Conquer Club

Lots of western cities have seen violent protests over the last couple of weeks. Statues being removed or vandalised, history being rewritten, art being removed and little Britain taken out of iplayer and britbox.

This is called historical negation and is part of the Marxist ideology. Make everyone guilty about their history, then rewrite the history and indoctrinate the next generation. Your country was built off slavery, you should be so guilty that you want us to remove all of the iconography related to it and replace it with wholesome Marxist brainwashing.

In truth Britain has been paying off the debt that they took on in 1833 to buy off slaves from slavery, until 2015. These little idiots will be running around in clothing made in the sweat shops of Asia without a thought. They go crazy about a tweet someone made 6 years ago that might have been homophobic, but conveniently forgive a career criminal for robbing a pregnant lady 6 years ago.

The media is the biggest weapon of the UN.

tbf Little Britain wasn't even funny at the time

mrswdk wrote:tbf Little Britain wasn't even funny at the time

Aye true, they should have had a character called Shimmy the incel. He could have been an internet troll that masquerades as a female and constantly praises China, even though it's quite apparent that he doesn't fit in there, or anywhere for that matter. Actually that character would be thoroughly boring.

The ram wrote:

mrswdk wrote:tbf Little Britain wasn't even funny at the time

Aye true, they should have had a character called Shimmy the incel. He could have been an internet troll that masquerades as a female and constantly praises China, even though it's quite apparent that he doesn't fit in there, or anywhere for that matter. Actually that character would be thoroughly boring.

Ram - 1
Shimmy the Incel - 0

I see this historical negation is building momentum. Do you think that the prophet Mohammed will also be condemned due to his use of slaves? Will the pyramids be dismantled? Of course not, just western civilisation will feel the wrath.

Do I agree with the statement "black lives matter?" Yes. Black lives do matter. You would be hard-pressed to find an individual that says that people of a certain ethnicity doesn't deserve to live just because of the color of their skin. And then even then, the percentage of people who have this viewpoint are an EXTREME minority (a fringe of a fringe of a fringe of a minority).

Do I agree with the movement "Black Lives Matter?" No. They advocate that there is systemic racism in the United States (and in other countries as well). Systemic racism doesn't exist in the United States (and for that matter, basically most Western-style countries), because individuals are free to make choices as to how they want their life to be shaped.

Choice and freedom are what shape our society. I fully support the right for speech and protest. When you take away free speech and start canceling others because they do not agree with your viewpoints, the cultural divide only widens. It's the standpoint of "Don't agree with us? Then you'll lose your job/possessions/etc."

Instead of participating in the widening of the division of our culture, let's come together and see how we can better a society, instead of screaming and shouting a list of demands.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:let's come together and see how we can better a society

Think you'll find the people who go out burning things down have already tried the peaceful approach and found it got them nowhere.

London rioter wrote:I’ll always remember the day that we had the police and the government scared. For once they were living on the edge, they like felt how we felt. They felt threatened by us. That was the best three days of my life.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 9016667438

mrswdk wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:let's come together and see how we can better a society

Think you'll find the people who go out burning things down have already tried the peaceful approach and found it got them nowhere.

False. Peaceful protests (that remained 100% peaceful, i.e. the protest in DC where they gave the antifa rioter to the police, or in Flint Michigan, where NO crimes were committed) had no issues. Even then, you're making the argument that burning things down is ok if you don't get your way. No, I'm sorry, that's not how a democracy works, you loon.

As if your rhetoric really shocks the rest of us free-minded individuals, coming from someone who appeases communist China, one of the most RACIST countries in existence today. Lol. The hypocrisy is so blatant, you'd have to be dumber than the brick one of the rioters threw through a business owner's window in Minneapolis to not see it.

"Riots are ok" says the media, among COVID-19 cases SPIKING across the country just 3-4 days after the mass gatherings due to peaceful protests or rioting. So rioting is ok if it fits the "narrative." And they have the gall to say "We aren't sure what caused the new spike in COVID-19 cases." LIES. The MSM is as good as dead and is untrustworthy as the Chinese government at this point in time.

The point being that peaceful and lawful protests do not achieve meaningful change.

mrswdk wrote:The point being that peaceful and lawful protests do not achieve meaningful change.

