Invisible Man
Member

For what it's worth, I'm not that person either. The cops wouldn't be the first people I'd call if my son was missing. But it would be a lot less than 72 hours before I did resort to that. But I also understand why some people may have more of a reason to expect a poor outcome from getting the cops involved in that situation than I do.

I haven't followed the story and don't know the facts. But not reporting his being missing to the police doesn't automatically mean that she wasn't concerned or that she didn't report it to anybody at all. Just that she didn't report it to the people who ended up being the ones who killed him. If she had other people in her life that she turned to for the kind of help that many other people see as the job of the police, it's possible that she had good reason for that. It's also possible that she was a terrible mother who was unconcerned about her missing son. I'm in no position to say either way. But there are other reasonable explanations for not turning to the government for help besides that one.

A defining quality of our side is the repudiation of the things that you're calling "combat tactics." They aren't mere combat tactics. They're embedded in a world view. They are the very things that make the left the left. It's not just different lifestyle preferences, but the insistence on imposing those on other nonconsenting people by force. Once you accept that, you're one of them.

What you're proposing is that we become leftists as well. If we're going to do that, then we might as well join them rather than fight them. I agree that statism is winning. That has been the rule throughout recorded history and will be for the foreseeable future. But that doesn't mean that there's no point in being against it. And part of being against it is not embracing it.

That's a good diagnosis. Let's make sure that we here don't take on those same errors. We have to be driven by what's right, and just not by what benefits the side that we see as our team.

Bothered that she didn't report it to whom?

Raja Krishnamoorthi.

I'm still not sure if Biden himself supports this. But others were open about it. Hence the questions that Biden was asked. It was MSM folks asking those questions because certain Democrats were open about wanting to do this.

Who told you that? Even before the election they were pretty open about it.

"We're not packing it, we're unpacking it." Fine. Call it what you want. If the people don't like it, then hopefully they'll elect a different crop of politicians to repack it. Make it 27 justices. Maybe we'll eventually be able to dispense with any future rhetoric that the Supreme Court is anything other than another legislative body driven by political motivations.

Just doing the job I get paid for.

Here's a critical review of the book Sutton authored defending that thesis. https://vdocuments.site/lenin-and-solzhenitsyn-wall-street-and-the-bolshevik-revolutionby-anthony.html

Hopefully. But a big part of why this is a recurring problem is because cops aren't generally held to the same standard as anyone else would be when it comes to answering for it.

OK. I just saw that update this morning. You're right that that changes the story. But as of when you and I were going back and forth about that, the story as it had been reported on this thread was just that the warrant was for illegal gun possession. You seemed to be totally fine with him or anybody else getting arrested and/or killed for that.

And by "criminal" you mean somebody who violates any laws that politicians pass, no matter how unjust those laws may be. Corrupt politicians could declare something that's important to you illegal, and then you would just give that thing up and feel no sympathy for those out there who also consider it important who choose not to, and then get warrants for their arrest because of that and end up being killed for it. What in the world ever even drew you to this website?

What a strange and wildly off-topic question. Why on earth would you expect anyone here to speak for Biden? And what do you have against commenting on the actual topic of the thread, as presented in the OP? It is your OP after all.

I don't really follow that reasoning. Seems like you're saying that if the unjust law in question doesn't affect you, then there's nothing wrong with killing the people who break it. So fine. Pick whatever it is that does affect you. They ban something that's important to you (obviously reading books isn't in that category--I should have known that already), and some brave person insists on owning whatever that banned item is, and get killed by the cops for it. You won't feel sympathy for them? Plenty do. That's true. And you're really fine with that? Killing someone for running away to spare themselves from getting kidnapped and imprisoned when they never did anything wrong in the first place? Do you also grant yourself the authority to go around kidnapping and imprisoning people who do things you don't like and then killing them on the spot if they don't just kneel down and let you do it without resistance? Or is this a special privilege that you just grant to cops?

If they outlawed conservative books and then tried to arrest a white guy for having one and he tried to flee so as not to have to go to prison for the crime of having an illegal book and they killed him, would you have sympathy for him? Or would you say he got himself killed by way of doing those things he had every right to do?

My workplace has some strict safety rules that everyone has to follow, one of which is that we always have to back into parking spaces so that we can drive forward when we leave. Female workers at this company are routinely given a pass on that one. They just tell the boss, "Look, for the life of me, I can't figure out how to do that." I have been told that this is a regular thing at our local offices all over the country.

