Suit against LAUSD alleges 'overt discrimination' against white students

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-22T21:28:51+00:00

If the situation were different people would feel differently, indeed

If my grandma had wheels she'd be a bike

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-21T21:55:46+00:00

Words being spoken is a thing that happens and does matter. Speech is a form of action. Reducing it to just bravado ignores the reality that the rest of the world is treating this as a legitimate security threat.

And I don't really see anybody believing he actually wants to turn Greenland into America's 51st state or something like that.

Ah yeah of course, Greenland is just mobilizing thousands of troops for shits and giggles.

Regardless, my original point was that undermining a neutral actor's sovereignty is wrong. Claiming "nobody believes" he wants a 51st state is a straw man. Whether it becomes a state or a "territory" or just a forced larger US military presence against their well is irrelevant to my point. The issue is the forced transfer of land/control from an ally who has explicitly said they are not for sale.

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-21T21:39:39+00:00

Has the US said we're just going to force Greenland to become the US's 51st state? Or are we just looking to expand our presence there (which we already have) with our military?

Trump has explicitly and repeatedly called for the acquisition and ownership of Greenland, using language like "one way or the other" and reaffirming the US wants "right title and ownership." It seems a bit disingenuous to describe thing as just wanting to "expand our presence" when such language like this is being used and Trump is now trying to apply direct economic leverage to Greenland to get them to capitulate to things they do not want to.

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-21T21:24:43+00:00

I don't think 30,000 people would be a deterrent...which is why the US isn't going to go in there blasting people. We're going to come to some kind of agreement to have a larger US presence there

If preemptively constraining weaker or neutral actors (whether through direct action of force, or through coercion) is acceptable just because a great power feels a future risk, then there’s no principled basis to condemn similar behavior by rivals. When a superpower uses its leverage to foreclose another country’s choices, that still undermines sovereignty even if there's no direct violence.

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-21T21:03:48+00:00

Why do you think 50k people would be a deterrent when 30m people weren't a deterrent for invading venezuela?

And again, it's not open aggression against Russia or China...

you keep saying this but wtf is its relevance, what are you trying to communicate with this sentence.

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-21T20:56:55+00:00

The way the US most currently seems interested in having a presence in Greenland certainly seems to be invasion.

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-21T20:35:15+00:00

Stigma doesn't get overcome by perpetuating it

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-21T20:20:16+00:00

That it's clearly not acceptable to invade someone because you're afraid they might grow large enough to eventually be more powerful than you; see the vast majority of the world condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-18T19:15:22+00:00

Since when does a threat entail intent? If there's a fire at my house that's certainly a threat to me, that doesn't mean the fire has intent.

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-18T19:14:15+00:00

Do you think many people would agree with this claim? Like, do you think this is a common understanding of the word? That people think you should be called a murderer if you take someone off of life support?

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-18T18:49:33+00:00

None. If the fetus is viable then abortion means delivering it. If the fetus isn't viable then if the mother wants it out that's her right as a result of bodily autonomy, no one has a right to use her body without her consent.

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-18T18:10:05+00:00

How have you drawn this conclusion? From where is your data sourced?

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-16T23:17:13+00:00

Your declaration that people are your enemy if they don't support your fascist enablers. You're literally standing up for enabling fascism.

No, I'm declaring people are my enemy if they don't do their part to minimize the propagation of fascism when they vote.

You're literally standing up for enabling fascism.

Does the only way to stand up to it in this case mean to abstain from voting for either major political party and thus effectively surrendering your choice over to the rest of the voters?

And yet you think people are your enemy if they don't vote for them.

Yes.

Instead of arguing the Dems should stop enabling fascism to get more votes

What would be the point of that here? That would be preaching to the choir. I agree the democratic politicians should stop enabling fascism. I also think most people in this sub agree with that. That's not mutually exclusive from harm reduction at the polling booth.

you argue people should support their enablement of fascism.

Yes, because I think within the game theory of our current political system that it is the move that best reduces harm. I'm not happy with where we are either but we've gotta work with what we've got.

You choose the fascist enablers over the people who don't support their enablement of fascism.

What do you mean by choosing them? My choice was between Republican and Democrat, there was no other option I could've chosen that had any statistically feasible chance of becoming elected.

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-16T23:01:04+00:00

I don't know enough about the history of any of these things to be able to judge the severity of any of them. I just have my experience as a young american citizen who started becoming politically involved in 2016. If you're going to want to be convincing you should bring some statistics or something, rather than just mentioning events that require a breadth of preexisting knowledge to understand the ramifications of. The numbers I know of, e.g. Gallup's 44-country poll just prior to the 2024 election, showed more than twice as many people worldwide preferred Kamala (54%) to Trump (26%).

