Ahmaud Arbery killing trial

C Kent said:
No that's not what I'm saying, read post 6 for one. Seeing racism where there is none is in relation to post 5 and others and the allusion that there's no replies to the thread because its a black man that was murdered and the forum 'racists' are in hiding.
Click to expand...

ah sorry, should have looked back to page 1.
 
The Running Man said:
I think the uk rape gangs were racist and were also covered up for racist reasons.

Screenshot-20211113-163112-Chrome.jpg



Strange I have never seen you make a thread about this if you hate racism so much.
Click to expand...

There is already a thread on it. Why would I start another? These cases aren't in any way related. The grooming gangs do indeed target local white girls and they do it because they are white. Although I'm sure they would target back girls as well. No one has said race isn't involved in it and that it isn't ****** that the police and local social services didn't act far earlier when they had been given a heads up it was happening. Why do you always feel the need to counter a post on one form of racism with another?

The US case is interesting due to the historical problems with race there. More interesting because if the video hadn't leaked these guys would be walking free and the institutions that covered it up wouldn't have been exposed. We don't have institutional racism here, well certainly nothing like on the scale of the US.
 
Energize said:
White supremacy in action. :p
Click to expand...


This case wasn't white supremacists, although with their number plate and his comment over the dead Arbery there is no doubt he and his father are racist. It clearly showed how institutional racism is still a problem there. The system tried to brush this under the carpet. Only public outrage when the video was leaked bought justice to these men.
 
C Kent said:
Clear as day they were going down, although as echoed above slighty surprising the dude that caught it on camera has been done.

Anyone know what's happening to the DA was 'recommending' no charges initially?
Click to expand...

Ex-Glynn County District Attorney Jackie Johnson turned herself in to the Glynn County Sheriff's office Wednesday morning, reports the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, after a grand jury returned an indictment on counts of obstruction and violations of oath by a public officer last week

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jackie-johnson-ahmaud-arbery-prosecutor-charged-obstruction/
 
godinman said:
I wonder if there is some middle ground here, between the fictional narrative of an execution killing, and thoroughly honourable citizens conducting a citizen's arrest..

It seems pretty obvious that he wasn't just guilty of 'being a black man on a jog', he was snooping and from his history probably up to no good, but also there weren't justifiable grounds to hold him via armed force, armed force which escalated severely when he didn't just stay still and wait for police (there's no evidence that they were planning to kill him, although he wasn't to know that I suppose).

I think people who bring weapons in to even a morally justifiable scenario need to realise that the outcome can be hugely problematic even if you 'win' (looking at you Kyle).
Click to expand...

You are black, 3 men in 2 trucks are chasing you down, 2 of them armed. One has a confederate flag on his licence plate. You are in Georgia. I'd be concerned for my life in his shoes, he was right to be scared, he tried flight, they stopped him so he chose fight. They killed him. Then the murderer called him the n-word.
 
ianh said:
He's just a person giving an opinion and, as ex-police officer, his opinion might carry a little more weight. I mean I don't understand why are you attacking a black man for giving his opinion. Is it because his opinion is different than yours and he just happens to be black or is it because he's a black man with an opinion you don't think a black man should have?

Either way you sound pretty bigoted when you tell others that this black man opinion's is any less valid than anyone else's.
Click to expand...

He is paid to have that opinion. He makes his money by spouting right wing talking points, its his job. What ever the talking points are on the right he says that. The fact he's an ex cop and doing that is how he makes his money. Now I have no issue with him doing it, fair play to the guy, he's grifting away and doing very well for himself. He probably is very conservative. Just don't expect me to take anything he says seriously.

I aimed it at deuse as he has his 2 go to black guys. This dude and the one black man he can find who supports the use of the confederate flag.

I'm not the one who voted for the openly racist BNP and then bragged about it.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
So you're saying that because he is black and a conservative he must be a grifter.
Oh look these two clowns dismissing a person as a grifter because of the colour of their skin and political position. Colour me surprised.
Click to expand...


