you were the victim or racism when you were left for 40 minutes at a restaurant without service.... or maybe the servers got mixed up and didn't know had the table. Unfortunate and not good.... but not racism. Maybe you were roughed up by a bad cop.... or maybe you have a rap sheet a mile long and were being uncooperative in the course of a legal detention. Too bad for you.... but not police brutality.
When we define reality as whatever we feel it is.... when we are not allowed to call people out on their shit.... when we cannot tell someone to suck it up and move on.... we enter a strange place where even stranger things happen.... and they aren't good.
What about the black business owner who sent a private message in support to another black commentator (who happened to disagree with prevailing opinion) and was found out. The consequence being death threats, boycotts, and vandalism. And when a GoFundMe was started to help him out, the fund was shut down because it was found to be in "support of hate, violence, harassment, bullying, discrimination, terrorism, or intolerance .."
How can we point to these examples and lay them on the alter of evidence while ignoring any stories that contradict the conclusion? They are dismissed as "outliers" or "not evidence", or more often shouted down as "racist". It's racist to suggest that maybe white people have sometimes been mistreated by bad police? There are many stories like these that paint a different picture. I know about them because I follow law enforcement happenings that are not reported in mainstream (or even side-stream) news.
How do we deal with the times people have been clearly in the wrong and not reasonable in a police encounter? I think specifically of a video recording of an officer detaining two people who claimed to be "sovereign citizens" (A whole different group of lunatics). The car was going to be towed and the female passenger had to be removed from the passenger seat. She was in the wrong legally and being a jerk to the officer. He had to open the door and pull her out of the car. While on camera, she started screaming "rape" as he pulled her out. It leaves most people palming their faces. What do we make of those examples? Was it police brutality? or is it an example of white privilege that she wasn't just shot dead?
The point is: If we accept certain evidence of one proposition but categorically deny the same type of evidence of the opposing viewpoint, can the proponents truly claim evident superiority? It's akin to saying the court case is decided because there is no testimony for one side.... but then finding out the opposing side is not allowed to call witnesses.
"But we must believe people who say they'd been hurt." I have no problem listening to people. But apparently listening really means believing every word that comes out of their mouth. If someone comes up and says "I was raped" and we don't instantly believe them then we are sexist bigots. The same goes for when someone says "I was harassed by the cops." or "I was the victim if racism." If it is true then we must address it. However, just because someone "feels" one way doesn't make it objective fact. You can feel however you want but that doesn't change the facts. Maybe the girl was raped... maybe she regrets getting a little tipsy (not drunk) and going too far with that cute guy. Regrettable but not actually rape. Maybe you were the victim or racism when you were left for 40 minutes at a restaurant without service.... or maybe the servers got mixed up and didn't know had the table. Unfortunate and not good.... but not racism. Maybe you were roughed up by a bad cop.... or maybe you have a rap sheet a mile long and were being uncooperative in the course of a legal detention. Too bad for you.... but not police brutality.
When we define reality as whatever we feel it is.... when we are not allowed to call people out on their shit.... when we cannot tell someone to suck it up and move on.... we enter a strange place where even stranger things happen.... and they aren't good.
Black Oppression
Now, we compare the difference in the state of the Black people after Jim Crowe and in most recent years. The Smithsonian article cites the study that concluded that Blacks are worse off than they were 60 years ago. Objectively that is true. However, it is not as simple as "racism". It is a middle school interpretation to see the changes and conclude racism is to blame. In the same way it is equally broad to say the civil war was fought over just slavery. We must look at what changed. Is it reasonable to say that people became more racist than in the Confederate South in the 1860s or during the Jim Crowe era? Probably not.
There are three major issues that I see across the board that are responsible for the inequalities of blacks: The breakdown of the Black family, Affirmative Action, and Left-wing politics.
In the 60s, approximately 80% of black families were two-parent households. By the 90s, that stat had flipped to only 20% of black families having two-parent households. (It is noteworthy to acknowledge that there was also an increase in single parent white families although not nearly as great) Often, that is because women became single mothers without a male counterpart. This happened because the welfare program disincentivized marriage or partnership as single women would receive significantly greater compensation single than she would if she "had a man in the house". Children born to single parent households are 5 times more likely to end up involved with the criminal justice system. This is regardless of race or geography. Since the government under Liberal leadership started the "war on poverty", it has disproportionately affected black and minority families. Often, a family would receive more income if the father left the family because the mother could make more on welfare than the father could working.
Across the board, regardless of race, the absence of two parents is the single greatest indicator of low education, poverty, and criminality. It doesn't matter what color your skin is, what kind of a family you came from, what part of the country you were born in etc. If you come from a single parent family, you are at a greater statistical risk of engaging in criminal activity.
Affirmative action damages minority communities. It is done in a very simple way. Your race is taken into consideration when you apply to college. If you are white, you have to get x score on an exam to be eligible. However, if you happen to be a person of color, your eligibility score is lower than that of the white counterpart. So what happens? Instead of having a level playing field it's tilted and ends up hurting the black students. I would find it completely offensive if I was put in one of those categories because what the colleges are essentially saying is that "We don't think you can score as well as these other people because you have a different skin color so we are going to be compassionate and let you in with a lower score." How racist is that? Saying your skin color determines how well you score on a test. Why are those tests there in the first place? They are there to ensure that the applicants are ready for the rigors of higher education. So what happens when you admit people with lower scores? They tend to do poorly compared to their counterparts. When that happens, they tend to drop out at a higher rate. Imagine picking a football team and applying affirmative action, making sure you have tall people, short people, white people, black people, men, and women. Then play against a typically selected football team. It would be a slaughter. In an attempt at equality, we destroy the whole team.
Left wing politics demonizes conservative viewpoints. Its agenda is that if you don't agree with us you are dismissed as a radical racist lunatic. Why can't the Left get behind school choice? Because the Unions are too powerful. Why can't the Left embrace two parent homes? Because if they did, their notion of feminism would be challenged. They need to help the poor oppressed people and there's nothing wrong with that, except when there really aren't oppressed people. Then you have to invent oppression to stay relevant.
I'll present he following video:
https://youtu.be/IFqVNPwsLNo?t=1314
It starts about 20 minutes into the interview when the relevant discussion starts and continues about a half hour or so. Notice how the arguments are made rationally and without the emotional support that most of the racist narrative exists on.
The idea that blacks are still experiencing the effects of racist attitudes today that existed 60 years ago is complete nonsense. The reason people have wealth is majorly based on individual effort and decisions. There are a few that have inherited wealth but wealth alone isn't a key to success. If you think so, look up how many lottery winners are now poor. Wealth only helps you if you are educated enough to use it wisely. Minimum wage laws and welfare have hurt blacks more than any wealth disparity ever could. It wasn't redlining that prevented blacks from buying a house or maintaining a job (although I don't defend redlining), it was the fact that welfare and government housing created crime and caused jobs to move away. Stable family units were not created which is a driving force in many young men to get and keep a job. Minimum wage laws caused low-skilled black labor to be excluded because of the absurd wage that had to be paid. Statistics show that if you are born in the lowest 10% of wealth and you finish high school, don't engage in criminal activity, and don't have babies out of marriage, You will end up at least in the middle class if not better. You can now build wealth like no other time in history and to say that just because Grandpa had it hard, so I have it hard is a complete lie. The wealth gap continues to exist because of foolish, government and democratic left wing policies. It's much easier to say it was the policies of people long dead rather than tackle the uncomfortable truth about why blacks aren't higher in the wealth bracket.
Here is a video that has started to make its way around Facebook recently. I'm sure you've heard of the Jewish white supremacist Ben Shapiro.... Yes... people call him that. He is a very smart person who has spent many years arguing these subjects. He will always give credit where it's due and recognizes when opposing points are valid. I've spent a lot of time listening to him and he may be a little sensational and far from the political center, I've so far, not seen a good rebuttal to his points.
https://youtu.be/TBDfMQ27Asw
Another video with Thomas Sowell with a more thought out approach.
https://youtu.be/LdHEbOAQFmY
Another longer video with some well-spoken perspectives.
https://youtu.be/dQW6GjKHNuM
There are three major issues that I see across the board that are responsible for the inequalities of blacks: The breakdown of the Black family, Affirmative Action, and Left-wing politics.
In the 60s, approximately 80% of black families were two-parent households. By the 90s, that stat had flipped to only 20% of black families having two-parent households. (It is noteworthy to acknowledge that there was also an increase in single parent white families although not nearly as great) Often, that is because women became single mothers without a male counterpart. This happened because the welfare program disincentivized marriage or partnership as single women would receive significantly greater compensation single than she would if she "had a man in the house". Children born to single parent households are 5 times more likely to end up involved with the criminal justice system. This is regardless of race or geography. Since the government under Liberal leadership started the "war on poverty", it has disproportionately affected black and minority families. Often, a family would receive more income if the father left the family because the mother could make more on welfare than the father could working.
Across the board, regardless of race, the absence of two parents is the single greatest indicator of low education, poverty, and criminality. It doesn't matter what color your skin is, what kind of a family you came from, what part of the country you were born in etc. If you come from a single parent family, you are at a greater statistical risk of engaging in criminal activity.
Affirmative action damages minority communities. It is done in a very simple way. Your race is taken into consideration when you apply to college. If you are white, you have to get x score on an exam to be eligible. However, if you happen to be a person of color, your eligibility score is lower than that of the white counterpart. So what happens? Instead of having a level playing field it's tilted and ends up hurting the black students. I would find it completely offensive if I was put in one of those categories because what the colleges are essentially saying is that "We don't think you can score as well as these other people because you have a different skin color so we are going to be compassionate and let you in with a lower score." How racist is that? Saying your skin color determines how well you score on a test. Why are those tests there in the first place? They are there to ensure that the applicants are ready for the rigors of higher education. So what happens when you admit people with lower scores? They tend to do poorly compared to their counterparts. When that happens, they tend to drop out at a higher rate. Imagine picking a football team and applying affirmative action, making sure you have tall people, short people, white people, black people, men, and women. Then play against a typically selected football team. It would be a slaughter. In an attempt at equality, we destroy the whole team.
Left wing politics demonizes conservative viewpoints. Its agenda is that if you don't agree with us you are dismissed as a radical racist lunatic. Why can't the Left get behind school choice? Because the Unions are too powerful. Why can't the Left embrace two parent homes? Because if they did, their notion of feminism would be challenged. They need to help the poor oppressed people and there's nothing wrong with that, except when there really aren't oppressed people. Then you have to invent oppression to stay relevant.
I'll present he following video:
https://youtu.be/IFqVNPwsLNo?t=1314
It starts about 20 minutes into the interview when the relevant discussion starts and continues about a half hour or so. Notice how the arguments are made rationally and without the emotional support that most of the racist narrative exists on.
The idea that blacks are still experiencing the effects of racist attitudes today that existed 60 years ago is complete nonsense. The reason people have wealth is majorly based on individual effort and decisions. There are a few that have inherited wealth but wealth alone isn't a key to success. If you think so, look up how many lottery winners are now poor. Wealth only helps you if you are educated enough to use it wisely. Minimum wage laws and welfare have hurt blacks more than any wealth disparity ever could. It wasn't redlining that prevented blacks from buying a house or maintaining a job (although I don't defend redlining), it was the fact that welfare and government housing created crime and caused jobs to move away. Stable family units were not created which is a driving force in many young men to get and keep a job. Minimum wage laws caused low-skilled black labor to be excluded because of the absurd wage that had to be paid. Statistics show that if you are born in the lowest 10% of wealth and you finish high school, don't engage in criminal activity, and don't have babies out of marriage, You will end up at least in the middle class if not better. You can now build wealth like no other time in history and to say that just because Grandpa had it hard, so I have it hard is a complete lie. The wealth gap continues to exist because of foolish, government and democratic left wing policies. It's much easier to say it was the policies of people long dead rather than tackle the uncomfortable truth about why blacks aren't higher in the wealth bracket.
Here is a video that has started to make its way around Facebook recently. I'm sure you've heard of the Jewish white supremacist Ben Shapiro.... Yes... people call him that. He is a very smart person who has spent many years arguing these subjects. He will always give credit where it's due and recognizes when opposing points are valid. I've spent a lot of time listening to him and he may be a little sensational and far from the political center, I've so far, not seen a good rebuttal to his points.
https://youtu.be/TBDfMQ27Asw
Another video with Thomas Sowell with a more thought out approach.
https://youtu.be/LdHEbOAQFmY
Another longer video with some well-spoken perspectives.
https://youtu.be/dQW6GjKHNuM
The Church
It is beyond disturbing to see the SDA church fall prey to the mob mentality in an effort to abstain from the wrath of virtue signaling social justice warriors. I contend that the Church's response to the movement is counter to the biblical message and puts our faith in jeopardy.
It is suspicious that a church will bend to the will of the government and stop in-person services at the drop of a hat for the safety of others amid COVID-19 concerns. But that same government allows and praises mass protests of thousands of people when your church gathering if 50 people is banned. Think about that long and hard: The government says you cannot worship in groups of more than 50 and have levied civil (and criminal) penalties on those who defy the order, but at the same time applaud protesting of thousands of people gathering in close quarters (shoulder to shoulder) for a cause that same government supports. Churches that have bowed down to the pressures of government in the past have frequently found their very existence in jeopardy. The absence of vigorous protest or continued compliance with stay-at-home orders clearly indicates that the higher power is not faith but those governmental masters who are often openly hostile to our faith.
When will governmental action tell us that church services in person at all are not allowed because of potential disease transmission? Oh we'll just do virtual services. Really? How? Facebook? How long will it be before Facebook decides that Christian expression is hate speech? It's already happening. If you give an inch, the devil will take a mile. In the name of equality and justice for all, our faith is being attacked already and we are sitting here and taking it like the good little subjects we are supposed to be.
The church should not be endorsing the current Black Lives Matter or racism narrative. The Bible has very clear warnings about not going with the crowd and to be wary of movements, popular opinion, or the things that sound good but are not what they seem.
It is suspicious that a church will bend to the will of the government and stop in-person services at the drop of a hat for the safety of others amid COVID-19 concerns. But that same government allows and praises mass protests of thousands of people when your church gathering if 50 people is banned. Think about that long and hard: The government says you cannot worship in groups of more than 50 and have levied civil (and criminal) penalties on those who defy the order, but at the same time applaud protesting of thousands of people gathering in close quarters (shoulder to shoulder) for a cause that same government supports. Churches that have bowed down to the pressures of government in the past have frequently found their very existence in jeopardy. The absence of vigorous protest or continued compliance with stay-at-home orders clearly indicates that the higher power is not faith but those governmental masters who are often openly hostile to our faith.
When will governmental action tell us that church services in person at all are not allowed because of potential disease transmission? Oh we'll just do virtual services. Really? How? Facebook? How long will it be before Facebook decides that Christian expression is hate speech? It's already happening. If you give an inch, the devil will take a mile. In the name of equality and justice for all, our faith is being attacked already and we are sitting here and taking it like the good little subjects we are supposed to be.
The church should not be endorsing the current Black Lives Matter or racism narrative. The Bible has very clear warnings about not going with the crowd and to be wary of movements, popular opinion, or the things that sound good but are not what they seem.
- Is the church afraid of being criticized? "Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets." - Luke 6:26. "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you" - John 15:18-19. "There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death." - Proverbs 14:12
- Why can't the church stand by the principle of Love as demonstrated by Christ? Why can't we simply say that we do not support racism and embrace love for all people regardless of heritage, or background?
- On a lighter note, the fact that there is a "Stairway to Heaven" and a "Highway to Hell" is a pretty clear indication of the anticipated traffic. The point remains that the majority and the loudest voices are often not the ones that lead to a closer relationship with Christ.
- Are we really going to kowtow to a movement that is entirely focused on pointing fingers? Doesn't the Bible say something about that kind of attitude? “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. - Matthew 7:1-5. All these people who lead this movement are only pointing out the flaws in everything except themselves... blaming and judging everyone except their own actions. This is not the way described in the Bible.
- Should the church align themselves with this movement when you see it's fruit? The rioting, the looting, the murdering? This is what these movements create and allow under their colors. The leaders give some lip service but do nothing to stop it. Their grievance is so important that it is worth the lives of others? I don't see this kind of a response from a MAGA rally or a Patriot Prayer event. But we are told over and over that those people are violent extremists. The same principle can be applied to the likes of such people as Richard Spencer. He may have some well articulated points.... but the lunatics in the back throwing up the Nazi Salute and yelling "sieg heil!" really ruin it. The message doesn't matter if it's fruit is bad... regardless of how good that message may sound as it's being said.
- When the church says they support a movement... they are supporting the entirety of that movement.... that's why it's called a movement. That is the exact reason the church has a published set of beliefs.... because individuals can vary... but the church as a group believes certain things. It is hypocrisy to think that you can support only a part of the movement.
The church will easily throw away the concerns of people who are more considerate of their actions in favor of the direction that the wind is blowing at this very moment. Should we begin to abandon our long held Biblical beliefs because a group of people says we are wrong? Why pander to a group of people who would be perfectly happy if our religion didn't exist and our beliefs were not allowed? The same people who are screaming for dead cops are the same ones who will rip the 10 commandments off the wall and yell that Christians are bigoted racists just because we are Christians.
It's like the Devil shows up and says: "You are bad people" and we all look at each other and say "Maybe he's got a point?" after all.... all voices matter. Imagine what could happen if the devil decided he would attack the church like that?
