They also want to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another”. — NOS4A2

Where is that quote from?

Edit: let me rephrase, are you sure 1. you quoted them correctly (hint: no) and 2. that you understand what they're saying once you do quote them correctly?

Yeah, how about doing that instead of equating their training to what BLM actually stands for. Not that there is anything wrong with Marxism to begin with but different discussion. And it's clear as day what the point of dredging up a video from 2015 has to do in this discussion. Distraction and poisoning the well.

What BLM pursues is a conservative goal. They demand black people should not have their constitutional right to freedom be violated through excessive force, racial profiling and over-policing of their communities by the police. Defund the police is the policy proposal they believe best reaches that goal. One wonders why people keep objecting to the goal and you'd expect conservatives and Republicans to support it as well. So there's a lot of resistance against a basically conservative demand to respect constitutional rights by Republicans. Is it coincidence Marxists founded BLM instead of Republicans? Or do Republicans perhaps not care about constitutional rights? Or, as I suspect, do they need their racist white base to win any election at all?

Justice sacrificed for power.

*dumb blonde mode one*

It's like as if American has less words today, you know?

*mode off*

And are they ineffective? — ssu

Too early to tell. But with all the symbolic victories and limited, coordinated efforts to resolve the underlying issues, it may very well be it will once again be ineffective. The effectiveness of both peaceful protests and violent riots has been limited in the US.

Is it really the race riots? I think the vast amount of legislation ending segregation and Jim Crow was given before the worst riots, which were sparked by the assassination of Martin Luther King. You should tell us why my understanding that the Civil Rights movement was mainly non-violent resistance is wrong. — ssu

How many race riots were there during Jim Crow? Oh yeah, quite a lot. There was a relative quiet spell after the war until the early 60s. In the 60s the first riots started in 1963, before the first draft of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act and before the assasination of JF Kennedy. Kennedy initially wanted to stay out of the "civil rights mess" and it was only after the escalation in Birmingham in May 1963, civil rights got on his to-do list. There's a riot that directly influenced the leader of the nation to do something about the underlying causes.

It was Lyndon B. Johnson who had the Act passed in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act wasn't passed until 1965. King was assasinated in 1968. Most of the riots were the year before (the long hot summer). But yes, riots also broke out after his assassination.

UN sanctions on Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime are a bit off this topic in my view. — ssu

Off topic? Why? Because sanctions have proven to be so effective to cause regime change? Oh wait, they don't. And as if Kim Jong Un, Saddam and all the other "recipients" of the sanctions live(d) lives of less luxury? Oh wait, they didn't. Does it cripple entire countries' economies and kill people? Yes they do.

It does the exact same thing as a riot and tries to affect change too. The moral calculus is the same but somehow burning down a building is worse because of "property rights"? You've got be kidding me. I do hope we are capable on a philosophy forum to discuss ethics without relying on the law, which has fuck all to do with justice to begin with. As any lawyer worth his inflated fee should know.

EDIT: Riots in the 1960s, by the way, were because Southern racist pricks refused to adhere to the 1954 SC decision in Brown v. Board of Education that concluded racial segregation in education was unconstitutional. So for nearly 10 years the State stood by and did mostly nothing. It wasn't until June 1963 that Kennedy actively started intervening.

I'm not buying this. Non-violent protest is preferable if it's effective but violent protests is preferable if nonviolent means are ineffective when pursuing justice. As to the whole reciprocity argument, it doesn't fly.

There's only a few options here:

1. the people don't have a just cause, so they do not get the support they need and nothing changes and they're caught (RAF);
2. the people don't have a just cause, but they are part of a fascist state that supports or condones it nonetheless (KKK terrorism, Apartheid beatings and killings);
3. the people have a just cause, but they do not get the support they need or the State apparatus is too strong and nothing changes and they're caught (HK protesters);
4. the people have a just cause, they get the support they need, change is affected (race riots of the 60s).

Where does your reciprocity fit in? If we're against change but we're in category 3 or 4, we are on the wrong side of the divide. Tough luck. History will judge us. I also find it rather unlikely to happen any way. Or are we know going to pretend justice, equity and fairness are such ethereal concepts that, for instance, HK protesters should have a nice rational debate with the PRC because the PRC actually has a reasonable position?