The status quo 50 years ago was a very temporary and short lived status quo. It was preceded and followed by different status quos, just as the status quo of today was preceded and will be followed by different ones. People mixing together has always happened and always will. It is not a recent experiment. The geographical horizons of it have changed with the technological developments of modern travel and communication. But the phenomenon has been the rule throughout human existence, not the exception. It's just that many centuries ago, you would have lived in a world where the limits of what you saw would have been geographically closer to you. Instead of dividing the entire human race worldwide into races that span continents, you would have divided the small portion of the human race that you saw in the areas surrounding you into smaller groups that you would have seen as just as important. The 21st century version of you might want to lump those tribes together into a single race, but the pre-modern version would not have. And that pre-modern you would have been just as concerned about the mixing of those tribes as the modern you is about the mixing of races. And the premodern you would have seen that inevitable mixing that you opposed happening all around you and believed it was some new experiment. But it would not have been, just as it isn't now. The racial/ethnic/tribal group categories have been constantly transforming with their individual members crossing their boundaries, just like languages do. Imagine somebody trying to make the same arguments you're making about preserving the white race, only instead making them about preserving the English language, as though the version of English that they speak in their generation is supposed to be the eternal standard. The two ideas are equally divorced from the reality of how these things really work.

It sounds to me like you want to do more than just preserve a certain culture. You want to compel others to help you, because you don't see enough who are willing to do what it would take to accomplish the level of societal engineering you want voluntarily. And in spite of the persistent tribalist tendencies that all humans inherently possess, those tribes that have always existed have never managed to be preserved. All have succumbed to the inevitable reality of change. Those who saw it happening around them often didn't like it. But any imagined notions they had that the tribal groupings they had known their whole lives, each with their own cultural distinctives, were preserved unchanged since the distant past only to face the threat of change for the first time in their generation, were just imagined. And in my reading of ancient literature, I don't find your claim that tribes have almost always been based on skin color to be true. But even to the extent that it ever was true in any cases, skin doesn't exist in just a few discrete colors. Skin colors exist on a spectrum of innumerable shades. The choices people make of where to draw the lines between what they count as one color or another are subjective and dependent on their context.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion. And many whites hold that opinion, whether they say it so forthrightly or not. But be logical about it. Immigration is utterly irrelevant to the preservation of whiteness. The white population of the world is what it is, and the nonwhite population of the world is what it is. These numbers don't change by moving those people around on different sides of national borders. If you and all other whites who want to preserve whiteness choose to live that value out by marrying other whites and passing on their whiteness (whatever it is they think whiteness is) to their kids and teaching them to do the same, then no amount of immigration will impede their pursuit of that goal. And if other whites choose not to pursue the goal, this too would take nothing away from those who do pursue it. Nor is it any of the business of those who want to preserve whiteness what the ones who don't choose to do about it. But I would also point out that the entire concept of race that underlies that mindset is a misconception. Races, ethnic groups, nations, and all other subgroups that we may want to divide the human race into, are not, and never in history have been, static entities that travel through history bouncing off one another like billiard balls. There are no impermeable boundaries between them. Their histories are histories of change and mixing, going all the way back to the beginning.

Almost all of those who immigrate here by illegal means also want to live in the US legally. But they can't. There is no legal means of immigrating here available to them. So they resort to coming the only way they can, which is illegally. If we repealed all those legal restrictions on immigration that make it impossible for all those immigrants who want to be able to come here legally to do so, then practically all immigration would be precisely the type that you classify here as "legitimate immigration," and there would not exist an illegal immigration problem. I don't know your views, so I can't say if this is something you would support or not. But most of the time when I encounter people who say that they're not against immigration in general, but only against illegal immigration, and I make this point to them, it turns out they don't like this idea, and it really is immigration in general that they oppose.

A couple years ago nonwhites surpassed whites in the under-16 age group in the USA. It's just in that age group, not the whole population. But this was a news story that was reported. So that might be what you remember.

..

I'm looking forward to the statement the NRA is bound to put out about how this happened because Daunte's right to keep and bear arms was infringed.

I'm not sure if that top one is Latin American, but if she is, it perfectly illustrates the point.

It's weird that you say that, since I've made multiple posts in this thread trying to discuss that exact thing. And you just keep wanting to dance around the subject.

It seems to me that the age issue will be the crucial factor, and especially if it involved crossing state lines. If you take that out of the equation, then I doubt that they'll be able to prove that anything he did was as simple as flat out exchanging sex for money. Even if they did have sex and he did give them money, and even if it was understood clearly between the parties involved that it was tit for tat, it would be too easy for him to reframe it as him giving them gifts and them having consensual sex as adults, and to argue that we can't possibly rebrand it as prostitution every time adult dating relationships have asymmetrical distribution of benefits whereby the males are motivated by the sexual satisfaction they get from the females while the females are motivated by the money the males spend on them. I think when people get successfully charged with prostitution, there's pretty much always either a recording of the deal being made or an undercover cop eye witnessing it. And if they don't have that underage crossing of state lines factor to focus on, and they still do successfully prosecute Gaetz, then I bet there will be a whole lot of members of Congress who will get really scared about all the times they did essentially the same thing.

That's clear. Despite this very concern being central to the issue that the whole thread is about, you conspicuously avoid addressing it, no matter how often it gets raised. Why is that?