Lastly, you may say: "But there's nothing wrong with saying you value equality and freedom as well as opposing oppression and racism." Sadly, I would have to say that I do have a problem with that when it is so closely associated with these movements. Every social atrocity across history started with that kind of language. A great example is the rhetoric leading up to The Great Purge.... everything that allowed that to go down the roads it went were initially premised with the calls for "equality", and opposition to greed. It is truly a wolf in sheep's clothing and if these things are not resisted early when they can be resisted, it will be too late.
Lastly, you may say: "But there's nothing wrong with saying you value equality and freedom as well as opposing oppression and racism." Sadly, I would have to say that I do have a problem with that when it is so closely associated with these movements. Every social atrocity across history started with that kind of language. A great example is the rhetoric leading up to The Great Purge.... everything that allowed that to go down the roads it went were initially premised with the calls for "equality", and opposition to greed. It is truly a wolf in sheep's clothing and if these things are not resisted early when they can be resisted, it will be too late.
Inequalities
There is a growing movement that decries the existence of inequalities and blames them almost solely on the greed, racism, or menace of other people. Unfortunately, it's simply not that simple and the evidence simply isn't there.
I'd like to present the following video of an interview with a man called Thomas Sowell. He is arguably one of the greatest economists of the past 100 years, second only to Milton Freedman. He has quite a personal history, is a highly intelligent (bordering on genius) man who happens to be black. He thoroughly rejects the idea of systemic oppression of black people. This video addresses a lot of different subjects and how they can be intertwined to create a particular outcome.
He may not be flashy or exciting but he doesn't say anything that hasn't been thought out thoroughly and backed up by statistics and studies.
I will present another arguable genius of modern times: Jordan B Peterson. He is a clinical psychologist out of Canada. His research into all things relating to the mind and the way it works along with sociology is, in my opinion, a masterful endeavor. He has no political agenda and vocally denies political motivation in anything he says which is evident in his arguments.
This is a compilation of some of his best arguments relating to inequalities and differences in people and outcomes. He gained notoriety and the wrath of the left when he spoke out against compelled speech laws that were being passed in Canada. ( A whole different story and progression in and of itself)
On Violence
I thought it important to recognize a couple of things from a personal viewpoint relating to violence and in particular to the violence that has been going on recently.
It is not an arguable fact that people have been killed by protesters. There is an innocent civilian on life support after being caught in a protest and being shot in the head. Civilians have been killed, police officers have been killed... all at "peaceful" protests/riots. No matter how you feel about riots or whether or not they were the legitimate product of peaceful protests is not the point.
Legitimate or not, violence can and has often broken out at these black lives matter protests. My simple guiding principle is that I would avoid conflict by any reasonable means. I would not knowingly go to a protest area because of the risks associated with it. But what if I was just driving down the street and happened to come up on a protest mob? I'd try to go around, or reverse course and leave it alone. But what if it was too late? What if I couldn't turn around or got blocked in by some other numbskull? I would be perfectly fine until I saw evidence that I was at risk of death or severe bodily harm.
All until they started to indicate they would harm me or people in my car... and this includes smashing windows. I use the legal principle of grave or severe bodily harm. Because I may take actions that may cause severe bodily harm or death and I must and can only respond with corresponding force to stop the threat. The legal definition of severe bodily harm includes injuries that have a substantial risk of causing permanent disfigurement, or loss of function of parts of the body. So someone coming by and smashing my car windows puts me at risk of severe bodily harm from glass fragments entering my eye and blinding me. I also don't know intent. Are they smashing my window because they are just angry? or do they intend to do more and assault me? I don't know and will not gamble with my life like that. And I will especially not gamble with the lives of my children.
If I get caught in a protest (or any other equally dangerous situation) and I have reason to believe there is possibility of significant bodily harm to myself, my children or anyone else I am obligated to protect; I will do whatever is necessary to stop that threat. And I do mean anything. I will drive, I will shoot, I will bludgeon, I will rip throats out with my teeth if need be. I have a moral, ethical, and arguably, legal obligation to do so.
What about the innocent people who might be hurt or killed if I drive through crowd of people? It's simple: When you go to a protest, you should be aware that violence can occur and you accept that risk when you go out there. Now, if you stay on the sidewalk, don't engage in illegal activity (blocking a street is illegal without a permit), you are much more likely to be safe. If I have to choose whether to severely injure someone else or risk my daughter loosing her sight from flying glass... you better believe I will make bodies until the threat is gone. There is a phrase among people like me that pretty well explains the sentiment: "Don't make the mistake of putting me in a situation where I have to show you how heartless I can be." It's very simple.... don't make me believe you will harm me or mine and I will not harm you. But people like to dance on that line... they like to play with fire and court disaster. They like to poke dragons then complain when they get bit.
People like me are often the last to choose a violent response because we know more than most the price of violence and the gravity of it's use. It takes a lot to provoke to that point but when the tipping point is reached, action is decisive, vicious, and brutal. We don't play with violence like those yahoo's in black.
I know that makes me sound like a monster, but it's a way of life for me. And I pay a price for it every day in exchange for the willingness and ability to ensure my family's safety. I cannot live with knowing my inaction allowed someone I love that much to suffer or die. I will be the last person to start a fight but I damn sure will be first to finish it.
It is not an arguable fact that people have been killed by protesters. There is an innocent civilian on life support after being caught in a protest and being shot in the head. Civilians have been killed, police officers have been killed... all at "peaceful" protests/riots. No matter how you feel about riots or whether or not they were the legitimate product of peaceful protests is not the point.
Legitimate or not, violence can and has often broken out at these black lives matter protests. My simple guiding principle is that I would avoid conflict by any reasonable means. I would not knowingly go to a protest area because of the risks associated with it. But what if I was just driving down the street and happened to come up on a protest mob? I'd try to go around, or reverse course and leave it alone. But what if it was too late? What if I couldn't turn around or got blocked in by some other numbskull? I would be perfectly fine until I saw evidence that I was at risk of death or severe bodily harm.
All until they started to indicate they would harm me or people in my car... and this includes smashing windows. I use the legal principle of grave or severe bodily harm. Because I may take actions that may cause severe bodily harm or death and I must and can only respond with corresponding force to stop the threat. The legal definition of severe bodily harm includes injuries that have a substantial risk of causing permanent disfigurement, or loss of function of parts of the body. So someone coming by and smashing my car windows puts me at risk of severe bodily harm from glass fragments entering my eye and blinding me. I also don't know intent. Are they smashing my window because they are just angry? or do they intend to do more and assault me? I don't know and will not gamble with my life like that. And I will especially not gamble with the lives of my children.
If I get caught in a protest (or any other equally dangerous situation) and I have reason to believe there is possibility of significant bodily harm to myself, my children or anyone else I am obligated to protect; I will do whatever is necessary to stop that threat. And I do mean anything. I will drive, I will shoot, I will bludgeon, I will rip throats out with my teeth if need be. I have a moral, ethical, and arguably, legal obligation to do so.
What about the innocent people who might be hurt or killed if I drive through crowd of people? It's simple: When you go to a protest, you should be aware that violence can occur and you accept that risk when you go out there. Now, if you stay on the sidewalk, don't engage in illegal activity (blocking a street is illegal without a permit), you are much more likely to be safe. If I have to choose whether to severely injure someone else or risk my daughter loosing her sight from flying glass... you better believe I will make bodies until the threat is gone. There is a phrase among people like me that pretty well explains the sentiment: "Don't make the mistake of putting me in a situation where I have to show you how heartless I can be." It's very simple.... don't make me believe you will harm me or mine and I will not harm you. But people like to dance on that line... they like to play with fire and court disaster. They like to poke dragons then complain when they get bit.
People like me are often the last to choose a violent response because we know more than most the price of violence and the gravity of it's use. It takes a lot to provoke to that point but when the tipping point is reached, action is decisive, vicious, and brutal. We don't play with violence like those yahoo's in black.
I know that makes me sound like a monster, but it's a way of life for me. And I pay a price for it every day in exchange for the willingness and ability to ensure my family's safety. I cannot live with knowing my inaction allowed someone I love that much to suffer or die. I will be the last person to start a fight but I damn sure will be first to finish it.
Systemic Racism: Slavery
Slavery in the United States
The Smithsonian article starts off with a statement about slavery and the slave trade. The context seems to imply that slaves were a singular existence in the Americas. I think it is a glaring flaw to not qualify the statements about American slavery with the fact that slavery was common throughout the world at the time and was often perpetrated by Black Slavers or warring tribal factions selling off captured rivals. Slavery was perpetrated by individuals of every color. It was not solely a "white" or "American" practice. Asians, Arabs, Pacific Islanders, all have vast histories that involve slavery. A conversation about slavery must acknowledge this fact as well as the fact that slavery was ended a little over a hundred years after the founding of the nation.... an achievement I believe no other country in the world can claim.
