It's not simply that they can't be friends, they can't understand the basic idea of 'brotherhood' or even that guys will often consider another dude to be awesome because either they're a badass, a thoroughly decent human being, have a kickass work ethic, are effortlessly cool, balance their sensitive and tough sides, or are consistently awesome to their family or girlfriend, etc, etc. For them everything has to have a suppressed sexual element because thats all they can understand. They think of everything in terms of sex, money, and status and nothing deeper exists beyond that (Tumblrina types, most women are better, and some far better).

They spend so much of their time critiquing men and masculinity but then display a complete lack of awareness of what it actually involves.

Good point, I was just giving the rough current numbers. So, my point is even more valid and I guess we should be complaining that there are not enough black people in the show. Right?

The also removed her love interest because they thought having a commanding officer serve the role was too Harvey Weinstein for current year. This despite the fact that in the original Mulan was the one who first has the hots for him and nothing happens between them until the end of the movie when she invites him to her house for 'dinner'. In other words they neuter an actual female taking control of the romantic angle of the story.

The left is a perpetual "It hurt itself in its confusion" meme generator.

This is another non-sensical post that makes this sub look like a proving ground for right-wing SJWs: narrow-minded bigots driven by emotional bias rather than any common sense.

How does majority black = main character of show (Lamia) is white, her son is white, main male character of Mithraics (Travis Frimmel of vikings still looking like a viking) is white, his partner is white (as are their flashback characters), their child (who also appears to have a key future role) is white, the leader of Mithraics is white, all of Mithraic's first landing party were white (including the android). The entire Mithraics religion is also clearly based around a European version of Christianity and their clothing is completely based upon European medieval garb.

Among this you have the father character, one of the children (some others may be mixed, or Indian and other asian), an android, and that's about it as far as black characters go.

This is also not meant to be representing the USA, but the future remnants of a global population so by rights it really should be 60% Asian, 20% White and 20% Black.

It's unbelievable how easily some people here get triggered by their petty hangups.

Personally, I enjoyed the show a lot and found it a breath of fresh air among so much tired retreads and procedurals. But that's a purely subjective matter. The claims of this thread are objectively rubbish. The shows also thematically interesting if you actually know the myth of Lamia but it's strange how often people with deeply ingrained racial bigotry will have so little knowledge or appreciation for classical history.

I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous. I think it’s clear to viewers that movies and tv shows, from their titles, structure, camerawork, etc. are fictional works. There is a significant amount of online pornography that is filmed deliberately to make it seem like real crimes are taking place (and in many cases I’m certain they are).

Apologies for putting words in your mouth on the gay marriage front. Your argument stills seems to rest on the slippery slope though. Either you’re saying we shouldn’t have allowed gay marriage because of where it led, or gay marriage was fine and the problem was letting things get out of control. From your statement it’s unclear:“An easy law everyone agrees on opening the door for more unhinged groups to demand protection and action using the same precedent.” Either you are suggesting we block reasonable laws that everyone agrees with (out of fear), or that we need to simply control the unhinged groups more strongly (which is my position).

Numerous laws are utterly subjective in both their creation of guidelines (e.g. the age of majority) and their applicability (e.g. whether self-defence is accepted based upon judgements of ‘danger’). Your statement on objective law: “You always write the law in the way that the worst possible usage and interpretation is still acceptable.” is simply not the way the law works, and with good reason. A perfectly safe law would be so narrow as to have almost no impact. All laws require some level of subjective interpretation which is why we have judges and supreme courts. The legal system is based entirely upon standards of doubt and subjective interpretation of the facts, for better and for worse. A perfectly objective and rigid legal system would be an utterly dystopian nightmare. Occasionally, we realise prior interpretations were unwise or simply shifting with changing social values, the judgements loosening or tightening the hold of law are still subjective ones based upon ethical and moral considerations rather than explicitly quantifiable measurements.

