Quote Originally Posted by zinderel View Post
Religious bigotry IS a problem. And it is a problem with very clear perpetrators - white, 'Christian' men in nearly every case - that are NOT the victims of bigotry themselves. Look at how many black churches get burned in America still, or all the horrific defacements at Jewish cemeteries, the shootings at mosques, the spread of lies about Judaism and Islam, not to mention other non-Christian faiths, at the hands of 'Christian' pastors and prea hers and talking heads, or the way Muslim politicians in America get treated by supposedly 'Christian' ones.

More important than religious bigotry, though, is bigotry protected and encouraged by religious fervor. When your religion dehumanizes others, when your religion wants to get away with breaking laws - or creating laws - in order to freely abuse other citizens based on one interpretation of religious dogma, when your religion, the dominant religion of the nation, preaches conquest, hatred, blatant lies, and the eradication of all other faiths, that religion becomes a problem to be addressed.

WHATEVER THAT RELIGION IS.

That isn't bigotry against your religion, that is society saying rightly that your religion is toxic and has no place in the civilized world the rest of us are trying to live in. Many, MANY Christian's draw inspiration from Christ's teachings about community, love, justice, hope and support. They are not the issue, nor are they who I speak against when I rail about American, Christian excess and evil. Don't use your religion to justify bigotry or law-breaking, and it's not a problem to me what God or gods you worship.

Also...

How is 'Black Lives Matter' tied to religious bigotry? And what a shock that police unions boycotted someone criticizing their regular murdering of unarmed black men and the subsequent coverup and attempts to cast innocent men as 'thugs' or criminals. That freedom to murder black men is why Black Lives Matter started, and Ben & Jerry are doing just fine without the money of corrupt murderers and bullies, and the people that make excuses for them.

Are there good, non-racist cops? Absolutely! There are many, maybe even most! But they are part of a system that demonizes victims, abuses it's power, closes ranks to protect corruption, and creates class traitors who turn on and police their own neighbors in order to protect the rich from the poor rising up.

#ACAB isn't about literally all cops being bastards to a one. It is about the corruption inherent in the system, and judging those who take part in that corrupt system for doing so.
If #ACAB isn't meant to be understood as a statement that All Cops Are Bastards, this does suggest a communication problem when statements aren't meant to be taken literally.

Quote Originally Posted by jetengine View Post
I suggested that Mets because (to be frank) Americas corporate system is a hell of a lot worse then here in the UK. Half the **** you guys do we'd never wven consider. So if 100,000 is what we can do, you guts will easily overshoot it.

As for what kind of oversight I'd support ? Well how about listening to a fucking doctor? That'd be a good start. Only employ trained medical professionals for these assesments if you can since a bureaucrat cant even begin to understand half the issues some people have.

Secondly make it as neutral as possible, as soon as a guy with an R next to his name becomes president you shouldn't have the system suddenly try to scrape every bit of cash it can by denying seriously ill people their money.

I think the issue at core though is the same conservative talk piece though about the terror of the "Leech like benefits cheat" rather then the more realistic issue of "Rich people and companies that dont pay their tax". Apple or Amazon alone easily dwarf any number of benefits cheats.
The British system has not killed 100,000 people.

Quote Originally Posted by PaulBullion View Post
Does any cost/benefit analysis of nuclear power include how much it costs to keep nuclear waste safe from stuff like terrorists and earthquakes for 80,000 years? It seems like borrowing money from our ancestors to consider it "cheap" in any way. And the measures taken to protect it for tens of thousands of years also don't come without a carbon footprint.
The point on nuclear energy is in response to people who see climate change as likely ending the world in the next 12-100 years.