Maybe in communist China, where if you aren't in favor of the government, and speak out about your disapproval, you get thrown off of buildings and BRUTALLY MURDERED.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

mrswdk wrote:The point being that peaceful and lawful protests do not achieve meaningful change.

Maybe in communist China, where if you aren't in favor of the government, and speak out about your disapproval, you get thrown off of buildings and BRUTALLY MURDERED.

Is this relevant? One of the first moral lessons I learned in school is that "the other kids are doing it" is not a defense.

Yes, there are vicious dictatorships out there are incredibly cruel to their people. Does that mean we should be?

I try to measure myself against those who are better than me and rise to their level; not congratulate myself because others are worse. So should nations. We should ask, "how can we become more like Denmark?" and not say, "hey, at least we're better than China!"

mrswdk wrote:The point being that peaceful and lawful protests do not achieve meaningful change.

Agree with mrswdk. We can outlast and ignore most peaceful and lawful protests. But tumult eventually forces our hand or our destruction.

This is why protests seeking systemic change should be met with overwhelming and absolute force by those invested in the system. The system can't facilitate its own destruction, this goes against the iron laws of nature. (Though protests merely seeking a redress of grievances can be met with negotiation and compromise.)

Dukasaur wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

mrswdk wrote:The point being that peaceful and lawful protests do not achieve meaningful change.

Maybe in communist China, where if you aren't in favor of the government, and speak out about your disapproval, you get thrown off of buildings and BRUTALLY MURDERED.

Is this relevant? One of the first moral lessons I learned in school is that "the other kids are doing it" is not a defense.

Yes, there are vicious dictatorships out there are incredibly cruel to their people. Does that mean we should be?

I try to measure myself against those who are better than me and rise to their level; not congratulate myself because others are worse. So should nations. We should ask, "how can we become more like Denmark?" and not say, "hey, at least we're better than China!"

I disagree that the US is cruel to it's people. Every society has bad people, but this doesn't mean that a nation is inherently cruel to it's people just because an extreme fringe are truly horrible people. The US is the most free nation that has ever existed, and people have the choice to become whatever they want to be. The US in large part doesn't do things because other people are doing it. Other countries do things because we do them first.

And become more like Denmark? Denmark is an extremely socialist nation, with a relatively small population (just under 6M people) that is ethnically almost all the same (85% Caucasian), with a 55% (sometimes higher in certain jurisdictions) tax rate. Thanks, but I'll pass.

saxitoxin wrote:

mrswdk wrote:The point being that peaceful and lawful protests do not achieve meaningful change.

Agree with mrswdk. We can outlast and ignore most peaceful and lawful protests. But tumult eventually forces our hand or our destruction.

This is why protests seeking systemic change should be met with overwhelming and absolute force by those invested in the system. The system can't facilitate its own destruction, this goes against the iron laws of nature. (Though protests merely seeking a redress of grievances can be met with negotiation and compromise.)

Literally protest and reform are how we have changed as a country since it's inception in 1776... via Amendments to the Constitution...

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

mrswdk wrote:The point being that peaceful and lawful protests do not achieve meaningful change.

Maybe in communist China, where if you aren't in favor of the government, and speak out about your disapproval, you get thrown off of buildings and BRUTALLY MURDERED.

Is this relevant? One of the first moral lessons I learned in school is that "the other kids are doing it" is not a defense.

Yes, there are vicious dictatorships out there are incredibly cruel to their people. Does that mean we should be?

I try to measure myself against those who are better than me and rise to their level; not congratulate myself because others are worse. So should nations. We should ask, "how can we become more like Denmark?" and not say, "hey, at least we're better than China!"

I disagree that the US is cruel to it's people. Every society has bad people, but this doesn't mean that a nation is inherently cruel to it's people just because an extreme fringe are truly horrible people. The US is the most free nation that has ever existed, and people have the choice to become whatever they want to be. The US in large part doesn't do things because other people are doing it. Other countries do things because we do them first.

And become more like Denmark? Denmark is an extremely socialist nation, with a relatively small population (just under 6M people) that is ethnically almost all the same (85% Caucasian), with a 55% (sometimes higher in certain jurisdictions) tax rate. Thanks, but I'll pass.

saxitoxin wrote:

mrswdk wrote:The point being that peaceful and lawful protests do not achieve meaningful change.

Agree with mrswdk. We can outlast and ignore most peaceful and lawful protests. But tumult eventually forces our hand or our destruction.

This is why protests seeking systemic change should be met with overwhelming and absolute force by those invested in the system. The system can't facilitate its own destruction, this goes against the iron laws of nature. (Though protests merely seeking a redress of grievances can be met with negotiation and compromise.)

Literally protest and reform are how we have changed as a country since it's inception in 1776... via Amendments to the Constitution...

Those were orderly redress of grievances. When requests for redresses were denied by the system, and the petitioners tried other routes, they were ground into dirt. (see: Whiskey Rebellion, Dorr Rebellion, Civil War, etc.)

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

mrswdk wrote:The point being that peaceful and lawful protests do not achieve meaningful change.

Maybe in communist China, where if you aren't in favor of the government, and speak out about your disapproval, you get thrown off of buildings and BRUTALLY MURDERED.

I think you’ve gotten your propaganda campaigns mixed up. Throwing people off buildings is ISIS, not China.

saxitoxin wrote:

mrswdk wrote:The point being that peaceful and lawful protests do not achieve meaningful change.

Agree with mrswdk. We can outlast and ignore most peaceful and lawful protests. But tumult eventually forces our hand or our destruction.

This is why protests seeking systemic change should be met with overwhelming and absolute force by those invested in the system. The system can't facilitate its own destruction, this goes against the iron laws of nature. (Though protests merely seeking a redress of grievances can be met with negotiation and compromise.)

As the chairman said, political power grows out the barrel of a gun. And that’s why those pacifist parents will always get overruled by the NRA lobby.

Just wanted to say....Sizzler, I am enjoying your posts very much. Actually a level headed, thoughtfully laid out series of replies. Refreshing AF Thank you. Carry on!

Jdsizzleslice wrote:The US is the most free nation that has ever existed

The US literally imprisons more of its population per capita than any other country in the world.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:
Do I agree with the movement "Black Lives Matter?" No.

They advocate that there is systemic racism in the United States (and in other countries as well). Systemic racism doesn't exist in the United States (and for that matter, basically most Western-style countries), because individuals are free to make choices as to how they want their life to be shaped.

Maybe you don’t wanna call it systemic racism... fine.

There absolutely is systemic bias.
You can’t debate it. Math is math, facts are facts.

You can debate the CAUSE(S) of this systemic bias.... but you can’t debate its’ existence.

... of course if you wanna put all the blame for the causes on “individual choices” or “the black community” or “lack of black family values”... well that’s just ignorant. I might agree there are contributing or multiplying factors... or I might say some of those things are themselves symptoms and not causes... but if those do not encompass the full picture.

jimboston wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:
Do I agree with the movement "Black Lives Matter?" No.

They advocate that there is systemic racism in the United States (and in other countries as well). Systemic racism doesn't exist in the United States (and for that matter, basically most Western-style countries), because individuals are free to make choices as to how they want their life to be shaped.

Maybe you don’t wanna call it systemic racism... fine.

There absolutely is systemic bias.
You can’t debate it. Math is math, facts are facts.

You can debate the CAUSE(S) of this systemic bias.... but you can’t debate its’ existence.

... of course if you wanna put all the blame for the causes on “individual choices” or “the black community” or “lack of black family values”... well that’s just ignorant. I might agree there are contributing or multiplying factors... or I might say some of those things are themselves symptoms and not causes... but if those do not encompass the full picture.

Absolutely incorrect. There is no systemic racist bias. Are you suggesting there is only a systemic bias against black people? What about the many other ethnicity groups that are in the US?

What about the fact that black people commit more violent crimes, and therefore have more violent encounters with law enforcement?

What about the fact that close to 70% of black children are raised by single parents, and don't have the support of both a mother and father to help teach them the difference between wrong and right?

What about the fact that in a majority all of the cities that have large violent crime percentages, 30% to 50% of the population is black?

What about the fact that a majority of these violent crimes are committed in cities that are essentially have all Democrat control in every aspect of politics, and have been for decades (Chicago, New York, Detroit, Baltimore, Los Angeles, etc.)?

