- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,587
But they still have a manufacturing sector.
Ignore this at your peril: The USA is going down
- Thread starter frugal.rock
- Start date
-
- Tags
- economic war usa
Funny thing is Trump was the first western pollie to call China out about the dumping of product in USA (and the world for that matter)
Artificially reducing the price by using sweat shops has been called out by the social media against manufacturers in a number of countries that have open policies and can be seen
China does the exact same thing but uses concealed sites and factories and no one says a thing on social media.
Have a look at the price of stuff here, no way the person who made that is getting a fair wage, not even USA money, let alone Oz wages
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,014
- Reactions
- 8,289
did you watch “the doll test” I linked above? Black people are not immune to being prejudiced to their own race, black children as young as 5 have learned that black is bad.
Police are more likely to shoot black not because they are actually being threatened more often by blacks, but simply because the feel threatened because the darker skin you have the more likely you are to be interpreted as dangerous, aggressive and threatening.
If you have Netflix watch a show called 100 humans, one of the episodes has an experiment where they have a white guy with a gun and a black guy with a phone jump out at people at the same time, and the person is told to shoot at the person with the gun and not the innocent with the phone, however reflex makes the people more often shoot the black guy instead of the actual guy with the gun, which shows people instinctively assume the black face is the threat.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,587
If you want to check out what happens in Africa between blacks, without whites involved, it is quite amazing, is that racial?
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,014
- Reactions
- 8,289
I am not sure what that has to do with anything, I think your logic might be broke.
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,014
- Reactions
- 8,289
Check out a group of police pepper spray some black women Multiple times that just attempt to peacefully walk by,
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,587
Why do you say that?
Have you looked at racial violence in Africa, between blacks?
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,014
- Reactions
- 8,289
Because I don’t know why you are bringing up what happens in Africa, or how it would apply to a discussion about the subconscious biases I am talking about.
it’s almost like saying it’s ok for me to kick your dog, because sometimes dogs attack each other.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,587
Well it is because your premis, is on the basis of race discrimination, based on colour.
Why else would I bring up the problems in Africa, which are of the same race and colour, other than to show your bias is on compassion not on fact.
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,014
- Reactions
- 8,289
I am not sure you have been following my point.
did you actually read my comments earlier and watch the doll test video?
I said that blacks were not immune to prejudice against their own race.
I not saying this is an issue of whites being overtly racist bigots towards blacks.
I said the problem was far more sinister than that, because the problem relates to societies underlying prejudice towards blacks, that leads them to bias that cause them to think blacks are more dangerous, aggressive and threatening than they would a white person in the exact situations.
If you watch the doll test you will see, also that 100 human show on Netflix experiment shows that even black people were instinctively shooting the innocent black guy rather than the white guy with the gun.
it’s simple, we all have inbuilt Biases based on all sorts of things eg, race, gender, tattoos etc etc it’s up to us to try and catch our selves when we find them creeping into Our brain and learn from it.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,587
I did watch the video and I agree there is an inbuilt fear with regard black guys.
Did you think about what I said about what is happening in Africa as we speak, with regard black Africans killing black Africans?
Do you choose to live in an area where property is cheap, but violence is high, I doubt it.
The problem with wealthy people is, they can be smug and tell everyone how life should be, while not having to live it.
The reality is when the wealthy achieve their dream of everyone being equal, they will be living it.
I cant wait to see it.
Check out Durban in Africa.lol
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,587
The other thing I will add with regard everyone cheering the U.S going down.
One has to realise Australia is an island far away from the U.S and the U.K, we are in the middle of SE Asia and have a fabulous welfare State with a small population.
Yet we mock and slag off continuously at the U.S and U.K.
What are we trying to achieve?
Do we want to divorce ourselves? To what end becoming an Asian economy?
I find it difficult to work out what the end game is, for all this anti Australian anti western vitriol.
One has to realise Australia is an island far away from the U.S and the U.K, we are in the middle of SE Asia and have a fabulous welfare State with a small population.
