jakee

??? The question was who is Kimmel apologising to, and the behaviour being mocked in the Bill Maher video was 'being more offended than the victim'.

I don't know. Who is he apologising to?

I understand that this post is an avoidance of the question of whether you and Turtlespeed can find a number of black people that were offended by Kimmel, or if the 'outrage' is mostly coming from white conservatives - the very behaviour that Turtlespeed just mocked with Bill Maher's video.

He says he's going on holiday. But if he was chased out by a horde of angry black people it should be really easy to find the horde of angry black people.

That doesn't even make sense. How would finding an example of a conservative entertainer forced out of the biz for wearing blackface make you a racist? Your excuse game is weaker than usual today. How about you find the examples of black people being outraged at Kimmel? Because the story you posted references a right wing instagram account, Fox news and other white conservative sources, so it kinda seems like you're acting the way the thread you just started with Bill Maher is telling you not to act.

See, there you go. Whether what the Sullivan is doing is right or wrong isnt hugely important since there is a mechanism to fix it. There is no existing mechanism to fix what the Justice department is doing. I mean look at the ruling - the White House and the AG can protect anyone they want to from prosecution, for any reason, and the court isn't allowed to even ask why. Forget the blanket power to pardon, the only thing stopping the President and AG from giving all their cronies effective immunity from the feds for the duration of their term is the negative publicity. That's a fucked up system. And damn, Jim Jordan is yet again a sickeningly slimy brown nosed partisan hack.

That's the real story. Whatever happens as a result of the court's actions will be sorted out on appeal. If the judge is doing something illegal it will be fixed and the 'correct' legal action reinforced in precedent. What Barr's Justice department is doing is a separate and far more important issue. He is destroying the fundamental principle that all men are equal in the eyes of the law, and substituting for it his preferred idea that justice depends on who your friends are. It's mind boggling that up until now this mature democracy has depended solely on participants respecting the convention that President's don't tell AGs what to do and AGs don't meddle in political cases. If it prompts the gov't to actually taking some kind of action to fix that it might just be that Trump and Barr are doing you a favour by ripping that convention to shreds, but I doubt it.

Maybe, maybe not - but whitewashing in cinema and TV is absolutely an example of long entrenched systemic, institutional racism that has suppressed or destroyed the career prospects of an untold number of BAME actors.

Unless it turns out that enough people have migrated to the Chaz that it now has the same population as the rest of Seattle I'm going to take issue with your maths on that one.

I hadn't seen this yet "it was not clear if Trump had the authority to fire him (although it was clear Barr did not). But that point became moot quickly, when Trump told reporters: “That’s his department, not my department…. I’m not involved.” The president’s disavowal of Barr’s declaration means Barr, the Attorney General, has lied in writing twice in the past two days. " I think Barr has just found out that there is no-one Trump won't throw under the bus, no matter how loyal. But while Sessions managed to get out with a record of at least some integrity in office, Barr is going to go down as the poster child for disreputable conduct at the Justice department and his only reward from Trump will be a giant fuck you when it catches up to him.

I don't like PragerU as they're far too didactic but that was a good, clear explanation. I think it's Winsor on here who would always call it the war of northern aggression and use the "States' rights" line to justify the Confederate position. And it's like, so what? States shouldn't have the right to enslave their subjects, they're still in the wrong no matter what semantic evasions are used.

Possibly, but I'd honestly be surprised if that applied to more than a very small minority of people with a pre-existing disposition, in which case does it matter if they joined the military first or the police? I think focusing on that is also another version of the 'few bad apples' line of thinking, whereas it's almost certainly institutional issues that contribute to the high proportion of questionable or downright illegal police violence. For instance this example tracks back to the incredible fragmentation of US policing. I would think that any PD big enough to have a decent training program would spot and weed out most of the candidates of the type you mention who are just desperate to shoot someone. However, as has happened and been documented many times before, these problem trainees and officers will just take whatever qualifications and experience they managed to get before they were booted out and rejoin some other PD that doesn't know about their problems elsewhere, sometimes multiple times until they find one that doesn't have the ability to spot the problem independently. Imagine if all police personnel issues were ultimately co-ordinated at State level, and you had just 50 organisations that needed to share records instead of 20,000.

Forbes is a magazine that idolises wealth, capitalism and power, and their editor and chairman twice ran as a candidate in the Republican primaries. Just because you're further right than Saddam Hussein that doesn't make his magazine left wing.

They did, that was the problem. A career national security official spent months reviewing it and gave it the all clear, so at the last minute they appointed a Trump loyalist (the very same guy who first suggested covering up the Ukraine phone call by hiding it on the secret server - seriously, you couldn't make this up) to go over her head and unclear it. Edit: Just had a thought about Trump's justification for trying to block it, that he considers 'any conversation' with him to be highly classified. I wonder if Twitter could hide all his posts and just say they were doing what he wanted? Just invent a new tag, "This tweet has been redacted for national security purposes."

Here's the twist - her public career got it's start when she was a massively disliked contestant on the UK version of The Apprentice

I think theres an element here that theylve done the calculus that Trump is both highly likely to lose and wants to fight against them anyway, so they might as well go after him more aggressively. It makes them look good to the public and might make the next administration more inclined to be a bit friendlier. That said, there is some movement towards policing content outside of the US political bubble too. Twitter has just perma-banned Katie Hopkins (if you don't know who she is please don't bother finding out - just picture an even more virulently anti-muslim British Ann Coulter) and she's been peddling the same lowest common denominator hate speech on there for years.

I'm not sure about that either. Sounds more like overhauls of hiring, training and general philosophy is more the issue. You have other police forces which are always armed who don't shoot many people at all, and other forces like the UK where only a small amount of specialist units are armed but still make some high profile fuck ups. Aside from the issue of introducing purely racist hiring practices to solve racism, racial makeups are not homogenous. How does it help anyone in the minority if a predominantly white town is only allowed to hire white policemen? I don't know for sure if that's absolutely the worst idea I've ever heard, but I can't say that any other contenders are springing to mind right now.

Exactly. If you don't talk about it, the status quo continues. Could not have put it better myself.

Maybe they didn't hear about it - and how would they if the people listening were told not to talk about it?

Cool. So again, my reply to you remains completely valid.

Everyone reading this knows.

I specifically asked you about it and you said you were joking in your other post. If you were lying by omission that's on you. But let's try again anyway. So which bit were you not serious about? You don't think anyone here obsesses over Trump, or you haven't gotten over obsessing about Hillary?

Your timing is so, so bad. Make progress by not talking about it? For the past few weeks the US has been going through the most widespread set of racism protests since the civil rights movement, one that has even spread internationally, and look what is happening because of it. Police forces, tactics and training methods are being reformed, Confederate statues are being torn down, military bases are being renamed, major league sports are apologising for their anthem protest stances, Nascar - freakin' Nascar - is banning Confederate flags... All things that would have been practically unforseeable even last year, all happening now because a noise is being made on a scale that hasn't been heard for half a century. And your suggestion is just be quiet - progress gets made when no-one makes a fuss. Now that is a damn good joke.

I am. Hence what I just said. The idea that acknowledging the existence of systemic racism is racist is unbelievably stupid.

You just said you were serious about the bits I specifically referenced. Regardless, are you familar with the term " it doesn't make any difference if you claim to be joking this time if you still believe it, and have seriously stated the same opinions many times in the past"?