Five minutes of hate news

Lord Invictus

Never Forget Injustice.
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Reaction score
6,401
Eh, I’m not too surprised.

This is explicitly detailed in Kendi’s “How to be anti racist” book.

“Solution to discrimination is positive discrimination”

In essence, anti white discrimination is anti racist and affirmative action taken to the logical conclusion.

Modern “anti racism” is explicitly in favor of treating whites as second class citizens.
 

CarlManvers2019

WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT MY HAIR!?!?
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Reaction score
11,513
Location
Philippines
Eh, I’m not too surprised.

This is explicitly detailed in Kendi’s “How to be anti racist” book.

“Solution to discrimination is positive discrimination”

In essence, anti white discrimination is anti racist and affirmative action taken to the logical conclusion.

Modern “anti racism” is explicitly in favor of treating whites as second class citizens.
And "affirmative action" or simply put giving non-whites an easier time instead of treating them like any other employee

Both as "reparations" and because they don't believe they can make it without THEIR help

Giving them all A+'s even if their actual score's a D won't help them when they're actually expected to BE experts or learned in a job
 

Typhonis

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Reaction score
133
Location
Lagrange point between Pluto and Charon

This is fantastic. I mean, this is just... words fail me. If I didn't know any better, I would think something like this is done explicitly to boost membership to alt right groups. It's so blatantly racist and yet someone is getting away with it. Wew lad, this is something else.
I smell a lawsuit. I mean how many lawyers would ask to represent this fireman?
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
10,279
So best case scenario is Lawyer defends fireman gets attacked by Twitter mob then sues either the mob or Twitter for tortuous interference?
No the best case scenario is that he does that and wins.

Think about how many people have already been cancelled many of them innocent of any wrong doing then realize that once you have case precedence in your corner there is a whole bunch of red meat to be consumed.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Osaul
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
2,882
The Boston Bomber won his appeal for a new death trial. He's still in for life, but he might not get death. My only objection to the death penalty has been that it might kill the wrong person. I obviously have no objections here. It seems like the legally correct move, but I still hate it.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Reaction score
3,494
The Boston Bomber won his appeal for a new death trial. He's still in for life, but he might not get death. My only objection to the death penalty has been that it might kill the wrong person. I obviously have no objections here. It seems like the legally correct move, but I still hate it.
Should've just shot them at the scene is my view. I get yours though and even used to agree.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Reaction score
6,669
Location
Federal Way
The Boston Bomber won his appeal for a new death trial. He's still in for life, but he might not get death. My only objection to the death penalty has been that it might kill the wrong person. I obviously have no objections here. It seems like the legally correct move, but I still hate it.
Personally, I lean more towards the idea that the criminal justice system's primary purpose should be to rehabilitate criminals; seeing as death precludes that from ever happening, in this world at least, it's not a form of punishment I could ever see myself supporting. Besides; even if he never does, so long as he also never has the opportunity to hurt anyone else ever again either way, the only thing The Death Penalty would accomplish is saving a few bucks that would have otherwise gone to keeping that bastard alive, which usually ends up getting canceled out (or even exceeded, especially when they're successful as in this case) by costs associated with allowing appeal after appeal when such a sentence is levied.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
3,615
Personally, I lean more towards the idea that the criminal justice system's primary purpose should be to rehabilitate criminals; seeing as death precludes that from ever happening, in this world at least, it's not a form of punishment I could ever see myself supporting. Besides; even if he never does, so long as he also never has the opportunity to hurt anyone else ever again either way, the only thing The Death Penalty would accomplish is saving a few bucks that would have otherwise gone to keeping that bastard alive, which usually ends up getting canceled out (or even exceeded, especially when they're successful as in this case) by costs associated with allowing appeal after appeal when such a sentence is levied.
So you would rather your tax dollars go to keeping a murderer alive?
I am for the health penalty for those that can not be rehabilitated, and Life for those that beg for death
 

CarlManvers2019

WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT MY HAIR!?!?
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Reaction score
11,513
Location
Philippines
So you would rather your tax dollars go to keeping a murderer alive?
I am for the health penalty for those that can not be rehabilitated, and Life for those that beg for death
Health Penalty? You mean Death Penalty, right?

That said, yeah I guess a death penalty rather than life imprisonment should be a thing rather than keeping a guy whose sentence is beyond human lifespan around as a waste of taxpayers money

I mean if abortion is legal, how about the death penalty?
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Reaction score
6,669
Location
Federal Way
So you would rather your tax dollars go to keeping a murderer alive?
I am for the health penalty for those that can not be rehabilitated, and Life for those that beg for death
Yes; because if nothing else, at least it would cost less than letting them go towards both that, and endless appeals that often drag out a death sentence for decades. As far as I'm aware, it would actually be cheaper in the long run for tax payers, if we just abolished the death penalty altogether.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
3,615
Yes; because if nothing else, at least it would cost less than letting them go towards both that, and endless appeals that often drag out a death sentence for decades. As far as I'm aware, it would actually be cheaper in the long run for tax payers, if we just abolished the death penalty altogether.
So you would rather have a serial killer get 3 square meals a day, a roof and a place to sleep, and make it so homeless are more likely to commit murder to get said thing, then to kill people?
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
2,072
Personally, I lean more towards the idea that the criminal justice system's primary purpose should be to rehabilitate criminals; seeing as death precludes that from ever happening, in this world at least, it's not a form of punishment I could ever see myself supporting.
The whole hoopla about rehabilitating criminals is a kind of particular type of idealism rather than something based in facts and reason.
Rehabilitation is an ideal, one somewhat tied to left wing ones, not some universal cure to criminal problems. It's one of limited utility, even if it does have some, and it is more effective in some scenarios than others.
We know there are criminals who will never be "rehabilitated", even if you would put the most renowned social scientists on their case.
We know there are criminals who don't need to be "rehabilitated" yet need to stick around in prison to be an example for the greater society.
We know many criminals in prison will, for all practical purposes, get socialized into worse habits and views that they came in there with due to interaction with other criminals, who aren't nice or highly cultured people on average.
Some non-considerable part of the successful cases of "rehabilitation" are merely cases of an older and simpler mechanism - people who went to prison, didn't like it there, and don't want to risk being there again.
In practical terms, the main point of prison is keeping in people who would prey on the general society in criminal ways if they were free to be in it, while the inconvenience of being stuck in prison is also a punishment in the simplest and most traditional sense of the term.
Besides; even if he never does, so long as he also never has the opportunity to hurt anyone else ever again either way, the only thing The Death Penalty would accomplish is saving a few bucks that would have otherwise gone to keeping that bastard alive, which usually ends up getting canceled out (or even exceeded, especially when they're successful as in this case) by costs associated with allowing appeal after appeal when such a sentence is levied.
That's more of a legal system cost problem than an inherent death penalty problem - a bullet costs much less than a dollar after all. Consider that keeping the bastard alive costs not so "few" bucks at all - usually more than the average working class person earns in the same year and place. In cases of more troublesome, dangerous prisoners, or prisoners with major health problems, more than a middle class person.
 
Top Bottom