What the majority of people actually think about the perceived (in)justice matters more than any property rights in that respect. A society that perpetuates injustice cannot cherry pick to have some of its rules respected; they're all contributing to injustice as they regulate the system in which the injustice is upheld, perpetuated or caused. Burn it down if people prefer order over justice. Society doesn't deserve to exist and people have no right to safety if they deny it for others. In your view slaves wouldn't be allowed to destroy their masters crops and house. In fact, there's a moral duty on their neighbours to burn the place down if he doesn't listen to reason. The fact their neighbours don't act, make them fair game.

Now, these are more extreme examples than what is currently happening in the US but the categorical opposition against property damage is just wrong, both ethically and historically it should be rejected. And no, this is not a defense of opportunists, obviously. However, if corporate America and half of the politicians think "taking a knee", no longer casting "white people" to voice "black cartoon characters", or no longer having "master bedrooms" and all the other symbolic bullshit happening is "making a difference" then they sure as hell deserve a molotov cocktal through their window at some point.

The white man will try to satisfy us with symbolic victories rather than economic equity and real justice. — Malcolm X

What's worse is that these law and order types love their boycotts and sanctions, which indiscriminately affect entire societies and cause tremendous economic damage and death. Less visible than a fire. Just look up how many kids died in Iraq due to lack of medicine resulting from the sanctions. But that's perfectly fine because it respected property, right? In reality, they might as well have torched the hospitals. The ethical equation doesn't change here, only the imagery does.

The Dutch government has once again reiterated it will not apologise for its slavery past because it would be polarising. :vomit:

Apparently some people feel that if the government, as representatives of the State (legal) entity the Netherlands, apologises, that then they are being blamed for the sins of their forefathers. But this is not the case. It's an apology on behalf of the State who existed back then and exists now and is the same legal person. An apology will go a long way when we can admit that the fucking "Golden Age" of the Netherlands was build on slave labour and slave trade (plus robbing resources and killing indigenuous people).

How hard is it to say "my forefathers were assholes and I'm sorry that happened to your forefathers"?

But isn't that a bit arbitrary? I mean, the Netherlands is tiny with a relatively homogenous culture compared to the USA. Most things are international for us because our neighbours are just a stone's throw away. Moreoever, the right of self determination often stems from a cultural or ethnic group inside national borders; so not very international.

I think both approaches should be reconciled with each other. I'm not going to deny individual autonomy but there's a point for me where collective pressure is such that I don't think punishing individuals makes sense unless they actually had power to influence events. So we sentenced Nazi leaders but not Nazi soldiers. It's not as if the BLM movement is actively encouraging riots; compare that to a President who was actively encouraging shooting US civilians.

At the same time it (property damage) is used as a distraction by those opposing change. So how we deal with it also becomes a tactical issue.

And in a way, people that voted for an obvious racist are complicit even if they didn't vote for him because of his racism, they allow the system to exist where such a person is not only electable but actually became the president. That is a betrayal by citizens of their fellow black citizens. Enough to deserve to possibly get your house burned down? Probably not.

But the reverse is there too. Those that were betrayed and are discriminated against. Enough that in anger they might burn or loot buildings, or even in desperation? Apparently. So I can't condemn it and for tactical reasons I will defend it (by deflecting back to the actual issue). I also, maintain that the threat of violence is a viable method to affect change and private property is not an absolute (pace unenlightened above).

Dutch budget for the entire Netherlands: 6.1 billion USD (today's exchange rate) per year until 2022. NYPD was 6 billion and will go back to 5 billion USD. 17.3 million people in the Netherlands vs. 8.4 million NYC residents. US figures for police budgets really are astronomical.

To which the Chinese Ambassador already reacted as if it was the worst insult ever. Fuck the PRC.

Yes, this is not the first time this has happened with laws. Some countries accept universal jurisdiction over human rights cases as well and then there's the US FATCA regulation. It appears to be the relatively new normal.

I don't see sufficient awareness with most Europeans for any type of action being likely. A statement here and a statement there and in a few months everybody will have forgotten while thousands of protesters will rot in jail.

There's nobody here defending the PRC so not much discussion to be had I'm afraid. I read this thread though. It's good the UK is offering a special visa regime I suppose but that's not really going to solve the problem.

He doesn't want to answer because he realises any answer will trap him in an inconsistent position.

The revolution is here.

Huh? No, the objective is that black people aren't murdered by cops in public on film - among other things. Not these shitty meaningless slogans that made for kindergarden children. — StreetlightX

I think you're missing the point ssu is trying to make. Of course you need consensus. It's precisely why, despite good beginnings you say this:

Some here think there's a huge transformation underway, yet I'm not yet sure about it. It's positive though. — ssu

I suspect, you're not sure because you're not sure there's consensus in enough governmental bodies to make an effective and lasting difference. Or that the momentum that's causing a lot of people to change their opinion, or maybe not so much change but to have the white moderate majority finally speak up, will get lost.

In any case, I think we can agree that far reaching reforms of police that is supported by Republicans and Democrats alike is better than such reforms only being supported by Democrats. Or that it becomes an identity politics issue and as a consequence automatically marginalised.

The whole "they took our jobs" skit is economically unsound. In my example, did I get a head start or do you think there's a level playing field?

The rest of your post is just a straw man. I haven't spoken about a solution yet. I have spoken about historic injustices and how they have been perpetuated instead of resolved and I've talked about society taking responsibility not holding white people responsible.

Some nice examples of ongoing racism in US society.

I've also somehow been having productive conversations with Benkei lately. — BitconnectCarlos

I thought so too.

It's a bit of a tangent but since you're coming now from the individualist side on these topics I'm wondering about how some things works in your moral framework. What do you make of the right to self determination?

Every child can become an orphan. — Tzeentch

So? What's the return for society to help orphans? By your own criteria that it "must benefit society" we shouldn't be helping them.

And I'll remind you: every child could be black.

Reparations do not alleviate poverty, because it does nothing to address the root causes of poverty. — Tzeentch

I never argued for reparations. In the example between you and I, where I took everyhing yesterday and today "we're all equal" I argued that the fact that no reparations would be paid meant it perpetuates injustice since the damage you suffered is not undone. The benefit I hold is not rightly mine as a result. Now, if you look at that from an intergenerational point of view and when you understand inheritance inequality, then the injustices from 400 years ago continue to exist in light of the fact that minorities are disproportionally poor to this day.

The vast, vast majority of people will drive a car in some point in their life, and good infrastructure is an important factor in economic prosperity. For example, roads also make sure your grocery store can be stocked with food every day. — Tzeentch

Uhuh... so it's fine as long as a majority wants something? And there's plenty of people who want less roads or different roads or at least NIMBY. It's mostly people who pay for it but companies that benefit from infrastructure. Also, you can have a working road system by only having users pay for it by using toll roads as it used to be done. So really, for the "benefit of society" is, as I said before, arbitrary.

I don't think I need to explain the benefit to a society for having a working justice system. Besides, everyone can become a crook or a victim, so again there is no exclusion. — Tzeentch

You could have a user-pay system for court systems as well. Except the poor wouldn't be able to afford it. But hey, fuck them right? Because alleviating poverty doesn't work any ways and in any case it infringes on my individual property rights.

There's a very good reason why court systems are open to all and it's not "for the benefit of society" unless of course this isn't a purely economic calculus but includes that it's to the benefit of society to have a just society. Except, when I argue for a just society to rectify past injustices that to this day affect people living now, causing them not to have the same opportunities than those people whose grandparents actually benefitted from the past injustices then I must conclude that "justice" isn't part of your calculations.

But we can go on. Food-stamps, only benefit the poor. Welfare, only benefits the unemployed. Pensions, only benefits people who get old enough. Education, only benefits people that have the capacity to study. Etc. Etc. Yet, all of these things are implemented due to a sense of social justice, which differ according to culture and history throughout the world.

As you know, I don't believe the existence of systemic racism follows from whatever data has been presented. — Tzeentch

You already agreed that blacks are disproportionally poor, incarcerated and killed in the US. You're not clear on what caused or causes that. That's not an argument against the existence of systemic racism.

Now we are talking about reparations which you brought up. I'll gladly talk about why I believe it is a terrible idea.

I didn't bring it up. You raised that straw man all by yourself.

Your mindset is totalitarian, even if you don't realize it. Being in favor of forcing people to pay for a crime they didn't commit, because of some misplaced sense of justice. You believe justice for some is more important than justice for others. You discriminate, based on personal preference, and think it would be good government policy. — Tzeentch

I haven't even mentioned specific policies yet so this is just you making stuff up. I'm in favour of social justice and believe pursuing social justice is more important than money.

Let's try again.

In the past white people took everything from slaves. These slaves were predominantly black. For 250 years everything was taken from them. For 250 years, white Americans benefitted from their labour. Then in 1865 it was abolished.

Let's start from there, aside from the wealth amassed for 250 years and passed on within then white communities through economic activity (distribution) and inheritance, they also received 300 USD per slave (on average) that's about 8,000 USD now (which in itself is an interesting redistribution of wealth from non-slave owners to wealthy slave owners). Slaves didn't receive anything.