C Kent said:
Any black person that doesn't tow the political or social viewpoint of those on the left is a grifter, surely you've figured that out by now.
Click to expand...

No I'm not saying that. I said he could well be a true hardliner conservative. I also said he is paid because he holds/says those views. He is widely quoted on sites like patriots.win, formally donald.win which is about as crazy a hard right/MAGA site as you will find and the most popular website for that crowd. He makes his living by saying what he says. If he changed his tune do you think his YT channel would get the same views? Would his patreon still have as many subscribers? Would his merch store still sell well? Of course his colour and his previous career comes into it, MAGA types love a person of colour that sides with them, they feel it gives them legitimacy. However I wouldn't go to someone on the right or left who's income was completely reliant on towing a political line, especially on something like the law. Impartial he most certainly is not.
 
The Running Man said:
Absolutely. He did not deserve to be killed for what he did 100%.

I'm just pointing out that the narrative is again an angelic looking 13 year old, who dud no harm.

Yet he was actually 25/26, ex con with a history of shoplifting and other worse crimes to his name.

My point is, if you can call the offenders *** hats for their actions what could you also call the victim?


From his mother to the court:





I bet she didn't say that when he was being charged with taking a firearm to a school campus or after stealing a TV etc.

It's the contrary voice of unreasonable fire and brimstone that troubles me most.
Click to expand...
C Kent said:
But it's nothing new though is it, the media have a narrative they need to portray when there's a racially motivated killing so they will find the most innocent looking picture to use when it's a black man killed by another ethnicity. Everyone knows it, but by continuously pointing it out all you are doing is just giving the usual crowd more ammunition in their 'he's a racist' drivel (I know you don't give a flying **** what an anonymous forum user thinks), but you aren't going to change anyone's opinion.
Click to expand...

You are talking like this a white/black thing. Every media outlet always finds an angelic looking picture of the victim and a nasty looking one for the perpetrator. It has nothing to do with colour of skin.

This murder did have something to do with colour of skin though, the way you are painting it though is that the media only grabbed hold of it because he was black, which is false. They grabbed hold of it because the state officials tried their very best to bury it and only when the video was released by a lawyer were they left with no choice but to do something. That may well be because he was black and the killers were white, we will have to see what comes out, it might just be because they knew the father but regardless from the first interaction with the police to the district attorneys, the killers were protected and the victim was blamed. It shouldn't take a video being released months later by a lawyer to get justice.
 
VincentHanna said:
I've highlighted the relevant part for you.


The problem is that they look at their Youtube creator stats, work out what videos get the most views (and therefore make the most money) and concentrate on that type of content. Which means they are playing to an audience for clicks/money and any impartiality goes out the window.
Click to expand...

This ^^ and who can blame him, this is his career, likes, people watching to the end earn him $
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Oh so you were implying that he's a grifter.


Who quotes him is literally irrelevant. What he says is what is important. The fact that I have had to explicitly say that is a joke. This is you clutching at straws.


By your logic, news channels are grifters.
What came first the chicken or the egg?
Did his political opinion form around making money or did the opportunity to make money form around his political opinions? Because one is grifting and one isn't. Assuming we are using the proper definition of grifting and not some modern age ******** definition

Seems like you just like throwing **** at the wall and hope that something sticks.


The exact same thing could be said about the left.



The only good point you have raised in your wall of text and it's just an opinion. I hope you apply the same standard to news channels because it would be awkward if you don't.
Click to expand...

"News" channels that do opinion like Tucker Carlson etc or OAN/Newsmax are gifting yes. They say what they say for $. Maybe the left has similar segments on their channels, I don't watch them. So no it isn't "news", it a million miles from news, its opinion. That opinion is tuned by what sells. If ratings drop because someone has an opinion on something the viewers don't like they'll walk it back and take the opposing view. If you consider that "news" and worthy of trust then good on you. I don't. I prefer to get my news from people who actually do news, they might not always get it right but they aren't selling opinion and some still have ethics.
 
Chris Wilson said:
So, in your opinion, is he a "plastic" Conservative, or a "plastic person of colour" or both? What proof can you offer to either scenario?
Click to expand...

He's an entertainer. What is difficult to understand? His whole career is based off his YouTube, its got him on the likes of Fox News. Of course he examines in great detail what peaks interest and engagement from YouTube analytics and styles his content to suit. And there is nothing wrong with that. I just wouldn't trust him an an impartial source, because he isn't.
 
Caracus2k said:
Bless....

Part of me think Klink actually believes some of the nonsense they type

as if the past few years haven't shown the folly of this sort of thinking...


reminds me of this absolute hilarious tweet showing just how deluded some people are (or think others must be to buy their nonsense)


People like Klink go on about Tucker as if Rachel Maddow of MSNBC didn't pull pretty much the same trick last year when faced with court proceedings....

A Court Ruled Rachel Maddow's Viewers Know She Offers Exaggeration and Opinion, Not Facts




and lets not forget that even the purveyors of 'Fact checks' (that are then used to censor) have had to admit that they are not actually 'Fact checking' anything but rather providing an opinion!
Click to expand...

Didn't I say the left probably has similar programming but I don't watch it? I know you don't have problems reading so you were just being obtuse? Rachel Maddow is an opinion program. I'm not sure she has used the "we aren't news, we are entertainment" line in court yet but she isn't news. She certainly isn't helping the political situation in the US just as all the opinion programming isn't, when your ratings matter more that facts your audience is screwed.
 
Chris Wilson said:
OK, so there's nothing wrong with him piquing interest on his channel, he's an entertainer, who works to seek favour from a certain demographic? How is he different from anyone else on YouTube, or any other form of media, any politician or entertainer, left right or centre without wishing obscurity upon themselves? I suspect only his political support is what grates with you... A "person of colour" with Conservative allegiances, real or fake, is someone who obstinately and controversially sticks in your craw. A deviant from your perceived allegiance for people of colour?
Click to expand...

I don't get my news from YouTube, I don't get opinion from YouTube for good reason. I use YouTube for tech, space, science, movie/TV reviews, sport/motorsport. YouTube has done so much damage to people and as a result society. The insane conspiracy theories that have worked their way into mainstream society from there are doing real damage. Be it Plandemic, 5G, chemtrails, Qanon. One of my oldest friends, incredibly intelligent has been sucked into these rabbit holes. He was a commercial helicopter pilot but was having issues with his vision and so he spent hours a day on YouTube and the algorithm got him. But it isn't just extremes like that, look how many people believed the Plandemic video, it was huge. So any YouTube channel like his, be it left or right I treat as opinion there to make money. Even more so if it plasters patreon/merch store all over it. The only channel I watch that touches on politics is the debunking channel potholer54. Even then I researched the guy and he is a credible journalist with a science background.
 
deuse said:
The same guy that has 1 more strike and he will be banned from you tube :cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:
He posted a video about " Covid vaccines cause infertility" and had it deleted. Your guy is a know nutter.....but there again...so are you :cry::cry::cry::cry:
I've always told you your home work sucks :cry:
Click to expand...

He also had it reinstated. YouTube deleted it because the algorithm was trying to catch covid disinformation videos. If you'd bothered to actually do your homework you'd have learnt it was a debunk of the antivax story that vaccines cause infertility. You really can make an idiot of yourself on so many occasions. A couple of minutes is all it would take to check but no, you just had to blurt out some nonsense. This is what happens when your go to site of info is patriots.win :rolleyes:

Look you can watch this deleted video, you might actually learn something.


Yeah he really is a nutter. New Scientist employs nutters for 14 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hadfield_(journalist)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom