Printable View
There's something seriously wrong with a country where people are being shot and killed for innocent things like going to the wrong car or house. Why do some people think it's be justifiable to shoot impulsively when there are alternatives to shooting, especially when it comes to black people who they are conditioned to see as dangerous?
https://www.vox.com/policy/2023/4/20...ton-washington
We live in a post-Cartesian world. 'I shoot, therefore I am'.
The cruelty and the confusion continues with this grim exchange in Ohio. A 10-year old girl becomes pregnant after being raped, and the head of Cincinnati Right to Life deplores the abortion that followed, in the State of Indiana because it could not be done in Ohio.
In addition to the cruelty that is involved in this case, the woman who opposes abortion can't seem to make a distinction between a 10-year old child and a woman, which makes one wonder if she thinks it is impossible for a woman to have a penis, and so on.
"“While a pregnancy might have been difficult on a 10-year-old body, a woman’s body is designed to carry life. That is a biological fact,” Strietmann said, referring to a child victim as a woman for political convenience."
Anti-Abortion Activist on 10-Year-Old Rape Victim: ‘A Woman’s Body Is Designed to Carry Life’ (yahoo.com)
A body designed to 'carry life' -what about the person? The child with feelings and a brain whose primary focus at the age of 10 should be on education and enjoying life? There is something deeply wrong with the 'Right to Life' people, and I think a lot of Americans are concerned at the judgments they make, and what appears to be an assault on pregnant women and girls. It may be cases like this that loses votes for Republicans, one hopes so.
There's no question people are conditioned (through mass media, news, etc) to see Black people as dangerous but I also think these laws (the article mentions stand your ground and castle doctrine) condition people to try to rationalize all violence as self-defense. You see a video of someone mouthing or getting a little aggressive and then they get beaten half to death and there are people in the comments section who think it's legally or morally justified. Even with these doctrines (the castle doctrine and stand your ground) people often try to justify violence that these doctrines don't. But I think the cultural effect of making people think self-defense is not a defense of absolute necessity, with a mandatory requirement of proportionality is that people want to use violence when it feels good. Give somebody a comeuppance. Or respond to light force with mayhem.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
The Ralph Yarl case is as your post indicates an example of pure racism. It shouldn't matter that Ralph is a very nice kid, a diligent student and musician (he'd still be a victim if he didn't seem so great). But I feel this also makes complete nonsense out of Andrew Lester's claim he was scared or intimidated. He saw a Black teenager at his front door and it triggered feelings of anger, which combined with a weapon and an 84 year old brain full of Fox News dogwhistles led to a horrible outcome. Ralph survived but he was shot in the head and the arm after he had already been shot in the head. Just a sad and despicable case.
Completely Agree it is a sad and despicable case,and damn sure not buying Andrew Lester's claim about him being scared and intimidated,and his actions is unjustifiable.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
So, farewell then, Tucker Carlson.
Did he go of his own accord, or was he sacked? And is it important to know what people like him are thinking, to keep track on the trajectory of their politics?
Where can he go now?
Is it even important?
And people have been conditioned to see us as monolithic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
It's intriguing. Reports suggest Rupert Murdoch decided to fire him. It doesn't seem likely to be related to the Dominion suit, given other Fox presenters went further in promoting the Big Lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Possibly some of the directions he was taking were too much even for the Murdochs. This article argues that what made him different from other Fox presenters is that he was trying to promote a "national conservative" ideology rather than just cheerleading for Trump and the Republican Party. The Murdochs might be concerned that this could ultimately undermine their interests rather than serving them.
https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/4/...-news-populism
If so, it may be shutting the door after the horse has bolted. I'm sure Carlson will find a role elsewhere in the right-wing media ecosystem.
I have shifted a Carlson comment on filghy2's post above to the Murdoch thread.
Nothing in that post suggests as much. I don't know why you insist on repeating yourself. You've said previously that you're Black and don't have the same views that some people assume Black people have. But where did I suggest Black people are monolithic?Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti