Seriously, every time I read something from someone who describes himself as an ethicist it's absolutely unhinged shit that would feel too over the top in a cartoon villain's speech, what the hell is wrong with these people
If you want to undermine something, you have to first understand how it works. Otherwise you're no different than a brute just smashing until it stops working.
Human rights are actually super oppressive concepts that enslave humanity. You have more rights with them abolished than with them in place. The rulers know what they're doing pushing degenerate ideas like "human rights".
There is also the fact that fair trials by jury are impossible in a racially-divere society due to the massive in-group bias of blacks and browns. ( the massive in-group preference of blacks in jury verdicts by race would make the Ku Klux Klan blush. )
Boondocks continues to prove, to me at least, that if you are at least willing to call out your own with the same vitriol as you do others, I can respect you despite a lot of disagreement.
I think a lot of our uncompromisable issues with various groups could be made possible if the various non-whites were willing to police their own to the same level he was willing to.
Yeah because speech crimes are so much more important to deal with than imported brownoid rapists who just raped some underage White girl, can’t expect foreign rapists to adjust to western first world life that fast, throw those cases out.
Prior to becoming prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew worked as a criminal defense lawyer and cited his own experience as justification for abolishing jury trials in 1970. He described being assigned to defend four Malays accused of killing a Royal Air Force Officer and his family during a race riot. The jurors included other Malays and Lee used their hatred of white people to secure his client's acquittal despite both him and the judge knowing that the defendants were clearly guilty. He was sufficiently disgusted by what he had done that it convinced him that trial by jury was unworkable in a multiethnic state like Singapore, since ethnic conflict would always prevent justice from being served.
Same thing going on in White countries with black jurors having a massive bias in favor of acquiting a black defendant if the alleged victim is White, and find the White defendant guilty if the alleged victim is black.
That bias persists to a lesser extent when there is no alleged victim present.
( Whites show no statistically-significant bias ).
You can't have jury trials with non-Whites. Well, you ''can'', but White people get unfair treatment / no justice.
Yeah but that's not why they're doing it, and trial by jury is still better than facing globohomo judges. They won't convict clearly guilty muzzies anymore than muzzies juries will, but maybe whites can still get a few white people on a jury to hopefully not hang them for a crime they didn't commit.
It's ironic that the PM that was a Human rights lawyer is the most inhumane leader the UK has had in decades if not a century.
Well, ironic for normies, predictable for us since we know the evil of the virtue signallers....
Some of the most evil people are the "ethicists." Unironically.
So, yeah, a human rights lawyer being inhumane is pretty on point too.
Seriously, every time I read something from someone who describes himself as an ethicist it's absolutely unhinged shit that would feel too over the top in a cartoon villain's speech, what the hell is wrong with these people
...and Barack Obama was a Constitutional Law professor.
It's a feature. Not a bug.
If you want to undermine something, you have to first understand how it works. Otherwise you're no different than a brute just smashing until it stops working.
It goes for anything, really.
Human rights are actually super oppressive concepts that enslave humanity. You have more rights with them abolished than with them in place. The rulers know what they're doing pushing degenerate ideas like "human rights".
There is also the fact that fair trials by jury are impossible in a racially-divere society due to the massive in-group bias of blacks and browns. ( the massive in-group preference of blacks in jury verdicts by race would make the Ku Klux Klan blush. )
Jury of your peers. Blacks, browns and women aren't my peer. Most juries have been a joke like this for decades.
A problem so well known there was a whole Boondocks episode about it on network television 20 years ago.
I'VE GOT THE ROPE RIGHT HERE!
God, I miss when shows were funny
Boondocks continues to prove, to me at least, that if you are at least willing to call out your own with the same vitriol as you do others, I can respect you despite a lot of disagreement.
I think a lot of our uncompromisable issues with various groups could be made possible if the various non-whites were willing to police their own to the same level he was willing to.
David Lammy looks like he comes from fine British stock. I can see no reason why he wouldn't have the best interest of his majesty's subjects in mind.
The screenshot of him in the wig reminds me of Terry Crews LARPing as the POTUS Macho Camacho in Idiocracy
The people: "You can't fit all of us in prison, let alone the court docket!"
UK government: "Hold my tea..."
Coming soon: They will just be taken around the back and shot.
What’s the problem? This is literally what 1776 was fought about. I don’t understand why anyone would be surprised by this.
Right. The UK is being the UK. /shocked pikachu face.
Yeah because speech crimes are so much more important to deal with than imported brownoid rapists who just raped some underage White girl, can’t expect foreign rapists to adjust to western first world life that fast, throw those cases out.
They were trying to do that in other parts of the UK for woke reasons.
The picture says it all.
Same thing going on in White countries with black jurors having a massive bias in favor of acquiting a black defendant if the alleged victim is White, and find the White defendant guilty if the alleged victim is black.
That bias persists to a lesser extent when there is no alleged victim present.
( Whites show no statistically-significant bias ).
You can't have jury trials with non-Whites. Well, you ''can'', but White people get unfair treatment / no justice.
There was a famous study that shows blacks in the UK are far more likely to convict whites.
But white jurors have the same chance of convicting blacks as black jurors…
Yeah but that's not why they're doing it, and trial by jury is still better than facing globohomo judges. They won't convict clearly guilty muzzies anymore than muzzies juries will, but maybe whites can still get a few white people on a jury to hopefully not hang them for a crime they didn't commit.
This is what you get when you don't have a proper constitution.
Ironically the Magna Carta mentions juries.
as soon as they get in power..