A Note about Native Americans:
The Native American is also thrown in as a group of oppressed peoples. And yes, there have been some horrible injustices done to the American Natives. But there are several major flaws with how things are presented and it follows this same historical logic. For example: The concept of ownership was quite foreign to Natives when it came to land.... that was a European idea. So when settlers came and purchased the Island of Manhattan from Native peoples, they didn't understand the agreement, and that led to conflict when later they wanted to move back. The island was purchased for a fortune at the time... were there flaws? Sure. Could it have been done better? Probably. But it wasn't "Stolen" as we are led to believe.... It's similar with a lot of other "stolen" land.
Then there is the naive idea that Native life went pretty much like it's portrayed in Disney's Pocahontas before the white man showed up with all his evil. The truth is that native tribes, especially up and down the East Coast, where at each others throats constantly. They would raid, pillage, kill, and enslave other populations. And then it would happen in the reverse. They were brutal to each other and some of the practices involving defeated tribes was, at best, horrific. There were atrocities committed, but it wasn't as one sided as some people claim. These records are taken directly from journals of European observers who have no reason to mislead.
Christopher Columbus was not a genocidal maniac, nor does the Thanksgiving holiday glorify the conflicts with Native Americans. When the Thanksgiving holiday was originally announced, it was specifically created to glorify a time in our history where two different peoples communed together in peace and thanksgiving for the bounty they had received. It was about that singular moment in time after which there was a period of relative peace for about a hundred years. The same logic would have us not celebrate Christmas (A singular point in time) because of all the violence perpetrated by Christians in years since.
End Note
The Civil War was totally about the preservation of slavery. The slave labor industry was an important factor but it was not the reason that the Southern States attempted to leave the Union. Saying so is a common but mistaken interpretation of the very surface facts of the time and a biased, partial analysis of the history. Lincoln himself stated that he would allow slavery if it could have preserved the Union. The totality of the cause is still debated by scholars and the singular point will probably never be known. The first shots fired in the war were over Federal troops taking possession of federal land inside a seceded state (The Battle of Fort Sumter). If only a small percentage owned the vast majority of slaves, then the majority of the Southern population would have no vested interest in maintaining slavery. Slavery was an issue for sure. The North won and slavery was abolished and the idea that the former Confederate states are still bastions of ingrained racial prejudice after 150 years is preposterous. People showcase the people who fought viciously to preserve slavery while ignoring the people who fought viciously (and won) to end slavery.
There is no doubt that the past of 200 years was brutal. Inequality, injustice, brutality, were common. But it was hardly a singularly American institution. We have never been the sole proprietors of such things. These practices and occurrences happened all around the globe, as a world tried to move into the industrial age and out of the feudal servitude that had reigned supreme for a thousands of years prior. To say "Look at this horrible thing that happened! You should be ashamed." But fail to mention that the same things were happening everywhere is a malpractice of argument and sets up the basis for a straw-man that cannot be used to justify a valid conclusion. This is not a justification of the history, but an affirmation that what happened was not unique to the white man. Should we decry racism in one place and ignore it everywhere else? That kind of cherry-picking of facts serves a political narrative better than a historical one.
The past may affect our present and future but it does not define it. If racism is so ingrained in our culture by our history, why is it that people of African heritage are not (and in many cases claim, cannot) be racist when Africans played a critical role in the enslavement of their fellow Africans? Why is this a "black" issue when there was severe discrimination against Chinese immigrants? Asian heritage is now a roadblock to higher education (if you are Asian, you must score better on placement tests than a white person to get into most colleges). Why isn't that racism? What about the historic discrimination against the Irish? It was common to elicit services such as boarding houses where Irish were openly barred and not welcome. The same with job postings saying "Irish need not apply". How can historic injustice be used as evidence of contemporary racism but somehow similar histories do not lend such disparities to other groups?
Slavery was bad. It took us 110 years to get rid of it (with the critical support of quite a few "old white men"). Now 150 years later we have had a black President, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Supreme Court Judge, Ambassador to the United Nations, and National Security Advisor to name a few. There is a record high number of black representatives in Congress. African Americans have a prominent place in the achievements of our country as Scientists, Entertainers, Athletes, and Religious Leaders. These facts presented in a vacuum and outside the context of the United States would be lauded as a great leap forward. Why is it that just because it has happened here that it is still presented on a stain upon our great country?
Here is a short video of a speech made to the Oxford Union on the subject.
https://youtu.be/pv7hsiUirUU
The whole series is fascinating if you have the desire to see the other (4 I think) speakers for and against the proposition.
For a more in depth look: Here is a video that is sections of a book that details some of the history of slavery worldwide. It is a little long but it is worth the listen even when it is kind of hard to listen to because there is no sugar coating of the realities of slavery. It also mentioned the details of the situations like George Washington who was opposed to slavery but was forced to keep slaves because of the legalities of the time.
https://youtu.be/GabXJ0EH9pU
The Smithsonian article starts off with a statement about slavery and the slave trade. The context seems to imply that slaves were a singular existence in the Americas. I think it is a glaring flaw to not qualify the statements about American slavery with the fact that slavery was common throughout the world at the time and was often perpetrated by Black Slavers or warring tribal factions selling off captured rivals. Slavery was perpetrated by individuals of every color. It was not solely a "white" or "American" practice. Asians, Arabs, Pacific Islanders, all have vast histories that involve slavery. A conversation about slavery must acknowledge this fact as well as the fact that slavery was ended a little over a hundred years after the founding of the nation.... an achievement I believe no other country in the world can claim.
A Note about Native Americans:
The Native American is also thrown in as a group of oppressed peoples. And yes, there have been some horrible injustices done to the American Natives. But there are several major flaws with how things are presented and it follows this same historical logic. For example: The concept of ownership was quite foreign to Natives when it came to land.... that was a European idea. So when settlers came and purchased the Island of Manhattan from Native peoples, they didn't understand the agreement, and that led to conflict when later they wanted to move back. The island was purchased for a fortune at the time... were there flaws? Sure. Could it have been done better? Probably. But it wasn't "Stolen" as we are led to believe.... It's similar with a lot of other "stolen" land.
Then there is the naive idea that Native life went pretty much like it's portrayed in Disney's Pocahontas before the white man showed up with all his evil. The truth is that native tribes, especially up and down the East Coast, where at each others throats constantly. They would raid, pillage, kill, and enslave other populations. And then it would happen in the reverse. They were brutal to each other and some of the practices involving defeated tribes was, at best, horrific. There were atrocities committed, but it wasn't as one sided as some people claim. These records are taken directly from journals of European observers who have no reason to mislead.
Christopher Columbus was not a genocidal maniac, nor does the Thanksgiving holiday glorify the conflicts with Native Americans. When the Thanksgiving holiday was originally announced, it was specifically created to glorify a time in our history where two different peoples communed together in peace and thanksgiving for the bounty they had received. It was about that singular moment in time after which there was a period of relative peace for about a hundred years. The same logic would have us not celebrate Christmas (A singular point in time) because of all the violence perpetrated by Christians in years since.
End Note
The Civil War was totally about the preservation of slavery. The slave labor industry was an important factor but it was not the reason that the Southern States attempted to leave the Union. Saying so is a common but mistaken interpretation of the very surface facts of the time and a biased, partial analysis of the history. Lincoln himself stated that he would allow slavery if it could have preserved the Union. The totality of the cause is still debated by scholars and the singular point will probably never be known. The first shots fired in the war were over Federal troops taking possession of federal land inside a seceded state (The Battle of Fort Sumter). If only a small percentage owned the vast majority of slaves, then the majority of the Southern population would have no vested interest in maintaining slavery. Slavery was an issue for sure. The North won and slavery was abolished and the idea that the former Confederate states are still bastions of ingrained racial prejudice after 150 years is preposterous. People showcase the people who fought viciously to preserve slavery while ignoring the people who fought viciously (and won) to end slavery.
There is no doubt that the past of 200 years was brutal. Inequality, injustice, brutality, were common. But it was hardly a singularly American institution. We have never been the sole proprietors of such things. These practices and occurrences happened all around the globe, as a world tried to move into the industrial age and out of the feudal servitude that had reigned supreme for a thousands of years prior. To say "Look at this horrible thing that happened! You should be ashamed." But fail to mention that the same things were happening everywhere is a malpractice of argument and sets up the basis for a straw-man that cannot be used to justify a valid conclusion. This is not a justification of the history, but an affirmation that what happened was not unique to the white man. Should we decry racism in one place and ignore it everywhere else? That kind of cherry-picking of facts serves a political narrative better than a historical one.
The past may affect our present and future but it does not define it. If racism is so ingrained in our culture by our history, why is it that people of African heritage are not (and in many cases claim, cannot) be racist when Africans played a critical role in the enslavement of their fellow Africans? Why is this a "black" issue when there was severe discrimination against Chinese immigrants? Asian heritage is now a roadblock to higher education (if you are Asian, you must score better on placement tests than a white person to get into most colleges). Why isn't that racism? What about the historic discrimination against the Irish? It was common to elicit services such as boarding houses where Irish were openly barred and not welcome. The same with job postings saying "Irish need not apply". How can historic injustice be used as evidence of contemporary racism but somehow similar histories do not lend such disparities to other groups?