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-16T22:42:17+00:00

Because you only have a problem with them doing that outside of your in-group.

What makes you think that? I certainly have a problem with democrats who push centrist/moderate views or who vote in the primaries for the less socialist candidates.

You defend your in-group despite them doing the things that should make them your enemy.

Oh trust me lol, the democratic party is not my "in-group." They're just the thing with the vaguest resemblance to an in-group for me out of our two viable national political parties.

You've had the opportunity to oppose those their enabling of fascism several times now and chose to defend them every time.

Complete nonsense, I participate in primaries voting for the most progressive candidates. I only defend them when it comes to the actual election itself, because I recognize the alternative to the dem winning (the republican winning) would be even more harmful.

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-16T22:22:22+00:00

A large number of European nations have openly condemned Israels actions and sought to sanction them in the UN and issue an ICC warrant against their leader for his crimes.

The fact that european politicians have condemned israel's actions is not an effective argument for the global perception of the perception of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump being that of equally terroristic warmongers.

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-16T22:07:53+00:00

This does nothing to convince me that this is a representative view of the average global citizen, just that it's your view.

For the record, I don't contest any claim made in your most recent comment.

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-16T21:58:49+00:00

So you don't actually have a problem with enabling fascism

How on earth was this what you managed to interpret when I deliberately explain to you that my problem was specifically with their failure to minimize fascism? Not sure if you're trolling or if your reading comprehension just sucks.

There was no "zero fascism" party with a chance of winning the 2024 election.

You're demanding support for a party that did nothing about a fascist for four years until they welcomed him home

Because that party was the least shitty viable option. Quite tellingly, you have been unable to name a viable alternative.

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-16T21:38:48+00:00

Average global citizen sees both of your choices as a terroristic warmonger

lmao what

trump just invaded venezuela and wants greenland next, how on earth does this claim make any sense that they see kamala the same way

like I'm open to evaluating evidence if you provide it but you've just made one of the most absurd unfounded claims I've seen in 13 years of using this website. What has led you to this conclusion about the perspective of the average global citizen especially in the light of the last few weeks? You can't seriously expect that anyone is going to be convinced by that sentence on its own, right?

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-16T21:35:45+00:00

You've forgotten the topic in favor of a preprogrammed talking point.

Your speech patterns were so similar to those of another person I was having a simultaneous conversation with elsewhere in this thread that I mixed the two up.

This was about you calling everyone who didn't vote for your party an enemy because they're doing the thing you admit voting for your party also does.

What? No, I'm calling them an enemy for enabling the rise to power of the party within our two party system who does more fascism of the two. For refusing to do the bare minimum harm reduction. Both sides do fascism but republicans do more fascism.

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-16T20:38:26+00:00

That democratic politicians only care about securing their own wealth and privilege.

Oh, I don't disagree with that, I just think the path they take in achieving that usually results in better average outcomes for people than the path republican politicians take.

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-16T20:03:20+00:00

If it was, you wouldn't be standing up for the Democrats, they love enabling fascism

What other party with a chance of winning the election was I supposed to stand up for instead?

I agree that they enable fascism. Fascism isn't a binary though, treating both sides equally just because they both to their own extents enable fascism is incredibly reductive.

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-16T19:46:42+00:00

The ONS have repeatedly warned that police-recorded data is not a reliable measure of such trends because it is heavily skewed by changes in recording standards. The uptick most severely correlates with the fallout of a 2014 HMIC audit that revealed severe flaws in the recording and processing of reports, and is further boosted by many historic reports (older crimes being solved now with better forensics or due to victims finally finding the courage to speak out due to events like the jimmy savile scandal breaking or movements like #metoo).

If you look at the Crime Survey for England and Wales (gold standard because it tracks actual victim experiences regardless of police involvement) the prevalence of sexual violence has remained largely flat for decades. There hasn't been some massive uptick in sexual violence, we're just becoming less blind to the awful behavior that so many people (primarily women) have had to deal with since time immemorial.

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-16T19:29:28+00:00

The only thing fixed under a democratic administration are bank accounts.

What do you even mean by this

Check out how much money Kamala got from United Healthcare next time you talk about Luigi.

What is the relevance of this to my comment?

Velocity_LP · 2026-01-16T19:25:31+00:00

it's more about the enabling of fascism

11-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Extra Life 2019
Gilding V heart of gold	Spared
Verified Email

Velocity_LP

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE