You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
January 22, 2019, 01:07:51 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: What's in the News? 2.0  (Read 678 times)

legomaster00156 and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Skynet

Re: What's in the News? 2.0
« Reply #50 on: Yesterday at 03:01:15 PM »
I agree, doing the tomahawk chop at a Native American, is mocking and could be racist.

However, from what I saw, it look like the students thought they were doing it with Mr. Phillips, not at him. They've just finished a sports cheer, he walks up, beating his drum and stands before them for a few seconds, as if he's joining them. What might be the first Native American themed sports thing that jumps to mind? Was it a good choice? No but it could be understandable. The students are bouncing to the beat, they sound happy, not mocking. The people filming note that Mr. Phillips has calmed them down. Not to mention, from the video, it looks like they've all stopped, when Mr. Phillips comes face to face Mr. Sandmann and the situation turns awkward.

If we're going into hypothetical motivations...

President Trump is also notable for using the Tomahawk Chop to mock Senator Warren. And if you're the type of person to wear a MAGA hat in public, high schooler or no, you'd probably be familiar with that too.

Offline Skynet

Re: What's in the News? 2.0
« Reply #51 on: Yesterday at 03:09:28 PM »
PS Do we know the ages of the high school students in question? Although the longer video provides good context, it should probably be changed to a link to stay in line with Elliquiy's rules if any of them are under 18.

Offline IrishWolf

Re: What's in the News? 2.0
« Reply #52 on: Yesterday at 03:14:44 PM »
If we're going into hypothetical motivations...

President Trump is also notable for using the Tomahawk Chop to mock Senator Warren. And if you're the type of person to wear a MAGA hat in public, high schooler or no, you'd probably be familiar with that too.

Is it not hypothetical to assume its a racist taunt? On the part of the students I mean. You've made a case for Trump, clearly mocking someone and sure, perhaps some of the students knew and were mocking. We wont ever know, we can't read their minds. Its just as possible that students doing sports cheers, switched to a sports cheer in theme with the drumming. It looks like to me, that the students were trying to do a cheer with Mr. Phillips, seeing as it looked like at the beginning, like he was joining their group. Others can read it differently

As to their ages, I don't know but I can't edit my post.

Online Sara Nilsson

Re: What's in the News? 2.0
« Reply #53 on: Yesterday at 03:15:40 PM »
Junior high school so what. 16 to 17?

Offline Skynet

Re: What's in the News? 2.0
« Reply #54 on: Yesterday at 03:34:38 PM »
Is it not hypothetical to assume its a racist taunt? On the part of the students I mean. You've made a case for Trump, clearly mocking someone and sure, perhaps some of the students knew and were mocking. We wont ever know, we can't read their minds. Its just as possible that students doing sports cheers, switched to a sports cheer in theme with the drumming. It looks like to me, that the students were trying to do a cheer with Mr. Phillips, seeing as it looked like at the beginning, like he was joining their group. Others can read it differently

As to their ages, I don't know but I can't edit my post.

I meant hypothetical in the sense that you're assuming the chop was made as a good-nature show of camraderie to the drummer when it can also mean and be read as something else. The rest of your post seems to understand and agree with that, so I'm confused as to your confusion on this matter.

Judging by your Tim Pool link, I presume you agree with the ultraconservative and Trump supporting side of the story. And given that the "build the wall" chant is in dispute, it's understandable to worry about the effects of a false news story being blown out of control.

It may well be the case that the high school students didn't say "build the wall." And black anti-semites may be looking to start a fight. But that doesn't automatically mean that the MAGA fans in question have clean hands as with the sports gesture their idol used to mock Native heritage.

On one hand I feel that a lot of young people can easily get swept up in fads or go against the grain to rebel. Trump's brand of alt-righty "fuck PC culture" can be quite appealing as a stand against moral media guardians. Lord knows I did and said a lot of foolish things around that age, and if any were caught on social media I'd be quite horrified. Chances are they're feeling worried over the doxxing and other things which are unjustifiable.

But on the other hand I think that by your mid to late teens, especially in the digital age, if you're going around in public you should project good behavior. At that age I also knew better than to make race jokes in public, and to be fair Trump has said and done so many hateful things that even many teenagers are aware of what kinds of messages he's sending. The dancing along with or smiling to the beat may not necessarily mean camraderie. Many people with bigoted feelings don't mind minorities when they're entertaining them.