Slavery was bad. It took us 110 years to get rid of it (with the critical support of quite a few "old white men"). Now 150 years later we have had a black President, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Supreme Court Judge, Ambassador to the United Nations, and National Security Advisor to name a few. There is a record high number of black representatives in Congress. African Americans have a prominent place in the achievements of our country as Scientists, Entertainers, Athletes, and Religious Leaders. These facts presented in a vacuum and outside the context of the United States would be lauded as a great leap forward. Why is it that just because it has happened here that it is still presented on a stain upon our great country?
Here is a short video of a speech made to the Oxford Union on the subject.
https://youtu.be/pv7hsiUirUU
The whole series is fascinating if you have the desire to see the other (4 I think) speakers for and against the proposition.
For a more in depth look: Here is a video that is sections of a book that details some of the history of slavery worldwide. It is a little long but it is worth the listen even when it is kind of hard to listen to because there is no sugar coating of the realities of slavery. It also mentioned the details of the situations like George Washington who was opposed to slavery but was forced to keep slaves because of the legalities of the time.
https://youtu.be/GabXJ0EH9pU
Black Lives Matter
I believe there is a fundamental flaw with the Black Lives Matter Movement. The movement started when a man assaulted a police officer and was shot and killed in the ensuing struggle in which the man continued to pursue the officer as he tried to retreat. However, that is not the story that was published. the real story took months to come out through investigation, witness interviews, autopsies, and forensic analysis. He was not, as they said, running away with his hands up yelling "don't shoot!" I speak of course, of Michael Brown. From then on, the narrative was that white cops shoot unarmed black men because of racism. There was no evidence that racism came into play and it was not the vicious execution it is said to be ... even to this day.
I've heard people say "Listen to the people in the movement.... listen to what they say they stand for." Is the same courtesy afforded to groups considered on the Right of the political spectrum? Hardly. I'll bite... let's see what they say they are about: They say black lives matter... OK. What else? "We dismantle the patriarchal practice...", "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure...", When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking,...". (All taken from the BLM webpage) What? That doesn't sound like a focused mission on preserving black life. It sounds like a reflection of the far left political ideology. How can I be OK with a movement that actively supports ideas that I do not? I may agree that black lives matter but I can't associate with the movement because as soon as I do I am also advocating for everything else they stand for. One of the founders recently admitted to being trained Marxists and have political aspirations to get Trump out. Those are political goals, not social goals.
The killing of Trayvon Martin was sensationalized in the media and within hours of the story breaking, there were immediate calls of racism against the shooter. The verdict of public opinion was in and George Zimmerman was a racist murderer of an innocent, unarmed, black teenager. Multiple investigations determined that Zimmerman was most likely acting in self defense. Witnesses stated seeing a person on top of the other and punching him. Zimmerman had grass on his back and a bloodies and swollen nose. Autopsy determined that Martin was shot once in the chest from closer than 18 inches. While I see this case as a prime example of how not to behave while in possession of a firearm, the investigations all came to the same conclusion or at least one that did not support the narrative of racism. Apparently, Zimmerman's skin color was light enough to include him in the "white" and "cop" category. Martin was not shot in the back as he walked away. Should that interaction had a different outcome? Yes. Do I think Zimmerman employed poor judgement? Hell yes. Do I think it was motivated by racism? Don't know. Was Martin completely innocent? I don't think so. People who say that it wasn't a situation to use deadly force have never been on the receiving end of an attack like that. It is easy to do severe bodily harm to someone in that circumstance and that is the standard for using deadly force.
I could go on about may of the so called "unjustified" shootings o killings. All of which were tried in the court of public opinion before the body was cold. Then the outrage begins... A demand for justice (and by justice... they mean immediate judgement, conviction, and punishment). It's convenient just say the system is rigged when calls to wait for the investigation are made. And when officers are indicted and convicted... nothing is heard. BLM doesn't want judicial justice... they want vigilante justice.... they want lynchings... just now on their terms and on their mob rule. If they didn't.... they'd wait for investigations to be completed then criticize the investigation. Justice is only justice if it's *their* justice.
I could go on about may of the so called "unjustified" shootings o killings. All of which were tried in the court of public opinion before the body was cold. Then the outrage begins... A demand for justice (and by justice... they mean immediate judgement, conviction, and punishment). It's convenient just say the system is rigged when calls to wait for the investigation are made. And when officers are indicted and convicted... nothing is heard. BLM doesn't want judicial justice... they want vigilante justice.... they want lynchings... just now on their terms and on their mob rule. If they didn't.... they'd wait for investigations to be completed then criticize the investigation. Justice is only justice if it's *their* justice.
That aside, people will say it is a result of a wider problem of injustice forced upon black people by a system that is still racist.
It seems that the only black lives that matter to the people of the movement are the lives of people who are killed by police, regardless of their potential criminal nature. They do not get upset when black police officers are murdered in cold blood (Have you ever heard of a protest where they shout for justice for any of the black police officers killed?) . They don't care about the young men who are being shot and stabbed by other black men in the gang and violence capitals of the country. So what is it that makes a black life matter? Well, it seems to only matter once you are dead at the hands of cops. Those are the only lives that can be held up to support the idea that cops are racist. They don't care that a black police officer was shot and killed trying to protect a courthouse from rioters. They don't care that a retired police captain, grandfather to 10 was killed while helping to protect a friends pawnshop from looters in a video that was also streamed live. These are only two of the black police officers who have been killed as a consequence of BLM instigation and protests.
Planned Parenthood has been praised as an institution which is vital to the black community. A more critical assessment paints a different picture: The founder, Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics and forced sterilization. Her efforts at contraception were more aimed at eliminating those whom she saw as unfit rather than the freeing of woman. Today, 79 percent of abortion clinics are within walking distance of minority communities. Black babies account for around 35% of all abortions while the overall black population is only 13%.Whether by design or consequence, Planned parenthood kills more black lives than nearly every other cause of death combined. Why is this not an outrage? "Black lives matter".... except when they are babies... over half a million every year.
Planned Parenthood has been praised as an institution which is vital to the black community. A more critical assessment paints a different picture: The founder, Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics and forced sterilization. Her efforts at contraception were more aimed at eliminating those whom she saw as unfit rather than the freeing of woman. Today, 79 percent of abortion clinics are within walking distance of minority communities. Black babies account for around 35% of all abortions while the overall black population is only 13%.Whether by design or consequence, Planned parenthood kills more black lives than nearly every other cause of death combined. Why is this not an outrage? "Black lives matter".... except when they are babies... over half a million every year.
I've heard people say "Listen to the people in the movement.... listen to what they say they stand for." Is the same courtesy afforded to groups considered on the Right of the political spectrum? Hardly. I'll bite... let's see what they say they are about: They say black lives matter... OK. What else? "We dismantle the patriarchal practice...", "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure...", When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking,...". (All taken from the BLM webpage) What? That doesn't sound like a focused mission on preserving black life. It sounds like a reflection of the far left political ideology. How can I be OK with a movement that actively supports ideas that I do not? I may agree that black lives matter but I can't associate with the movement because as soon as I do I am also advocating for everything else they stand for. One of the founders recently admitted to being trained Marxists and have political aspirations to get Trump out. Those are political goals, not social goals.
It's an example of "semantic overload" where the movement seems to say one thing: "black lives matter" which every one can agree on. Black lives do matter. But if you say black lives matter, it also means you believe cops are racist, the system is rigged, modern lynchings are commonplace, and radical racism is alive and well fueled by White Nationalist propaganda at the highest levels of governance. Then if you actually had the balls to come out and say: "No, I don't agree with the BLM movement". You are criticized (to use a mild form) as not believing that black life matters. This is a no win situation here where you must be all in or not at all. You are either on board and believe everything or you are against us. This is a textbook example of how these seemingly harmless or good movements can be dangerous.
What message is given when people holding BLM signs attack police? Or break windows and vandalize. I don't recall there being a lot of graffiti during the million man march. We hold people accountable for taking small parts in the greater scheme of things. That same implication would mean that by virtue of association, every protester has blood on their hands of the innocent people who were beaten half to death, or the cops who were killed in riots, or the millions of dollars of damage that was caused through looting and vandalism. So to throw up hands and say: "those rioters don't speak for the rest of us" flies directly in the face of their logic of guilt. So, we must reach one of two conclusions: 1. All protesters are guilty by proxy of the violence or 2. There is a blatant double standard. Is either one of those fruits good?
This idea of being "anti-racist". The idea that if you aren't actively somehow fighting racism, that you are somehow complicit and even engaging in violence yourself by inaction. This will allow people who have done nothing worse than not complying with what someone thinks they should do to be branded "racist". And we have already seen the kind of violence that these groups can direct towards those who they see as racist. These ideas get people killed. And when these ideas are codified into ordinance... millions die. These ideas lead to organizations such as the NKVD troika.
These concepts are immoral and evil. Yes, I mean it... immoral and evil.
What message is given when people holding BLM signs attack police? Or break windows and vandalize. I don't recall there being a lot of graffiti during the million man march. We hold people accountable for taking small parts in the greater scheme of things. That same implication would mean that by virtue of association, every protester has blood on their hands of the innocent people who were beaten half to death, or the cops who were killed in riots, or the millions of dollars of damage that was caused through looting and vandalism. So to throw up hands and say: "those rioters don't speak for the rest of us" flies directly in the face of their logic of guilt. So, we must reach one of two conclusions: 1. All protesters are guilty by proxy of the violence or 2. There is a blatant double standard. Is either one of those fruits good?
This idea of being "anti-racist". The idea that if you aren't actively somehow fighting racism, that you are somehow complicit and even engaging in violence yourself by inaction. This will allow people who have done nothing worse than not complying with what someone thinks they should do to be branded "racist". And we have already seen the kind of violence that these groups can direct towards those who they see as racist. These ideas get people killed. And when these ideas are codified into ordinance... millions die. These ideas lead to organizations such as the NKVD troika.
These concepts are immoral and evil. Yes, I mean it... immoral and evil.
White Privilege
I understand white privilege to be the idea that white skin allows a person to have certain "advantages" over those who may not share the same "white" skin color. Or rather that people who do not have white skin are subject to certain extra difficulties not experienced by people of "white" skin. That is, of course, an over simplification of a concept that has taken books to define in all it's nuance.
Reading through the "White Privileged Test" written by a lunatic professor 30 years ago, I was amazed at how the words just oozed of "wokeness". It wasn't an expression of realizing the potential of betterment for oneself, but a profession of victim-hood experienced by "people of color" and the vast moral superiority one will obtain by recognizing these so-called "privileges". Not being able to bind BandAids that match your skin tone? Come on. Madam CJ Walker,the first self-made female millionaire in the US was a black woman who made her money selling cosmetic products aimed at African Americans. And now it's white privilege that BandAids don't come in dark skin tones? Last time I checked, the colors didn't match my skin tones either... maybe they match a little better but they don't exactly blend in, and I certainly don't feel like a freak wearing one. Of course, I'm not trying to be a victim either. I wonder who those bright pink or Disney BandAids are aimed at.... certainly haven't seen those skin tones yet. It invents a problem where there isn't one.
The people at the newly created parasite country of CHAZ have demanded black doctors for black patients... as if that makes a difference in quality medical care. I'm sure there would be a lot of medical professionals who would be highly offended if you told them they wouldn't or couldn't care for someone who had different skin. Frankly, if you need to see a doctor who has the same skin color to feel like you are being taken care of.... you probably need a different kind of doctor... the one that sits you on a couch instead of an exam table. I don't care if my doctor is a purple tentacled alien from the planet Zorax.... as long as he/she/it/zer keeps me well. There is no legitimate medical reason why skin color matters in medical care unless you are actually racist. Hmmm.... that doesn't sound right.... oh that's right... it's only racist if a white person says it.
The people at the newly created parasite country of CHAZ have demanded black doctors for black patients... as if that makes a difference in quality medical care. I'm sure there would be a lot of medical professionals who would be highly offended if you told them they wouldn't or couldn't care for someone who had different skin. Frankly, if you need to see a doctor who has the same skin color to feel like you are being taken care of.... you probably need a different kind of doctor... the one that sits you on a couch instead of an exam table. I don't care if my doctor is a purple tentacled alien from the planet Zorax.... as long as he/she/it/zer keeps me well. There is no legitimate medical reason why skin color matters in medical care unless you are actually racist. Hmmm.... that doesn't sound right.... oh that's right... it's only racist if a white person says it.
Fundamentally, there are qualities that give everyone a bit of an edge or disadvantage in some way or another. Not all of them can be attributed as racist. Hair Color, Height, Eyesight are all qualities that are discriminatory in some facet of life but since it can't be blamed on a race it can't really be racist. There are the jokes about redheads or gingers having no souls... etc. Improper and probably in poor taste outside of good friends... but not racist. Is the NBA racist for having so many African Americans? It's not skin color but physical height that makes you NBA worthy. Should we demand the heights of basketball players represent a perfect cross section of height distribution? Eyesight is a factor in anyone who wishes to be a military pilot and for obvious reasons. That isn't racist either. But I would probably be barred from military flight school because I don't have quite perfect vision and I certainly couldn't compete for a spot in the NBA because of my height. It is because these groups can't be singled out into a single category of victim-hood that we are not hearing about the poor short people who can't play basketball. Personally, I have an edge in certain physical disciplines because I am male.. but a college entrance exam? I would have to score better to be equally matched with an identical person who happens to be female. But is that sexism? Not if you ask the left and even when you acknowledge that more women than men achieve bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees. males are also more likely to do poorer when compared to their female counterparts and are far more likely to drop out of college than female students. If I were to flip the male and female part of those last statements, the resounding cry would be that higher education is sexist, run by misogynistic pigs and would probably start a riot. But since it's males who are more likely to fall short in higher education, it's not sexism.
Now, we see another shift in the propaganda of white privilege. First, white privilege meant you had it better because your skin was white and that went along just fine. Just fine until a bunch of white people said "Hold up. I'm white and I've had a pretty shitty life". Now, it doesn't mean you have a bad life, it just means you would be worse off if you were black. Says who? A bunch of virtue signalling white people. It is impossible to make predictions based on what would have happened if "something". It's like saying Obama wouldn't have won office if 9/11 hadn't happened. Really? Maybe... but then again... maybe not. And the best part? You'll never know so you can't rebuff them with reality because you are no longer in reality but a fantasy realm of "what ifs?". What situation would my life had been if the only difference had been my skin color? Would I have been murdered by the cops? Maybe I'd be homeless. Maybe I'd be exactly the same except making 50% less because... you know.... racism... or white privilege. No one could say in exactly what way I've benefited from my whiteness.... but your damn well sure I have.... and it's not fair.
I believe this is the counter to the idea that people arrive in their momentary position in life largely by the decisions they make. Now, it's about where you could have been had you been white or what you got because you were white and has very little to do with finishing high school, not getting knocked up or knocking someone up, not choosing to engage in criminal activity, working hard, spending money wisely, etc. Bear in mind, they can never tell you exactly what you have gotten because of your privilege, but you certainly did. Compare it to being accused of a crime: they can't tell you what you did or how bad it was but they are 100% certain that you did something. It's again, an effort to avoid the responsibility of making good choices. It's a bonus that you get to make white people feel bad about their skin color too because that further divides us into groups and allows group identity politics to take further hold.
A Note on Bias:
There is an argument that this comes from bias that had been learned or is hardwired into our brains. I believe this is true but not in the same way. Bias simply means a tendency to one thing over another when presented with both options equally. This is not a fault on our part but an essential mechanism for survival. People have a hardwired tendency to things that we are comfortable with and know. This makes sense... at our core, we are still animals with primitive portions of reasoning (don't get me started on that.... it's incredibly fascinating). We have very strong portions of our brains that are responsible for keeping us alive... you know... don't walk off the cliff... don't pet the saber-tooth tiger... etc. These are rooted in the decision making process which relies on bias to make fast decisions. We have an innate wariness of high places... why? Did we at some point fall off a cliff and decide that's not a good idea? Not likely. It's a situation we are not familiar with... and that can mean danger. Why do certain (harmless) things strike fear into small children? Because they operate on a more primitive level and haven't yet overcome some of those primitive reactions. Our brains naturally tend to like situations where we are familiar. This can include people who look like us, people who talk like us, people who behave like us, places that look like where we have lived for long periods of time, etc. Personally, when I last spend time in Korea.... the thing that bugged me the most wasn't the cultural differences or the fact that I stood out like a sore thumb being a white guy.... it was the language.... I didn't like not being able to communicate freely. Don't know why but all the rest of the stuff didn't bother me much except that. Kind of weird.
These biases allow us to make decisions. They artificially put a thumb on a scale where there may not be an easy way to distinguish one choice versus another. If we didn't have a way to make preferential decisions at an unconscious level, we would get caught at a decision that we couldn't make because our brain couldn't make a determination one way or another. This idea that conscious thought drives our day to day lives is an absolute farce... we make thousands, if not thousands of decisions each day unconsciously using that primitive framework. Every action involves a decision and if you had to weigh each decision you would never do anything. Think about what must be decided in order to eat breakfast... you must decide which hand to use... that's easy you say.... but is it really? Why do you actually tend to use one hand versus another? Why not use your non dominant hand? Could you dominant hand be doing something more important? And why do you have a dominant hand anyway? Ins't that biased one way for no good reason? Why don't you diversify and learn to use your other hand you bloody neanderthal! Do you start with your tofu eggs or your toast? Why? Are you really going to make that decision on a whim? But even before that.... what chair at the table are you going to use? One might be creaky... another might have a better view... another might put your back to the rising sun.... etc. Biases enable you to do these things.
It is a denial of nature and our creation to say these biases are bad at their core... sure, some might not be great.... like your bias towards putting an extra dose of salt on your triple double bacon heat attack burger. But there are plenty that are harmless in their creation and do not have motive behind them. Doesn't mean you can't try to learn to disregard those biases.... as you probably should with things like people who look different. But the fact that they exist, doesn't make you racist, or have privilege. Unfortunately, it means you are, in fact, human. And that's probably the best thing we have going for us right now.
End Note
So many people are claiming this white privileged exists but can't ever produce any solid evidence of it that cannot be explained better by other facts or observations. It's a mythical fantasy that allows people to sit in their comfortable suburban home and self-flagellate over something they have no control over in order to somehow atone for whatever evils we have been told are being done to people of color. It is a an example of saying you are woke but actually doing nothing.... because nothing can objectively be done. White privilege must be acknowledged on an individual level but must be fixed at a policy or systemic level. So show me the policy that creates privilege. Show me the institution that is biased towards whites. Show me something... anything that can be changed. It's always these intangibles and hypotheticals or apologizing for something you didn't do. Should you apologize to everyone else when you get an extra scoop of free topping on your ice cream sundae because the server thinks you're cute? Should I apologize for the fact that because I am a regular at the place I get my coffee that one of the employees give me a discount? It comes down to apologizing for everything that might be seen as better than anyone else. This goes beyond race or skin color. Can there be such a thing as black privilege? What about Asian privilege? Should I apologize for being born in the most free county on the planet and in the history of the world? What about the fact that I woke up today? All this apologizing does nothing... fixes nothing... creates nothing better. Sooner or later people are going to realize that and demand substance. What does that look like?
This could very easily be swung the other way as an excuse to discriminate against white people. White people are actually advocating for racists ideology and practice because they have been convinced that they are guilty of the offense of being white. It easily goes from "You are white and have advantages you need to acknowledge" to "You have things you don't deserve because you are white" to "We are going to take things from you because you got them illegitimately." That is a slippery slope because what things do you have that you don't deserve? Who decides? Is it your money? Maybe your car? Your house? Your life?
We can never build someone up by tearing others down and that's what is happening even if that's tearing down yourself. let's build people up by acknowledging their perseverance in challenges, in success from determination because despite whatever may be working against us, we can rise above and achieve.
A Note on Bias:
There is an argument that this comes from bias that had been learned or is hardwired into our brains. I believe this is true but not in the same way. Bias simply means a tendency to one thing over another when presented with both options equally. This is not a fault on our part but an essential mechanism for survival. People have a hardwired tendency to things that we are comfortable with and know. This makes sense... at our core, we are still animals with primitive portions of reasoning (don't get me started on that.... it's incredibly fascinating). We have very strong portions of our brains that are responsible for keeping us alive... you know... don't walk off the cliff... don't pet the saber-tooth tiger... etc. These are rooted in the decision making process which relies on bias to make fast decisions. We have an innate wariness of high places... why? Did we at some point fall off a cliff and decide that's not a good idea? Not likely. It's a situation we are not familiar with... and that can mean danger. Why do certain (harmless) things strike fear into small children? Because they operate on a more primitive level and haven't yet overcome some of those primitive reactions. Our brains naturally tend to like situations where we are familiar. This can include people who look like us, people who talk like us, people who behave like us, places that look like where we have lived for long periods of time, etc. Personally, when I last spend time in Korea.... the thing that bugged me the most wasn't the cultural differences or the fact that I stood out like a sore thumb being a white guy.... it was the language.... I didn't like not being able to communicate freely. Don't know why but all the rest of the stuff didn't bother me much except that. Kind of weird.
These biases allow us to make decisions. They artificially put a thumb on a scale where there may not be an easy way to distinguish one choice versus another. If we didn't have a way to make preferential decisions at an unconscious level, we would get caught at a decision that we couldn't make because our brain couldn't make a determination one way or another. This idea that conscious thought drives our day to day lives is an absolute farce... we make thousands, if not thousands of decisions each day unconsciously using that primitive framework. Every action involves a decision and if you had to weigh each decision you would never do anything. Think about what must be decided in order to eat breakfast... you must decide which hand to use... that's easy you say.... but is it really? Why do you actually tend to use one hand versus another? Why not use your non dominant hand? Could you dominant hand be doing something more important? And why do you have a dominant hand anyway? Ins't that biased one way for no good reason? Why don't you diversify and learn to use your other hand you bloody neanderthal! Do you start with your tofu eggs or your toast? Why? Are you really going to make that decision on a whim? But even before that.... what chair at the table are you going to use? One might be creaky... another might have a better view... another might put your back to the rising sun.... etc. Biases enable you to do these things.
It is a denial of nature and our creation to say these biases are bad at their core... sure, some might not be great.... like your bias towards putting an extra dose of salt on your triple double bacon heat attack burger. But there are plenty that are harmless in their creation and do not have motive behind them. Doesn't mean you can't try to learn to disregard those biases.... as you probably should with things like people who look different. But the fact that they exist, doesn't make you racist, or have privilege. Unfortunately, it means you are, in fact, human. And that's probably the best thing we have going for us right now.
End Note
So many people are claiming this white privileged exists but can't ever produce any solid evidence of it that cannot be explained better by other facts or observations. It's a mythical fantasy that allows people to sit in their comfortable suburban home and self-flagellate over something they have no control over in order to somehow atone for whatever evils we have been told are being done to people of color. It is a an example of saying you are woke but actually doing nothing.... because nothing can objectively be done. White privilege must be acknowledged on an individual level but must be fixed at a policy or systemic level. So show me the policy that creates privilege. Show me the institution that is biased towards whites. Show me something... anything that can be changed. It's always these intangibles and hypotheticals or apologizing for something you didn't do. Should you apologize to everyone else when you get an extra scoop of free topping on your ice cream sundae because the server thinks you're cute? Should I apologize for the fact that because I am a regular at the place I get my coffee that one of the employees give me a discount? It comes down to apologizing for everything that might be seen as better than anyone else. This goes beyond race or skin color. Can there be such a thing as black privilege? What about Asian privilege? Should I apologize for being born in the most free county on the planet and in the history of the world? What about the fact that I woke up today? All this apologizing does nothing... fixes nothing... creates nothing better. Sooner or later people are going to realize that and demand substance. What does that look like?
This could very easily be swung the other way as an excuse to discriminate against white people. White people are actually advocating for racists ideology and practice because they have been convinced that they are guilty of the offense of being white. It easily goes from "You are white and have advantages you need to acknowledge" to "You have things you don't deserve because you are white" to "We are going to take things from you because you got them illegitimately." That is a slippery slope because what things do you have that you don't deserve? Who decides? Is it your money? Maybe your car? Your house? Your life?
We can never build someone up by tearing others down and that's what is happening even if that's tearing down yourself. let's build people up by acknowledging their perseverance in challenges, in success from determination because despite whatever may be working against us, we can rise above and achieve.
Friday, April 17, 2015
Experts.....
When it comes to bad people doing bad things, everyone has an opinion. Usually it's some form of: "I don't understand why someone would do something like that. It's terrible. I feel so bad for the victims. Something should be done to stop this from happening." Generally, I would agree with the sentiment.
But here's where a problem comes up..... when an airplane goes down, it's terrible. There is often a staggering loss of life and the public is sad and wishes it to not happen again. But I have heard no relative of a crash victim go back to school for aerospace engineering and try to help solve whatever problem happened. The on the scene reporter does not approach someone and start discussing the issues involved with solving problems of fatigue wear on metal/composite rivets, the vibrational harmonics of semi-rigid bodies, or multi-layered redundancy programming of instrument control systems. Why? Because the general public know absolutely zilch, zero, and zip about these things. A victims brother who perviously worked at a sporting goods store does not testify to Congress about the need for tighter thermal process control for ceramic turbine fabrication.
So why is it that violence seems to initiate the exact opposite response? Joe-Bob down the street says he wishes how was there so he could have blown the bad guys head off with "Thumper". Someone who knew the victim says the perpetrator was "disturbed. Relatives of the perpetrator can't believe such a nice guy would do something like this. A slightly narcissistic busybody decides they are going to tackle the social issue. Even more people write their senator with draft legislation to make killing people illegal. Self promoting, professional activists show up like flies to shit and hold rallies and pass out signs. In short, everyone is now an expert on what happened, how it happened, and what needs to be done to solve it. And often it's (coincidentally) so simple that the evening news even screws up the "facts" and the average person can understand it.
When someone dies on the operating table, it's sad and I feel bad the person and their family. Even worse when it is a young person. And even if I have a suspicion about what happened, I keep my trap shut. Outside of discussions with friends, I have no place to make any opinions known or take any action unless I waddle my ass down to John Hopkins University and emerge many years later with a lot of debt and a small piece of paper saying I do.
As a society, we will understand what happens when un-knowledgeable people start making important decisions. Disaster. So when it comes to violence, why do we allow novices to impact the decision making process. The forefront of the issue, being highlighted recently by the tragic case of a 3-year old find an unsecured, loaded gun, and accidentally killing his 1-year old brother. There is a cry to make guns safe.
So what happens? Everybody and their brother is crying for safe guns. Others want to help but only understand one small part of the issue. So their solutions (while well intentioned) are nearly worthless. Here's the take away: It's a futile effort. Know how you stop all freeway collisions? Take all the engines out of cars. That would undoubtably save lives. Now "cars" are safer.... but not really "cars" anymore.
The same is true for guns: A gun is specially designed to be dangerous. It's is not designed to be safe. A firearms' entire purpose is to effectively and efficiently cause as much massive and catastrophic damage to organs and tissue as quickly as possible. In fact, "safe" guns have been invented and I posses many of them and keep them close by at all times: a cell phone, coffee mug, table cloth, hot dog bun, TV remote, my pet rock, a pair of socks, double bacon cheeseburger (one of my favorite firearms), etc.
But here's where a problem comes up..... when an airplane goes down, it's terrible. There is often a staggering loss of life and the public is sad and wishes it to not happen again. But I have heard no relative of a crash victim go back to school for aerospace engineering and try to help solve whatever problem happened. The on the scene reporter does not approach someone and start discussing the issues involved with solving problems of fatigue wear on metal/composite rivets, the vibrational harmonics of semi-rigid bodies, or multi-layered redundancy programming of instrument control systems. Why? Because the general public know absolutely zilch, zero, and zip about these things. A victims brother who perviously worked at a sporting goods store does not testify to Congress about the need for tighter thermal process control for ceramic turbine fabrication.
So why is it that violence seems to initiate the exact opposite response? Joe-Bob down the street says he wishes how was there so he could have blown the bad guys head off with "Thumper". Someone who knew the victim says the perpetrator was "disturbed. Relatives of the perpetrator can't believe such a nice guy would do something like this. A slightly narcissistic busybody decides they are going to tackle the social issue. Even more people write their senator with draft legislation to make killing people illegal. Self promoting, professional activists show up like flies to shit and hold rallies and pass out signs. In short, everyone is now an expert on what happened, how it happened, and what needs to be done to solve it. And often it's (coincidentally) so simple that the evening news even screws up the "facts" and the average person can understand it.
When someone dies on the operating table, it's sad and I feel bad the person and their family. Even worse when it is a young person. And even if I have a suspicion about what happened, I keep my trap shut. Outside of discussions with friends, I have no place to make any opinions known or take any action unless I waddle my ass down to John Hopkins University and emerge many years later with a lot of debt and a small piece of paper saying I do.
As a society, we will understand what happens when un-knowledgeable people start making important decisions. Disaster. So when it comes to violence, why do we allow novices to impact the decision making process. The forefront of the issue, being highlighted recently by the tragic case of a 3-year old find an unsecured, loaded gun, and accidentally killing his 1-year old brother. There is a cry to make guns safe.
So what happens? Everybody and their brother is crying for safe guns. Others want to help but only understand one small part of the issue. So their solutions (while well intentioned) are nearly worthless. Here's the take away: It's a futile effort. Know how you stop all freeway collisions? Take all the engines out of cars. That would undoubtably save lives. Now "cars" are safer.... but not really "cars" anymore.
The same is true for guns: A gun is specially designed to be dangerous. It's is not designed to be safe. A firearms' entire purpose is to effectively and efficiently cause as much massive and catastrophic damage to organs and tissue as quickly as possible. In fact, "safe" guns have been invented and I posses many of them and keep them close by at all times: a cell phone, coffee mug, table cloth, hot dog bun, TV remote, my pet rock, a pair of socks, double bacon cheeseburger (one of my favorite firearms), etc.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Warning Shots and Missiles
The point is simple: Warning shots are not missiles.
We'll leave the discussion about whether or not one should even fire warning shots for another time (you shouldn't by the way.... ever).
A lot of the arguments about why you shouldn't is that if you fire up into the air, it will come down and kill some innocent little honor student who's personal story amounts to something that should have been featured on the cover of the next Times. And the finger of blame will be pointed straight at you for ripping that life away from the world. You start sounding like a liberal at that point when you get mired in the what if's and ignore factual input.
Here are some things to consider:
1. Bullets do not correct their trajectory in any way, shape, or form once they leave your barrel. If you listen to alarmists, that bullet fired up in the air will begin to fall back to the Earth and orient itself point first, directly at little Susie's brain with full intent to ruin her day. In what world on non-Newtonian physics are you living in? Newton's first law states: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force. in plain English that means that if something is moving, it will continue on it's course unless something pushes it. The only two forces acting on a bullet after leaving the barrel are wind resistance and gravity. Neither of those have any particular attraction to Susie. Bullets will travel in a ballistic trajectory governed by classical mechanics.
2. Statistically, the odds of hitting a person with a bullet fired up into the air (We must assume a non trivial angle) are very slim. Perhaps better than winning the lottery but still very low. Think about what percentage of the earth is covered by bodies. Even when you correct the impact plane to account for angle of impact, it's still not very big.
3. Velocity will be substantially limited (we'll assume a shot fired will be relatively close to normal.... say given a variation of +/-20 degrees). The entire vertical component of velocity will disappear and the return to earth will be the cause of gravity and subject to gravitational acceleration. We've all heard the story about how dropping a penny from the observation deck of the Empire State Building would get falling so fast it would kill someone if it hit them on the sidewalk. Less common is the realization that the math of that claim fails to consider two very important concepts: Terminal Velocity and Free Fall. Terminal velocity governs the maximum speed a falling object will achieve, and Free Fall speaks to the absence of orientation. Just like the penny could never travel fast enough or be oriented the correct way to put a hole in someone's skull, a free falling bullet could not kill somebody. Ruin their day, and probably give them a nasty headache? Yes. But not kill them.
So come off it. Stop being alarmist about bullets fired into the air. It's not going to kill someone. Leave that out of the discussion and instead talk about the legal, ethical, and logical arguments of warning shots. Stop using false statements to justify your position... you just end up looking like an idiot.
We'll leave the discussion about whether or not one should even fire warning shots for another time (you shouldn't by the way.... ever).
A lot of the arguments about why you shouldn't is that if you fire up into the air, it will come down and kill some innocent little honor student who's personal story amounts to something that should have been featured on the cover of the next Times. And the finger of blame will be pointed straight at you for ripping that life away from the world. You start sounding like a liberal at that point when you get mired in the what if's and ignore factual input.
Here are some things to consider:
1. Bullets do not correct their trajectory in any way, shape, or form once they leave your barrel. If you listen to alarmists, that bullet fired up in the air will begin to fall back to the Earth and orient itself point first, directly at little Susie's brain with full intent to ruin her day. In what world on non-Newtonian physics are you living in? Newton's first law states: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force. in plain English that means that if something is moving, it will continue on it's course unless something pushes it. The only two forces acting on a bullet after leaving the barrel are wind resistance and gravity. Neither of those have any particular attraction to Susie. Bullets will travel in a ballistic trajectory governed by classical mechanics.
2. Statistically, the odds of hitting a person with a bullet fired up into the air (We must assume a non trivial angle) are very slim. Perhaps better than winning the lottery but still very low. Think about what percentage of the earth is covered by bodies. Even when you correct the impact plane to account for angle of impact, it's still not very big.
3. Velocity will be substantially limited (we'll assume a shot fired will be relatively close to normal.... say given a variation of +/-20 degrees). The entire vertical component of velocity will disappear and the return to earth will be the cause of gravity and subject to gravitational acceleration. We've all heard the story about how dropping a penny from the observation deck of the Empire State Building would get falling so fast it would kill someone if it hit them on the sidewalk. Less common is the realization that the math of that claim fails to consider two very important concepts: Terminal Velocity and Free Fall. Terminal velocity governs the maximum speed a falling object will achieve, and Free Fall speaks to the absence of orientation. Just like the penny could never travel fast enough or be oriented the correct way to put a hole in someone's skull, a free falling bullet could not kill somebody. Ruin their day, and probably give them a nasty headache? Yes. But not kill them.
So come off it. Stop being alarmist about bullets fired into the air. It's not going to kill someone. Leave that out of the discussion and instead talk about the legal, ethical, and logical arguments of warning shots. Stop using false statements to justify your position... you just end up looking like an idiot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)