The crux of this issue is whether (a) the distribution of sexually explicit imagery of children creates higher danger for children, from those who sexualise and fetishise children, by reinforcing rather than suppressing the sexual drives of these groups (and the many, many gay men who lived their entire lives in the closest is evidence that suppressing desires is possible), and (b) whether laws restricting such distribution can be enacted that will not be used to thereafter promote censorship of items with no relation to the safety of children. Your view that people will try to use them to introduce broader censorship is a valid concern but remains an utterly separate problem and there is no clear evidence of any sort that sexual imagery of children cannot be banned with further censorship occurring. The robust state of the porn industry is ample evidence the child related imagery can be strictly prohibited without evangelical puritans using the same laws to expand the scope of ‘obscenity’.

I have enjoyed the discussion as it did make me reassess my position but ultimately there is nothing here that makes me feel my initial positions was unwarranted, rather it has clarified, for me, their solid footing. In the end I believe it is a subjective call based upon the ethical question of balancing the rights of one group against another. If you see it differently, or hold different priorities, it's unlikely we would move past this point without far longer dialogue that breaks issues down into far finer points of law, rights, and ethics. Interesting (and important) though the topic is for me, I don't have the time for it, at least in this medium, so I think I'll leave it there.

You also have to consider that grades can often be handled very subjectively and the vast majority of high-school teachers are left-wing, with a large proportion of them far-left (multiple studies have clearly shown this). Do you think that in the current climate black, gay, transgender or other 'special' cases are going to get a completely fair score or are they likely to get softer assessment and padded grades? In many places, student-teacher relationships (affinity, bias, etc. not sex you smutty devil) can have a major impact on grades received. Even with a teacher that tries to avoid it, this bias can show, and we know far-left teachers will be embracing it.

Also, while it may be hard for a single teacher, or even two or three to boost your GPA dramatically, they can do huge damage to high-performing students they don't like (say, straight white males).

Shit ban all rape porn, and blackmail, and snuff.

That's the first good comment I've seen on the other side of this thread because it actually made me sit down and reassess my entire position (not because I thought I was wrong, but to make a sincere effort to reevaluate whether I was being reasonable rather than emotional). My first reaction was, predictably, "fuck yeah, ban it too" but to extrapolate from that, should we ban , media that includes rape scenes, murder, etc. No, of course not. So what's the difference? It's a question of degree. One is very clearly fictional, the other is (frequently) deliberately designed to convince the viewer it is real, to the extent that people watching it might often think, "Shit, do I need to call the FBI?" But what if it has disclaimers, the actors appear to say they're fine, etc. No. If its entire purpose is to stimulate unhealthy desires (unless you want to say that sexual stimulation from the idea of rape and murder are healthy? And don't say "women fanatize about rape. female fantasy and realistic rape are v. v. different things) it is not something that is in the interests of the vast majority of society.

"But we need to protect the interests of minority groups, we can't deprive them of their needs just because they don't match the majorities". There are certain groups who don't get to indulge their natural instincts because the welfare of the group supercedes them (psychopaths) or because the safety of a different vulnerable group (children) is a higher priority. Determining where that line were something crosses from edgy, to actually dangerous, is always going to be a judgement call but all rights have similar boundaries based upon our ability to make rational judgements.

You shot yourself in the foot with the last comment. "Gay marriage was the mistake that led to SJW insanity." Allowing gay marriage was perfectly fine (though I personally think it is was unnecessary) the fault in society lay in its/our failure to apply the breaks. Every minority group that is conceded some measure of power eventually uses it to reach beyond what they deserve, it's an established pattern. That doesn't in any way delegitimize their initial problems or concerns. The problem is shifting from one extreme control group (ban everything, no liberalization) to a different extreme control group (let do what thou wilt be the whole of the law). Our issue as a society is letting the extremists hold control and promoting the slippery slope argument is just arguing for one form of extremism over another.

Finally, not that the slippery slope isn't fallacious (it is) but if you want to employ it the closer fit is Japan were decades of indulgence of this shit has led to the growth of the j/k sex industry, trains that need women only carriages because of the chikan that frequently specifically target school girls, and the chaku ero and junior idol sub industries that lead to crap like this https://twitter.com/kabukicho01/status/1235452171832811522

Once again, the slippery slop is bullshit. Its always possible to apply the breaks if you fight for the right things and rejecting Z doesn't mean you need to reject A. This is a specific example of where that culture goes when allowed to develop without reins. I'm saying this is the specific point where intervention is warranted. Not banning all art and comics, not letting anything go. This point - sexually explicit loli art - is the reasonable tipping point.