There is no systemic bias if nearly half of the violent crime is committed by an ethnicity that makes up only 10% to 15% of the population. These percentages come directly from the US Census and the FBI Crime Report statistics. Political breakdown of the largest cities is public knowledge.

We can agree that there needs to be police reform, to some degree. However, to claim that there is a systemic bias for or against any single ethnicity is factually untrue. Personal responsibility is how you either progress or regress as an individual. It saddens me to see such a high percentage of a community that lack a normal family structure. Families need fathers in the home. If fathers leave their homes or do not help raise their children, they contribute to the regression of society, as depicted in the above questions.

Together, let's work to change the US culture as a whole, for all ethnicities, and promote a healthy upbringing for children by advocating that fathers and mothers NEED to help raise their children to better society. The breakdown in the family will become the breakdown of a society.

As part of his effort to diversify statues in London, the city's ruler Sheikh Sadiq Amam Khan has ordered a statue of Winston Churchill painted with the word "RACIST" and covered with a box. The sheikh has said the new boxes he has devised are "Boxes of Shame."



The monument to World War I deceased, which memorializes a group of people who were mostly white men, has also been ordered shrouded with a Box of Shame until its fate can be determined.



Sheikh Sadiq Amam Khan is the supreme ruler of London and declared the city "in unquestioning solidarity with BLM."

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:
Do I agree with the movement "Black Lives Matter?" No.

They advocate that there is systemic racism in the United States (and in other countries as well). Systemic racism doesn't exist in the United States (and for that matter, basically most Western-style countries), because individuals are free to make choices as to how they want their life to be shaped.

Maybe you don’t wanna call it systemic racism... fine.

There absolutely is systemic bias.
You can’t debate it. Math is math, facts are facts.

You can debate the CAUSE(S) of this systemic bias.... but you can’t debate its’ existence.

... of course if you wanna put all the blame for the causes on “individual choices” or “the black community” or “lack of black family values”... well that’s just ignorant. I might agree there are contributing or multiplying factors... or I might say some of those things are themselves symptoms and not causes... but if those do not encompass the full picture.

Absolutely incorrect. There is no systemic racist bias. Are you suggesting there is only a systemic bias against black people? What about the many other ethnicity groups that are in the US?

What about the fact that black people commit more violent crimes, and therefore have more violent encounters with law enforcement?

What about the fact that close to 70% of black children are raised by single parents, and don't have the support of both a mother and father to help teach them the difference between wrong and right?

What about the fact that in a majority all of the cities that have large violent crime percentages, 30% to 50% of the population is black?

What about the fact that a majority of these violent crimes are committed in cities that are essentially have all Democrat control in every aspect of politics, and have been for decades (Chicago, New York, Detroit, Baltimore, Los Angeles, etc.)?

There is no systemic bias if nearly half of the violent crime is committed by an ethnicity that makes up only 10% to 15% of the population. These percentages come directly from the US Census and the FBI Crime Report statistics. Political breakdown of the largest cities is public knowledge.

We can agree that there needs to be police reform, to some degree. However, to claim that there is a systemic bias for or against any single ethnicity is factually untrue. Personal responsibility is how you either progress or regress as an individual. It saddens me to see such a high percentage of a community that lack a normal family structure. Families need fathers in the home. If fathers leave their homes or do not help raise their children, they contribute to the regression of society, as depicted in the above questions.

Together, let's work to change the US culture as a whole, for all ethnicities, and promote a healthy upbringing for children by advocating that fathers and mothers NEED to help raise their children to better society. The breakdown in the family will become the breakdown of a society.

I was more or less with you on the first post but I'm not really with you on this one. While I don't think those who say their is systematic racial bias in the USA have an easy case to make, there are at least some concrete examples of systemic racial bias. The main one I see pointed to most often is 'redlining'. Do you believe redlining is fake news, or what's your position on that subject?

"What about the fact that black people commit more violent crimes, and therefore have more violent encounters with law enforcement?" This is a chicken and egg argument imo. Both sides will point to the 'over' incarceration of African Americans in their arguments, and both would see the reasons for this differently. Areas that have alot of police presence will discover more crime than areas where there is a lax/loose policing.