Offline IrishWolf

Re: What's in the News? 2.0
« Reply #55 on: Yesterday at 04:11:31 PM »
I meant hypothetical in the sense that you're assuming the chop was made as a good-nature show of camraderie to the drummer when it can also mean and be read as something else. The rest of your post seems to understand and agree with that, so I'm confused as to your confusion on this matter.

Judging by your Tim Pool link, I presume you agree with the ultraconservative and Trump supporting side of the story. And given that the "build the wall" chant is in dispute, it's understandable to worry about the effects of a false news story being blown out of control.

It may well be the case that the high school students didn't say "build the wall." And black anti-semites may be looking to start a fight. But that doesn't automatically mean that the MAGA fans in question have clean hands as with the sports gesture their idol used to mock Native heritage.

On one hand I feel that a lot of young people can easily get swept up in fads or go against the grain to rebel. Trump's brand of alt-righty "fuck PC culture" can be quite appealing as a stand against moral media guardians. Lord knows I did and said a lot of foolish things around that age, and if any were caught on social media I'd be quite horrified. Chances are they're feeling worried over the doxxing and other things which are unjustifiable.

But on the other hand I think that by your mid to late teens, especially in the digital age, if you're going around in public you should project good behavior. At that age I also knew better than to make race jokes in public, and to be fair Trump has said and done so many hateful things that even many teenagers are aware of what kinds of messages he's sending. The dancing along with or smiling to the beat may not necessarily mean camraderie. Many people with bigoted feelings don't mind minorities when they're entertaining them.

I meant hypothetical in the sense of one assuming the chop was made as a mockery, when it can also be used as a sports cheer to support someone. You made a clear cut case for when it was used to mock someone. This is not a clear cut case. Arguments can be made for either direction.

I am baffled that you'd think Tim Pool is conservative or that it's ultraconservative to be concerned about a false new story, which had resulted in a kid getting death threats and the fallout he'll have to deal with for the rest of his life, as I have described in past posts. As to the "Build the wall" chant, I'd say that is disproved. I've seen videos from different angles and distances, it cannot be heard. Even CNN has published "Those chants were not audible in videos reviewed by CNN."

Offline Skynet

Re: What's in the News? 2.0
« Reply #56 on: Yesterday at 04:24:38 PM »
I meant hypothetical in the sense of one assuming the chop was made as a mockery, when it can also be used as a sports cheer to support someone. You made a clear cut case for when it was used to mock someone. This is not a clear cut case. Arguments can be made for either direction.

I am baffled that you'd think Tim Pool is conservative or that it's ultraconservative to be concerned about a false new story, which had resulted in a kid getting death threats and the fallout he'll have to deal with for the rest of his life, as I have described in past posts. As to the "Build the wall" chant, I'd say that is disproved. I've seen videos from different angles and distances, it cannot be heard. Even CNN has published "Those chants were not audible in videos reviewed by CNN."

Well it ain't the political left or center who are saying that private enterprises should host Alex Jones' content, or making videos with these kinds of thumbnails, that's for sure:




Offline Iniquitous

  • Diva of the Damned | Mother of Horrors | Patron Saint of Blankies
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2011
  • Location: Curled up on Hades' throne
  • Gender: Female
  • I've been laying with the Devil....
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: What's in the News? 2.0
« Reply #57 on: Yesterday at 04:28:19 PM »
First - I do not agree with what the Black Hebrew Israelites were saying.  I personally find it disgusting but it is their First Amendment Right and I would not deny them that right.
Second - No.  Just NO.  Those students were not trying to "cheer with" Nathan Phillips.  That much is evident by their expressions and their actions.
Third - The mother could have just as easily watched the videos and heard the scriptures being thrown out and realized they were not Islamic.  The mother threw out that defense of her precious bigoted son because there are three types of people who are blamed for everything in the states. Blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics - she thought if she blamed his behavior on black muslims the narrative would change in favor of her son.

I understand wanting to give people the benefit of the doubt, but no.  This is a case of hateful students acting like immature toddlers that needed to be handled by adults.  The hateful rhetoric has been so prevalent since the mango mussolini took office and this is just another example of it.


Online Silk

Re: What's in the News? 2.0
« Reply #58 on: Today at 06:48:48 AM »
Well it ain't the political left or center who are saying that private enterprises should host Alex Jones' content, or making videos with these kinds of thumbnails, that's for sure:


Well to quote Tim pool's favorite saying (Besides oh my stars and garters) is "There is nuance here"

I don't know much about the Maga kids situation personally (Being in the UK and all), but as a rule, if there is flaws in what someone reported and shown to be false (For exmple the claim the kids approached the Native american when in actuality he approached them), then you should treat everything they say from that point on with a grain of salt and look deeper into the situation. Because they've already shown to be fallible once.

Offline TolvoTopic starter

Re: What's in the News? 2.0
« Reply #59 on: Today at 08:54:34 AM »
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-karnoski/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scotus-trump-transgender-military-ban_us_5c472a91e4b027c3bbc58f50?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067&__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

Scotus ruled 5 to 4 apparently in favor of Trump for his military ban on transgender soldiers. With Trump's stolen justice seat sealing the deal. There are still appeals being made, but apparently it will go into effect due to this ruling.

https://twitter.com/chasestrangio/status/1087722995899092993

Chase Strangio, a trans man who is a part of the ACLU, has said they will be fighting this gross bigotry in court.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: What's in the News? 2.0
« Reply #60 on: Today at 09:48:05 AM »
Who do you appeal a SCOTUS ruling to?

Offline TolvoTopic starter

Re: What's in the News? 2.0
« Reply #61 on: Today at 10:06:29 AM »
Uh I found this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_supreme_court

"As noted above, the U.S. Supreme Court may hear appeals from state supreme courts only if there is a question of law under the United States Constitution (which includes issues arising from federal treaties, statutes, or regulations), and those appeals are heard at the Court's sole discretion (that is, only if the Court grants a petition for writ of certiorari).

In theory, state supreme courts are bound by the precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court as to all issues of federal law, but in practice, the Supreme Court reviews very few decisions from state courts. For example, in 2007 the Court reviewed 244 cases appealed from federal courts and only 22 from state courts. Despite the relatively small number of decisions reviewed, Professors Sara Benesh and Wendy Martinek found that state supreme courts follow precedent more closely than federal courts in the area of search and seizure and appear to follow precedent in confessions as well."

But I'm not really sure, and-

"One of the informal traditions of the American legal system, derived from the common law, is that all litigants are guaranteed at least one appeal after a final judgment on the merits. However, appeal is merely a privilege provided by statute in 47 states and in federal judicial proceedings; the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that there is no federal constitutional right to an appeal.[1]

Since a few states lack intermediate appellate courts, the state supreme court may operate under "mandatory review", in which it must hear all appeals from the trial courts. This was the case, for example, in Nevada (prior to 2014). Such judicial systems are usually very congested.[2]

Most state supreme courts have implemented "discretionary review," like their federal counterpart. Under such a system, intermediate appellate courts are entrusted with deciding the vast majority of appeals. Intermediate appellate courts generally focus on the mundane task of what appellate specialists call "error correction,"[3] which means their primary task is to decide whether the record reflects that the trial court correctly applied existing law."

There may be basically no real way to do so unless they can find it in violation of certain state constitutions. And the Supreme Court can possibly just say it doesn't care, I'm not sure on that though. I hope there's actually a check to balance this but I don't know if there is.

Online Regina Minx

Re: What's in the News? 2.0
« Reply #62 on: Today at 10:10:52 AM »
Who do you appeal a SCOTUS ruling to?

Generally speaking, there is not. The SCOTUS is the court of final appeals. However, the ruling issued today might have been a very narrow aspect of the policy or a single question raised in a lower court case, such as whether or not the policy should be stayed pending the outcome of the litigation process.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: What's in the News? 2.0
« Reply #63 on: Today at 10:11:59 AM »
That makes a bit more sense.

Offline TolvoTopic starter

Re: What's in the News? 2.0
« Reply #64 on: Today at 10:18:05 AM »
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/22/politics/scotus-transgender-ban/index.html?adkey=bn

It should be mentioned also some more information. The Supreme Court was told by Trump's government to take up the case on the transgender military ban. They refused to as of right now, but, ruled it should go into effect before lower court rulings could make a ruling. Basically, they didn't want to hear the case or let a lower court handle it, and decided to rule on it despite not actually taking it on and allow it to go through. 5 to 4. They have not stated the ban is valid and legal, just ruled that they want it to go into effect before lower courts could rule on it. To note, only the conservative justices(One which Trump installed after Republicans stole it quite literally from Obama) voted in favor of this while the liberal justices voted against it.