The hidden detail is that blacks are 8x more likely to murder a cop. That number will go up if you prevent them from doing their job.

Im not aware of that rate being above 1:1 for any other race.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Dec 6 2020 09:12pm

Considering cops are already safer than pizza drivers I think they'll get by.

Pizza guys in what kind of neighborhood?

Pizza drivers in italy that deliver pinapple pizza instead of margherita

https://www.9news.com.au/world/coronavirus-donald-trump-lawyer-rudy-giuliani-has-covid/5a75dec8-7ccf-440a-979f-cfeba5e53c01
This is just getting ridiculous.

We should have a running bet line for who does/does not get pardons

"Reasonable" right-wingers: it's silly to oppose the entire GOP... just because Trump is nuts doesn't mean the rest of them are

GOP:



This post was edited by IceMage on Dec 8 2020 08:20am

Thread:
https://twitter.com/NickKristof/status/1336413019769856008

Reaction:
https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1336419970268348416



I'm not sure if we have any socially conservative Trump cultists here, but it's an interesting observation above.

The problem is that CP has been used as a buzzword for a long time, mostly in the context of attempts at getting a foothold for internet surveillance. Certain groups try time and time again to justify their calls for upload filters or mandatory real name usage with it. The end goal clearly is to abolish the anonymous internet and to put a surveillance infrastructure in place which monitors all content. These bad faith efforts (perhaps there's more of them on the EU level and these attempts are less common in the US?) have given these types of measures a bad reputation in many net activist circles and prompt free-speech and free-net oriented people to reflexively oppose them.

Now, it is clear that something has to be done about the abuses fostered by sites like PH. On a site for very delicate and private videos, requiring users to be verified before they can upload stuff is probably a good thing. Another solution I could see is that the site is legally barred from running ads on videos which were flagged for certain infringements, like non-consent or statutory age limits. No downloads is a sham, if users can watch a video on their device, they can find ways to download or capture it.



So, to answer your question: the reason why conservative politicians are MIA on this issue are two fields of tension: first, between a defense of freedom of speech and freedom of the arts on the one side and the prosecution of criminal content on the other. Second, between taking a stand for prude sexual morals on the one side and taking a stand for entrepreneurial freedom on the other. Both fields of tension would divide the GOP coalition, so that it would be bad politics to touch this topic if it can be avoided.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Dec 8 2020 07:31pm

If legitimate conservative media covered this issue the way this NYT guy did, and a few high-profile Republican politics got behind it, my guess is it would've resulted in the same outcome, or perhaps an even better one. This isn't an all-or-nothing proposition.

That's the thing about conservative media I don't understand. Instead of breaking legit stories, they aim all their focus on Republican spin and anti-media stories. They could do good work if they devoted the resources to it.

This post was edited by IceMage on Dec 8 2020 07:36pm