Tuesday, February 28, 2017

The "VOICE" Backlash Beginneth: Apparently Addressing Crimes By Illegals "Is How Genocides Begin"

 Jeez the hysterical left is a bunch of idiots.
   Look, the crime angle isn't the right angle to take on the problem of illegals. They apparently commit somewhat fewer crimes than non-immigrants. (Though...are those DoJ numbers? Or are they from academia? If the latter, I'd not trust them on this subject, probably...  But I think I remember them being DoJ numbers...)
   And Trump is an idiot for naming the thing "something something immigrant something" instead of "something something ILLEGAL immigrant something".
   But I'll be damned if internet lefties don't keep trying their best to make Trump look reasonable by comparison.
   Listen up you hysterical halfwits. If any of you want to make a very large bet as to whether or not there will be a genocide in the United States sometime during the next 4-8 years, I will be happy to take that bet. What would you like to bet? A thousand bucks? Two thousand bucks? More? No one, anywhwere, is idiotic enough to take that bet. And that means nobody really believes this bullshit. Talk is cheap. As Kant points out, real belief is a willingness to bet.
   This is not the beginning of a genocide. And it's not TEH RACIST!!!111 (as some of the other jackasses on the other end of the link insist....though...of course...the loony left shrieks THE RACISM!!!!111 at the drop of a hat.
   But it's probably not a particularly wise use of resources.


Blogger Pete Mack said...

I hat to say it, but it certainly sounds a lot like an "Institute for the Study of the Immigrant Question." It's surely an outfit for propaganda against immigrants (since it's not called VOIICE.) Presumably it'll be used against refugees as well.

I can certainly understand why people are seriously upset by it. There's a pretty big region short of genocide where we really don't want to go.

1:16 PM  
Blogger Pete Mack said...

In other news, Sessions has said that the Ferguson and CPD studies by Obama's DOJ is 'anecdotal and not scientifically based.' But he also said he hasn't *read them*. I've actually read the Ferguson one. It is meticulously researched, and it's a good reminder that 'Black Lives Matter' is not so much a matter of getting killed, but of being treated with respect by the local government, not as cows to be milked.
In short, Sessions is shaping up to be just as bad as predicted.

2:41 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Yeah, I have *not* read it, but that's my impression, too--that fatal police shootings turn out to be approximately proportionate, but that other not-good police encounters may not be. McWhorter said something roughly like that at some point, too.

2:55 PM  
Blogger The Mystic said...

Sessions is shaping up to be just as bad as predicted...unless the prediction was genocide...in which case...not.

2:58 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

the PC left will be pleasantly surprised, then!

3:21 PM  
Blogger Pete Mack said...

the trouble is you will lose the benefit of the doubt on killings if your modus operandi is to treat a population like crap. How could it be otherwise? Lake of trust in the police is a huge problem in many violent neighborhoods. The mayor of LA made a point of this, when he said the LAPD won't act as an arm of ICE in part because they would lose trust.
The arrest of a plaintiff in a courtroom was an egregious example of how to break the justice system.

4:43 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Well, that's *a* problem--but I'd say *the* problem is the (alleged) lower-order unjust treatment. The cops have *no right whatsoever* to treat people unjustly. I'm talking down to the level of disrespectful words. Cops should be busted to shit for treating people unreasonably. That's the condition of being given special authority and especially authority to use force.

Losing the benefit of the doubt in fatal shootings sucks...but if it's just the unfortunate consequence of unjust action, then I'm way, way less interested in that than the unjust action itself.

As for the immigration stuff, isn't that a different issue? To whatever extent it actually is a matter of not wanting to make policing less effective, I think it's defensible. "We can't do our jobs right if we try to do ICE's job too...so it's better if we don't"--that's an argument I'm more than willing to listen to. But, of course, it's not clear how much is really that, and how much is that liberals just kinda don't really think that immigration laws are just, and so they just look for ways to thwart them. I mean...it's not like conservative cities are the ones doing this stuff.

My own town is considering becoming a "sanctuary city," in fact, and that's exactly how I plan to argue they should make the decision. Is it really a practical law-enforcement issue? Then ok. Or is this because we suddenly turned from red to blue, and so now the city council wants to virtue-signal and strike a blow for progressivism and open borders? Then not ok.

Honestly, I think if it were actually the former, it'd just be left up to the cops on a more-or-less case-by-case basis.

5:29 PM  
Blogger Pete Mack said...

Unfortunately, if it were left to the cops it'd be decided on a cop-by-cop basis more than case-by-case.

And yes, that is indeed the root trouble.

5:43 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home