Get the hell out of here with the Slippery Slope nonsense. There's a wide sea, sprawling desert and endless plains between hand-drawn CP and any other medium that risks censorship.

I believe in freedom of speech but anyone saying "Ya'll need to go out and bash some gay people" needs to get done for instigation.

In the same way I believe in artistic expression but not when its done specifically to stimulate and promote tolerance for what are one of the few truly deviant desires. Necrophilia? They're dead, fucked up but no inherent harm. Sadism? If its a willing partner, whatever floats your boat.

This loli-shit? Fetishising vulnerable children as sexual objects and making it seems as though its something that can be tolerated as being 'normal' rather than a pervasive fucking danger than encourages people with serious emotional and psychological issues to indulge rather than suppress their latent desires?

Some people, quite a lot actually, will say "the only good pedo is a dead pedo". I'm not one of them. I actually realise that many of them can't help it. They either have scrambled neurological pathways that fucked up their attraction stimuli at an early age or they're emotionally incapable of dealing with mature adult women and so seek immature juniors they can have confidence with. Being that way is not their fault. Failing to realise/care that those desires are a threat to children is something you can 100% blame them for and indulging their fantasies through loli-bullshit is an utter failure to rein in those tendencies.

So no. People opposing the distribution of this kind of nonsense is not the first step to them taking down Michaelangelo's David for flashing his junk.

You don't have to be Tradcon, SJW or anything other that a fully-functioning, fucking adult to think that people who care about Loli-porn suffer from stunted emotional growth and a crippling lack of self-confidence. I don't blame them for that, everyone goes through phases; I do blame them for choosing to address their insecurities in fixating on sexualized imagery of underage children rather than getting their fucking act together and making an effort to play the part of grown-ass man.

If you're worried about people 'kink-shaming' you there are plenty of subs on reddit to gain sympathy.

I didn't mean to suggest a new Patriot Act or anything else open-ended. I'm purely talking about using executive orders under the existing National Emergency Act to target Antifa specifically. Every President uses (abuses?) this law to introduce emergencies that allow them to effectively bypass Congress on security issues. The increased tension, rioting and violence in the lead up to an election could be used to justify such a move and in its scope targeting specific entities should be possible.

I completely agree that the current intel chiefs can't be trusted and both they and Congress would take any wiggle room they can get to rip off a few extra civil rights. Even with a very limited designation you can be sure that they'd try to use that as a precedent to target other groups, so its not ideal, but something should be done to target the little brownshirts before they actually start making (effective) bombs or carrying out mass shootings (as opposed to now were its just crude IEDs and individual shooting attacks). If Trump wins in November the escalation is guaranteed and if you wait too long to crack down you end up with a hard core of dedicated militants who use the casuals as a network for funding, transport, intelligence, etc. Hit them now and drive the causals away with the fear of God and the hard-core have a much harder time building any robust operational network.

As far as I know RICO focuses specifically on racketeering (hence the name) and may need some evidence that the group is involved in criminal enterprises, not just crimes.

FTO or Domestic Terror designation just requires terrorist actions, which include incitement to political violence, especially when it is a threat to US national security and/or the economy, which (arguably) the actions of the rioters targeting federal facilities and police forces across the country for months, can be interpreted as. If a guy with an Antifa tattoo also killed a trump supporter purely because he was a Trump supporter, that can potentially be considered a political assassination.

I'm not for a second saying this would be an easy sell. Antifa, scumbags though they may be, are a very different type of threat to IS, or the cartels. However, they are a far more (in the USA) widespread and insidious threat and if they are allowed to push things incrementally further you may very well end up with a series of race-driven bloodbaths, which is precisely what these Marxist goons want.

I said before that the Black Militia (with shitty trigger discipline, what did they call themselves, the 'take no crap gang'?) could spark a major gunfight if they face off against an armed patriot group. All it would take is for Antifa to turn up posing as one side and fire off some shots. The longer this situation is left without a federal-level crackdown the more it will escalate.

Some reports have stated (best to verify them though) that

(a) he received the gun from someone in Kenosha so didn't transfer it over state lines.

(b) If that person was 18 and Kyle had the proper training or license it was legal for him to have the gun.

(c) He was in the state already for work and then spent time cleaning up graffiti art a Kenosha (?) school so he did not travel to Kenosha looking for trouble.

(probably already known but worth restating)

(d) He was giving medical assistance to protestors injured by cops.

(e) Things kicked off when he prevented them setting fire to a dumpster [i.e. it's quite likely the offenders started the whole process via an arson charge].

Check out the latest Donut Operator video for the source but the above article doesn't seem to mention the actual trigger.

Protestors had lit a dumpster on fire and were about to push it at police. Kyle put it out with an extinguisher causing the mob led by Rosenbaum to target him. The more information that comes out the better one side looks and the worse the other.

People downvoting you for a reasonable question?

We still don't know what happened, but... If he grabbed a knife after he opened the door of the car the officer behind him had only a split second to react before he might have gotten stabbed multiple times. If you do have to shoot someone who has a knife a single round, or two, or even three, frequently fails to do the job. Even if they are mortally wounded by several shots, someone with a knife might still have enough gas in the tank to kill you before they succumb to injuries. Because of these quite indisputable facts (for which you can find ample video evidence) police are trained to shoot until the threat is gone, i.e. suspect drops or they are clearly no longer a threat. Its rough, and looks very bad on video, but its rarely as callous and one-sided as it at first seems to people unfamiliar with the nature of such close-quarter confrontations.

Don't know if the above links contain these photos https://imgur.com/a/ewE87IQ

They show the skateboard guy hitting the shooter when he was on the ground, then getting shot in the chest. After this, it also very clearly shows the steps between the 'medic' pretending to raise his hands then stepping in and drawing his pistol (almost certainly to kill the guy the ground) before getting his bicep blown off (no gore visible).

The initial incident is still unclear (apart from the fact that the first victim was clearly aggressive and looking for trouble) but there's no question that the second and third shootings were 100% justified. Still have plenty of leftists trying to identify him. A name is already out there but who knows if it's accurate at this stage (might just end up getting someone's family targeted).

Surprisingly the thread on r/News is full of based comments supporting his right to defend himself and criticising the attackers. This incident might finally wake people up to the fact that this is the inevitable conclusion of roving mobs attacking people in the streets and burning down their livelihoods. The idea of defunding the police is now clearly a question of "Do you really want more of this Wild West shit, but next time maybe in your neigbourhood?"

EDIT: Just to add, the Daily Caller team were right where it happened and interviewed the shooter just before things went down. https://twitter.com/RichieMcGinniss/status/1298657958205820928

I didn't mean every interaction, more specifically situations like this where the person seems to be under suspicion of being involved in something dangerous. Typically they'll be told to kneel or lie down, interlace their hands or take other steps to show that they are not a threat. Officers then approach them and pat them down or cuff them till they know whats what. There's always risk but if someone isn't following first instructions the possibility of things going sideways go up exponentially. Every case is different though and we still have little idea what was actually going down here. Hopefully they move quick with releasing the bodycam (not the rioters are likely to care either way).

If police approach a suspect and they have a hidden weapon (gun or knife) they put themselves in danger of getting hurt before they know the suspect has it. If someone is under suspicion there should be no problem with them following the standard instructions that are designed to keep everyone safe.

Don't know why the cop shot. Maybe he saw the suspect reaching for a gun. Maybe the suspect told him "I'm gonna get my gun". Who knows. What's definite is that riots were guaranteed to start before the full facts were revealed. This has been true for a while but in this climate just up it by a factor of fifty.

You're right, I shouldn't be jumping to conclusions simply based on the race of the actors and there are a bunch of black actors who I'd love to see pop up in this or other superhero movies. I think it's just these two specific actors that set me on edge. Kravitz has a history of bitching about how black actresses don't get offered good roles and how there isn't enough diversity ("Why do stories happen to white people and everyone else is a punchline?"). Jeffrey Wright, meanwhile, has been a rabid TDS sufferer from way back ("May the election of Trump bring forth the fiercest, smartest, toughest generation of ass-kicking women this country could possibly imagine." - you can see why he was happy to play such a milquetoast character on Westworld)

Recasting and reinventing characters isn't a problem, it just becomes a little played out when it only goes in one direction.

I was going to edit the above post to say that at least 'The Batman' looks good but Catwoman and Gordon are both now black. 13% of the population doesn't need every other supporting character be made black. How many Asian characters are in the film, any DC film for that matter? Not that I'm saying there should be. People still buy new characters and being a minority is no barrier to popularity, e.g. 'Scalped' was a great comic series about an Amerindian cop (that would make a good tv show). If you want more minorities in play write better stories for them and adapt those.

So the old definition had a far higher total and ratio'd score yet its now be deleted? I see some of the other old definitions are still there, so what's happening? Are the admins at UD are just bulk deleting anything not SJW?

Fucking Tessa Thompson.....the one thing guaranteed to take a shit article and really give it that boost to broken, cack-stained, public toilet level.

The article reveals one thing of note, that some critics claimed the movie creates a "false choice." I'm going to assume this is between traditional; Muslim values and western overt sexualization. Thank God some reviewers can still see that neither of these extremes are sane and that neither sticking a girl in a hijab and mutilating her genitals, nor have her humping the floor like a meth-addicted hooker have anything to do with finding femininity.

She could, I don't know, dress in pastels colours, braid her hair and get excited over buying her first handbag like the millions of well-adjusted 11 year olds across Europe and America.

Just to put it in (worse) context. The main girl in this movie (yes, not a documentary so someone actually scripted and directed young children to do this) is from a French Senegalese Muslim immigrant family. So not only are they exploiting and sexualising children, they're putting the same children at risk from Islamist nut-jobs who might lash out at the portrayal of young Muslim girls dressing and twerking like street-corner hookers (and yes, I know, their argument would likely be "We shall abuse and exploit young women only in line with the Koran's guidelines on pedo-related activities").

It might be worth checking what fuck-wit (likely plural) at Netflix gave this a green light and see what other shit they've been producing.

Thought I should have a quick look at how its doing on Amazon Japan. 3/5 but all the recent reviews seem to be 1 or 2 stars. Below is the top flagged comment along with a tweet the reviewer posted from Druckman https://imgur.com/gallery/2BawWQE

Basically says that they made the mistake of preordering based upon last game and won't be doing that again. That the people who made it did it for money not love of the characters (I disagree with that, it was ideological but Japan doesn't really understand the SJW infection) and says that he paid for a game not someone's self-satisfactory masturbation :)

Lots of other reviews just like that.

Edit: Read through a few more and, sad to say, there are also a similar amount of 5 star reviews (hence the 3/5 score). It seems like those who love it here are just huge fans of the original and are happy to revisit the world even if the characters are screwed over. Many seem to find the theme of the futility of revenge to be the game's strong point and don't really comment at all on man-monster Abby.

Just for London over past 10 years (from London Metropolitan Police).

White people are 40% of the victims, 30% of perpetrators, 60% of population (1 : 0.5 under-representation).

Black people 21% of victims, 47% of perpetrators, 13% of population (3.6 : 1 over-representation)

So a seven-fold difference in proportional representation.

The key points I took from this are:

(a) They were kind enough to let her mother stay with them while she was out of work due to Covid

(b) Her mother is a bit of a whack job who has a history of making complaints to police

(c) Her mother accused them of "being mean" and tried to record their conversation (d) They noticed it and tried to grab her phone

(e) The mother admits to punching and kicking them, while they say she brandished a knife

(f) Mother runs out of house and calls cops on them

(g) A "secret indictment" is issued for their arrest (wtf is that?)

(h) Someone claiming to be the mother states she asked for no charges to be pressed

(i) Prosecutors decide they will send this to a grand jury regardless of victim's desires (still unclear if there was a victim or if it was just a minor squabble)

(j) This is all in response to an incident from April 25th and after the initial visit by police to check people's stories, nobody involved was told anything about it until almost 4 months later when, just as she releases a political documentary, it becomes important to send deputies to her home to arrest her in front of her kids for what is, at best, a misdemeanour.

Find me another case were someone was arrested in this fashion after a minor family dispute and I'll drop my skepticism.