Yet we mock and slag off continuously at the U.S and U.K.
What are we trying to achieve?
Do we want to divorce ourselves? To what end becoming an Asian economy?
I find it difficult to work out what the end game is, for all this anti Australian anti western vitriol.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,098
- Reactions
- 16,883
If any business in Australia tried to get away with the treatment of workers, pay rates, safety standards and so on which is taken for granted in China then the political "Left" would never let us hear the end of it.
If you're buying their products when an alternative is available then you're supporting it. Simple as that.
On the other hand, the problem for Australia is that it's good for business and so a blind eye is turned. Chinese steel mills buying Australian iron ore. Chinese funded power stations in developing countries that will boost demand for Australian coal. And so on. Money talks.
To be fair to China though, not much has really changed apart from the "who" bit. There's always been someone exploiting humans and the natural environment throughout recorded history so the basic concept isn't in any way new. I doubt there's even one country of any significance that hasn't done it at some point.
As for the US, well I maintain my view that Trump's the wrong man to be President in every possible way but he does have on redeeming feature and that's in regard to trade. That's his only good feature but it's a real cracker and therein lies the problem.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 13 February 2006
- Posts
- 4,996
- Reactions
- 11,218
1. Earlier in this thread I mentioned that a key element to racism was nonrandom behaviour.
I also covered the student case, so will now show how that type of behaviour manifests.
In the case of police officers doing their job, racism cannot occur if an officer's actions are consistent and lawful.
2. When they are not, the questions to be answered relate to motivation or errors of judgement.
In the student case covered earlier the officer's actions demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that is textbook racism, so I will go over them.
3. The officer had observed the student sitting on his dorm's patio for several minutes beforehand and he was not doing anything suspicious. When the student got up he was clearly collecting rubbish. It is impossible for that fact to be differently interpreted. Despite this the officer chose to question the student. The officer had no reasonable grounds for his actions and his training would have told him that he was looking at potential 4th Amendment breach if he overreached. Put simply, at this point the officer's actions were deliberate, yet inexplicable. Strike 1.
1. In paragraph [1] above you indicate that there are 2 conditions that are necessary and sufficient to prove racism. They are: (a) consistency in the Officer's actions and (b) that those actions are lawful. 1(a) is fact specific. We can observe the Officer's actions and determine whether he is consistent in his actions. 1(b) is a legal test. As a starting point you would need to cite the law. Second, you would need to apply the facts/allegations/assertions against an interpretation of the law.
2. If the conditions in 1 (a) and (b) are not met, then questions can be legitimately asked re.: (i) motivation and/or (ii) errors of judgment. In this case (i) would imply some form of racism (b) simply an error which is not racially based.
3. In this paragraph you simply move to an interpretation of the facts/circumstances which as yet, has no basis in the conditions that you required as necessary and sufficient in 1(a),(b). Also in this paragraph you raise issues of potential Fourth Amendment rights being abrogated.
Therefore before moving forward, the law needs to be stated:
First and foremost the law needs to be understood. In the first sentence we have a number of legal issues:
There is US Colorado case law that provides the law as to what is legal in detaining an individual for questioning.
In order to lawfully detain an individual for questioning: (1) A police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime; (2) the purpose of the detention must be reasonable; and (3) the character of the detention must be reasonable when considered in light of the purpose. People v. Stevens, 183 Colo. 399, 517 P.2d 1336 (1973); People v. Montoya, 185 Colo. 299, 524 P.2d 76 (1974); People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986); People v. Ratcliff, 778 P.2d 1371 (Colo. 1989); People v. Wilson, 784 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1989); People v. Sutherland, 886 P.2d 681 (Colo. 1994); People v. Rodriguez, 924 P.2d 1100 (Colo. App. 1996), aff'd, 945 P.2d 1351 (Colo. 1997).
We have therefore established that a 'peace officer' can be a Police Officer. This could also be confirmed in the definitions section of the legislation.
We now know the legal standard as to who may be (stopped) detained for questioning.