If your premise here is blacks are more predisposed to commit crimes, then I'm sure you can point to some statistics from 'majority black wealthy neighborhoods' having really high crime rates compared to wealthy white neighborhoods in the same zip but the stats don't support that. Areas like Ladera Heights, have similar (or lower) crimes rates to 'the rest' of Beverly Hills. The real trigger to crime is poverty, not race. There are some very strong arguments that are worth considering about how African Americans have for generations had a harder time escaping poverty (here is where things circle back to redlining and policies like it)

"What about the fact that close to 70% of black children are raised by single parents, and don't have the support of both a mother and father to help teach them the difference between wrong and right?"
The African American community would point to this and say they are raised by single parents because the dad is in jail, maybe for something incredibly minor and getting 10 years because of mandatory minimums which have disproportionately affected them as a minority community.(Again in their minds and example of systemic racism in both policing and in society/banking/gov't.)

I'm not saying all the AA community arguments are rock solid, and I'm not saying any of your arguments are dead wrong... but you are a reasonable and intelligent person and you should at least consider that the very high incarceration rates of AA people isn't solely because they are commit more crimes but rather that they are arrested/prosecuted more frequently for the same behaviors that wealthy folks aren't. The answer falls somewhere in between, where maybe there is more crime in their neighborhood because of poverty but the police in some cases do consciously or unconsciously make that very association that blacks are more likely to commit crimes or hate the police or whatever and therefore treat them more harshly than they might a white kid in the suburbs. I digress a bit here, because I sort of see all of this as a big missed opportunity with what going on. Instead of saying pov't begets crime, and blacks have been stuck in a pov't loophole, this whole thing has turned into cops are bad, and cops and blacks hate each other... which is both unproductive and frankly bad for all Americans (blacks,cops,75 year old white antifa protesters )

On a tangent of sharing my own opinion, I'm pretty solidly against the federal gov't doing much of anything about all of this. Policing isn't (for the most part) and shouldn't be (Imo) a federal issue. I think qualified immunity is one of the few things that could have my support if they wanted to take a look at this at the federal level, but most policing issues are local/state issues that require local/state solutions. Personally I don't really support the national registry idea for cops with complaints about them, though I think that is going to be the first thing that gets passed in regards to all this.

Ok go ahead and shred this post up everyone! I probably won't respond to any of you but JD

mookiemcgee wrote:I was more or less with you on the first post but I'm not really with you on this one. While I don't think those who say their is systematic racial bias in the USA have an easy case to make, there are at least some concrete examples of systemic racial bias. The main one I see pointed to most often is 'redlining'. Do you believe redlining is fake news, or what's your position on that subject?

Redlining is considered illegal, and I don't agree with it on a racial basis. I haven't looked into redlining much, but if Mortgage Companies/Banks don't want to grant loans from specific neighborhoods, I see this as more of a financial issue more than a racial issue. Again, not that up to speed on all of the implications redlining has. Maybe you could point me in the right direction where I could learn more about this topic, or what your arguments are on the topic.

mookiemcgee wrote:"What about the fact that black people commit more violent crimes, and therefore have more violent encounters with law enforcement?" This is a chicken and egg argument imo. Both sides will point to the 'over' incarceration of African Americans in their arguments, and both would see the reasons for this differently. Areas that have alot of police presence will discover more crime than areas where there is a lax/loose policing.

You could make the argument there is more police because there is more crime committed in those areas. Chicken and egg, indeed. However, my point was more in questioning why more violent crimes are committed. Is it response to police or is it more of a culture issue? I think this is the question we really have to answer. I would lean more to the argument of needing a culture change more than reducing police's numbers (while I DO think we need some sort of police reform, especially in the most densely populated cities). A larger police presence (and here, I'm referring to cities with more police officers per capita) doesn't necessarily equate to more crimes being committed. I would say the larger police presence is in response to more crime, not necessarily that there is more crime in response to a larger police presence.

mookiemcgee wrote:If your premise here is blacks are more predisposed to commit crimes, then I'm sure you can point to some statistics from 'majority black wealthy neighborhoods' having really high crime rates compared to wealthy white neighborhoods in the same zip but the stats don't support that. Areas like Ladera Heights, have similar (or lower) crimes rates to 'the rest' of Beverly Hills. The real trigger to crime is poverty, not race. There are some very strong arguments that are worth considering about how African Americans have for generations had a harder time escaping poverty (here is where things circle back to redlining and policies like it)

My premise is not that black people have a more predisposition to crime. Wealthier neighborhoods do have lower crime rates, indeed. I would agree that poverty is more of a determining factor. However, I would make the argument that poverty is not the most important determining factor, but instead more based on the choices that individuals that live in more impoverished areas of cities and areas of the country. I'll speak more on this below.

mookiemcgee wrote:"What about the fact that close to 70% of black children are raised by single parents, and don't have the support of both a mother and father to help teach them the difference between wrong and right?"
The African American community would point to this and say they are raised by single parents because the dad is in jail, maybe for something incredibly minor and getting 10 years because of mandatory minimums which have disproportionately affected them as a minority community.(Again in their minds and example of systemic racism in both policing and in society/banking/gov't.)

That is a criticism that is definitely worth being talked about. I'm not totally up to speed on every minor charge that has lead to a lengthy sentence, and I'm sure that there are some that have been unjustly overcharged. However, I don't see this to be a racial issue, as all ethnicities have cases that are overcharged. And again, we reach the chicken and the egg because you can say that being overcharged leads to more crime by the younger generation or that more crime gives the way for more overcharges to occur. So I ask myself the question why are fathers not present in the home, and is the majority based on overcharges or a cultural divide where fathers do not wish to help raise their children?

mookiemcgee wrote:I'm not saying all the AA community arguments are rock solid, and I'm not saying any of your arguments are dead wrong... but you are a reasonable and intelligent person and you should at least consider that the very high incarceration rates of AA people isn't solely because they are commit more crimes but rather that they are arrested/prosecuted more frequently for the same behaviors that wealthy folks aren't. The answer falls somewhere in between, where maybe there is more crime in their neighborhood because of poverty but the police in some cases do consciously or unconsciously make that very association that blacks are more likely to commit crimes or hate the police or whatever and therefore treat them more harshly than they might a white kid in the suburbs. I digress a bit here, because I sort of see all of this as a big missed opportunity with what going on. Instead of saying pov't begets crime, and blacks have been stuck in a pov't loophole, this whole thing has turned into cops are bad, and cops and blacks hate each other... which is both unproductive and frankly bad for all Americans (blacks,cops,75 year old white antifa protesters )

Here is where I get more ethical than more statistical. If we completely accept the argument that there is over-incarceration among the black community, and decide to shorten sentences for the people who commit these crimes, would this change the crime rate at all? Would this decrease the percentage of families raised by a single parent? Unfortunately, I don't think there is a number or statistic on what the future would be if this were to happen.

This is mainly why I see this is a cultural issue more than a racial one. There are three main key life choices that extremely increase any individuals chances to not be impoverished in your lifetime:

• Graduate High School, or get your GED
• Waiting to get married until you are out of your teens and/or not having children out of wedlock
• Having a full-time job

I understand the last point may be the hardest to complete, but these three key choices people make can greatly improve the chances of getting out of poverty, or at least starting the process of building generational wealth. I personally would add a fourth point on not being in debt/getting out of debt/not spending money on garbage you don't need. Lol. These main key choices are what help strengthen the family component of our society, and I don't see lesser over-incarceration necessarily fixing the issue, culturally.

mookiemcgee wrote:On a tangent of sharing my own opinion, I'm pretty solidly against the federal gov't doing much of anything about all of this. Policing isn't (for the most part) and shouldn't be (Imo) a federal issue. I think qualified immunity is one of the few things that could have my support if they wanted to take a look at this at the federal level, but most policing issues are local/state issues that require local/state solutions. Personally I don't really support the national registry idea for cops with complaints about them, though I think that is going to be the first thing that gets passed in regards to all this.

To a certain degree, I agree, this should definitely be more of a State's issue than a Federal issue. However, when you have things like CHAZ going on, it makes it hard to completely say it's a State's issue if the State is complicit and allows for certain individuals to break its laws but not others.