We have not yet established the meaning of 'reasonable'. Therefore:
The reasonableness of an officer's suspicion is determined from the totality of the circumstances in which the suspicion arose. People v. Bell, 698 P.2d 269 (Colo. 1985); People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986); People v. Coca, 829 P.2d 385 (Colo. 1992).
To determine whether the Officer acted 'reasonably' the circumstances/facts/etc. will need to be applied at this point.
My point is this: you simply have not completed the necessary steps of analysis prior to moving forward on nothing more than your own subjective interpretation.
With regard to Fourth Amendment (below) rights breaches:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As you have flagged potential breaches of this Amendment: where do you see the potential issues arising?
jog on
duc
I also covered the student case, so will now show how that type of behaviour manifests.
In the case of police officers doing their job, racism cannot occur if an officer's actions are consistent and lawful.
2. When they are not, the questions to be answered relate to motivation or errors of judgement.
In the student case covered earlier the officer's actions demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that is textbook racism, so I will go over them.
3. The officer had observed the student sitting on his dorm's patio for several minutes beforehand and he was not doing anything suspicious. When the student got up he was clearly collecting rubbish. It is impossible for that fact to be differently interpreted. Despite this the officer chose to question the student. The officer had no reasonable grounds for his actions and his training would have told him that he was looking at potential 4th Amendment breach if he overreached. Put simply, at this point the officer's actions were deliberate, yet inexplicable. Strike 1.
1. In paragraph [1] above you indicate that there are 2 conditions that are necessary and sufficient to prove racism. They are: (a) consistency in the Officer's actions and (b) that those actions are lawful. 1(a) is fact specific. We can observe the Officer's actions and determine whether he is consistent in his actions. 1(b) is a legal test. As a starting point you would need to cite the law. Second, you would need to apply the facts/allegations/assertions against an interpretation of the law.
2. If the conditions in 1 (a) and (b) are not met, then questions can be legitimately asked re.: (i) motivation and/or (ii) errors of judgment. In this case (i) would imply some form of racism (b) simply an error which is not racially based.
3. In this paragraph you simply move to an interpretation of the facts/circumstances which as yet, has no basis in the conditions that you required as necessary and sufficient in 1(a),(b). Also in this paragraph you raise issues of potential Fourth Amendment rights being abrogated.
Therefore before moving forward, the law needs to be stated:
First and foremost the law needs to be understood. In the first sentence we have a number of legal issues:
we would need to establish that the Officer fulfilled the definition of a 'peace officer'.
the words 'may stop': requires legal interpretation;
the words 'reasonably suspects' require legal interpretation.
If these steps is not completed, we cannot apply the legal test to the facts/circumstances/etc. If we are not applying the law (as you require) this analysis is stillborn.the words 'may stop': requires legal interpretation;
the words 'reasonably suspects' require legal interpretation.
There is US Colorado case law that provides the law as to what is legal in detaining an individual for questioning.
In order to lawfully detain an individual for questioning: (1) A police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime; (2) the purpose of the detention must be reasonable; and (3) the character of the detention must be reasonable when considered in light of the purpose. People v. Stevens, 183 Colo. 399, 517 P.2d 1336 (1973); People v. Montoya, 185 Colo. 299, 524 P.2d 76 (1974); People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986); People v. Ratcliff, 778 P.2d 1371 (Colo. 1989); People v. Wilson, 784 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1989); People v. Sutherland, 886 P.2d 681 (Colo. 1994); People v. Rodriguez, 924 P.2d 1100 (Colo. App. 1996), aff'd, 945 P.2d 1351 (Colo. 1997).
We have therefore established that a 'peace officer' can be a Police Officer. This could also be confirmed in the definitions section of the legislation.
We now know the legal standard as to who may be (stopped) detained for questioning.
We have not yet established the meaning of 'reasonable'. Therefore:
The reasonableness of an officer's suspicion is determined from the totality of the circumstances in which the suspicion arose. People v. Bell, 698 P.2d 269 (Colo. 1985); People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986); People v. Coca, 829 P.2d 385 (Colo. 1992).
To determine whether the Officer acted 'reasonably' the circumstances/facts/etc. will need to be applied at this point.
My point is this: you simply have not completed the necessary steps of analysis prior to moving forward on nothing more than your own subjective interpretation.
With regard to Fourth Amendment (below) rights breaches:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As you have flagged potential breaches of this Amendment: where do you see the potential issues arising?
jog on
duc
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
Please explain where the officer formed the intent to act on reasonable grounds.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,656
- Reactions
- 11,958
It's all down to religion imo, "dark forces" etc..
- Joined
- 13 February 2006
- Posts
- 4,996
- Reactions
- 11,218
You will (or should have noticed) that 'intent' forms no part of the legal test.
The point is that you specified in your introductory paragraphs what was necessary (and sufficient) to demonstrate 'racism'.
See the law above.
What the Officer needs to demonstrate is that he had grounds to 'reasonably suspect' that a crime is about to be committed, is being committed or has been committed. That requirement will be met through evidence. Which we will get to. First of all, we all need to be on the same page.
jog on
duc
To me it seems that any difference that causes one group cluster together has the potential to create discrimination to others.
Kids form little gangs and exclude people that are different, religious adherents blow people out of the sky because they are different, people of one racial background within a larger society group together for mental comfort.
Most living things group together like with like, for safety and familiarity, herds of animals have travelled together since forever. People have lived in tribes forever, tribes distrust other tribes because of past actions.
Here in Oz the aboriginals could not go on to other tribes land without special permission, penalty was a spear in the guts.
"Discrimination" is inbred in all of us, civilisation means we are not supposed to kill everyone else. We are not supposed to enslave others but it is happening right now in many parts of the world.
All we can do is continue to be tolerant But we need that tolerance to go both ways.
To have a march here in OZ where people think it is OK to smash things is in fact being intolerant.
I accept that folk may be upset that there are riots in the USA but that is Not an excuse to riot here in Oz or anywhere else.
If our Police need to act to enforce our laws then they are Not intolerant, they are protecting society as we know it. If we allow mobs to rule the streets then we all need to get a gun and that is why the USA is like it is.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,357
- Reactions
- 7,232
Who said anything about a march where it was ok to smash things ? Who said we should have riots in Oz ? A protest is not a riot or smashing things up.
There are certainly people who would ban protests under the banner of Law and Order. And there is Trump who orders police to clear peaceful demonstrators away with tear gas so he can preach in front of a Church how supportive he is of peaceful demonstrations.
Maybe this why the US is going down.
Tear Gas, Threats for Protesters Before Trump Visits Church
“I am your president of law and order and an ally of all peaceful protesters," the president declared as law enforcement officers fired tear gas and deployed flash bangs into a crowd outside the White House.
- Joined
- 25 July 2010
- Posts
- 1,120
- Reactions
- 284
I'm not sure they're biases, than they are extrapolating statistics.
Statistically, a black man is more likely to be a criminal, all else being equal. It stands to reason that if a particular trait allows me to identify higher probability of criminality, then I should be more cautious.
It just so happens skin colour is one of those easily identifiable traits.
IF history didn't hit the african american community so badly, their over-representation on crime stats would not have caused this thinking. It's a bit of chicken and egg.
As for re-programming individuals - evolutionarily speaking, it's harmful for the individual to change their thinking. If I have a useful heuristic to identify and avoid danger which is true NOW (due to history above), then I'll use it. This does not make one racist, it makes them human. As you rightly point out, the black community also use this heuristic.
A personal anecdote: I was in Darwin a while back, walking around at night time.
I walked past two aboriginal men, sitting on the sidewalk. From a distance, I assumed they were drunk, so I crossed the road. As I got closer, it turns out I was right - AND they started hurling abuse at me.
Had I not crossed the road, would they have tried something else? Who knows. But the heuristic worked - especially because there's no downside to me.
How do you stop people from acting in self-interest?