I consider that an injustice do you? Black slaves suffered where white people benefitted, or not?

For 250 years slaves could not accumulate weath and distribute it among their communities or inherit from each other. This had a huge influence on the socio-economic development of slaves directly caused by the teribble racism from which white communities benefitted.

I consider that an injustice do you? Black slaves suffered where white people benefitted, or not?

Let's ignore everything that has happened since 1865 for a moment and to what extent continued racism held former slaves back.

That 300 USD in 1865, if they put that in a bank account, would be worth 2,509,156 USD today (at a compound interest of about 6% annually). An unjust benefit. There were almost 4 million slaves in 1860. Just based on the remuneration you're talking about 10 trillion USD today.

At least 2 million slaves went before that in the 250 year period but with much larger periods for compounding, you can imagine we're talking about at least a 20 trillion USD benefit today. Certainly some of that has trickled into black communities through economic activity since the end of segregation but before that, minimally so.

Former slaves meanwhile put all their savings in a bank account as well, that accrued to 0 USD today. But totally fair right because we're all under the same rules.

Dince 1865, former slaves only had labour to put in to create wealth and allow that to accumulate between generations. There have only been 5 generations since 1865 (30 years per generation). There's no way that it was possible for black people just using labour to generate 20 trillion USD of wealth today.

And this is reflected in the wealth gap between blacks and whites. White people hold about 10 times as much wealth as black people today.

My point is that nearly nothing has been done to remedy the injustices of the past, that this has disproportionally benefitted white people and disadvantaged black people and that this felt today. Indeed white people cannot claim a moral right to those benefits as the acquisition of that wealth was originally unjust. Yes, white people today cannot be blamed for the sins of their grandparents, but the converse that they therefore deserve what they have does not follow. Black people can largely not be blamed for their own socio-economic situation and they sure as hell don't deserve it. Given these two moral assessments, doing nothing perpetuates injustice.

And this is just the economics of the story. There was the rape, the beatings, the killings, the lynchings, the prohibition to learn to read or write, etc. And all the outright racism that happened well into the 60s in the US.

Dealing with crime benefits the whole of society, and crime takes place, for the most part, in the present.

Making Americans pay reparations for slavery would be no different from forcing someone's grandson to pay compensation for a crime their grandfather committed. Unthinkable! And sadly, indicative of the totalitarian mindset that plagues much of the left nowadays. — Tzeentch

Yawn. That's almost an argument. First you cherrypick. How does helping orphans benefit society as a whole? Second, since when does alleviating poverty not help society as a whole? Third, since when is that a criterium to begin with? Roads only benefits people who drive cars. Courts only benefit crooks, lawyers and victims. Healthcare only benefits the sick. Etc.

In other words "what benefits society" is a totally arbitrary measure you pulled out of your ass to avoid actually having to think about how to solve systemic racism.

And then to top it off we get the "totalitarianism" faux shock cum straw man. Jesus.

The treasury department sent $1.4 billion worth of stimulus payments to dead people. The direct payments, which were approved as part of the $2 trillion coronavirus relief bill, were sent to more than 1 million Americans who had already died, the Government Accountability Office said in a new report. - guardian

Do I write so strangely for you to miss the point I'm trying to make? Who are the people in power in businesses, politics and governmental positions? There's a certain type that makes success in life much more likely. The more boxes you check, the higher the chances.

How many rich, white men have had to worry about being grabbed in the ass in the first place at work? And then had to agonize about whether to lodge a complaint with HR and how that will affect the rest of their career?

How many rich, straight men have had to worry about whether they can talk about their dat from last night at the coffee corner? How many gay men have to worry about not mentioning that date was another guy for fear of being judged, shunned by colleagues or passed over for promotion?

How many transsexuals do you know in leadership positions?

How many US presidents have there been that were not openly religious? How often do politicians invoke God in the US? In the Netherlands this is reversed. We do not want openly religious political leaders. So even if we know they are religious, we do not accept them to be openly religious.

How many rich, white men know what problems you encounter when you can't read? Or have problems with simple arythmetic.

These are the same clueless white men that decide on policies and priorities.

Justice for Breonna Taylor and Elijah McClain. If you can stomach it: https://youtu.be/q5NcyePEOJ8

OK, but we cannot change what has happened so I guess what we do now still is the most important. Yet this begs the question: just what you mean by being actively anti-racist? — ssu

As a white man? I'd say it's using our white privilege to forward the agenda of oppressed people mostly by ensuring they are heard.

Just watch how most of this stuff normally plays out. Black people complain about a certain issue affecting their communities. Nobody listens or cares for years. Random white person (usually in the media) picks up on it and uses their reach to put the subject on the agenda. White person is celebrated for his stand against injustice. Black people are still not heard.

In HR management there's a very clear distinction between diversity and inclusivity. The US (and the Netherlands) are diverse countries with a lot of different minorities but most minorities aren't heard because their voices are not included in the narrative playing out in the media. This is reflected in our government, civil servants and business leadership as well: you need to be white, male, straight, religious (secular in NL), married, from an upper middle class family or better and have a university degree and then you'll be considered for the higher position. These people don't know what it's like to be discriminated against for being black, female or LGBQT, poor, (a)religious or uneducated. And that's why most of the problems affecting those people aren't solved.

Even worse is that a lot of these men think "they know what's going on on the ground".

I don't think people who never partook in slavery owe anything to people who were never slaves. Notions that such would be the case have no place in a free society. — Tzeentch

I always find this a rather amusing viewpoint. Nobody partook in a crime either except for the criminal and his victim, yet we go out of our way to pay for police, find the culprit, give recourse for the victim via courts and build prisons. Nobody partook in causing orphans except for bad luck or bad parents but we pay for orphanages. We don't owe victims or orphans anything. But we do it anyways because as a society we chose to correct injustices. It's called taking responsibility and it requires some empathy.

In fact, putting people in historical categories based on nothing other than their skin color is, ironically, quite racist. — Tzeentch

:brow: Watch it.

Not to mention, the US government has already tried this through various programs and they have all had adverse effects, mostly benefiting those who didn't really need it and destroying the chances of those that did. — Tzeentch

Previous bad policy is no excuse to not pass good policy now. Totally irrelevant.

This totally misses the point. Systemic racism is not about "intent" or people "purposefully" doing things now to disadvantage blacks. Let's say yesterday it was legal to take all your shit and today we're like "oh, let's be buddies and be equal" but you still can't have your shit back. Are we really equal? Or did I get a nice headstart thanks to your old shit?

Without actively undoing past injustices the new rules of today perpetuate the historic injustices and thereby the new rules while they apply to us equally disproportionally affect you negatively while benefitting me positively because they don't force me to pay reparations.

So even if police brutality statistics can be squarely traced back to the socio-economic circumstances of black people and higher crime rates today then they are there because the system did not and never did anything to make black people equal. That's, in my view, still a form of systemic racism as I consider any social organisation that disregards how we got here as not taking into account history and such things as inheritance inequality. In other words, it's not enough for a system not be racist, you need to be actively anti-racist. This is why I have likened systemic racism as an emergent property before in this and the other thread.

Or put differently, even if the social rules were a perfect model of fairness, if you put rubbish in, you get rubbish out.

Otherwise war is just murder and soldiers are just murderers. — BitconnectCarlos

Exactly. I've always found the just war tradition a convenient excuse for murder. There's an intent behind the theory that's laudable but it's practical implementation has been one of cynical abuse.

The only worthwhile rule to remember is reciprocity. Don't do unto your enemies what you don't want them to do to you or your people. Which is why nowadays it's perfectly fine to torture American soldiers since apparently subsequent US regimes have condoned it. But I digress.

I'm not sure in any case if it makes sense to apply just war doctrine to a situation like this. A group of people is slowly murdered and looted with impunity, it's "enemy" is the society they live in and are supposed to be a part of. It's all rather academic since a majority of people in the US seem to be ready to embrace some of the changes necessary.

Even so, let's take the examples of the Jews in 1940. Your argument that it wouldn't be effective isn't an argument against the moral right of the Jews back then to bomb and burn buildings indiscriminately as they were murdered indiscriminately by the State apparatus supported by the German people; either actively or by doing nothing.

And there's a parallel there with modern times in that it isn't enough to not be a racist but to be actively anti-racist. It wasn't enough not to be a Nazi but to be anti-Nazi. That's the only way to stop racism.

Yes.

But then again there is disproportionately more crime done by African Americans than by whites. Of course in a similar way we could argue that in any country (yours or mine) it's the poor that are disproportionately the "customers" of the police as seldom is it the rich people mugging people or stealing things. — ssu

And they are disproportionally poor because...?

The question then becomes, where does the income disparity come from?

According to Thomas Sowell, a lot of this can be attributed to failed government policy. Programs like the welfare state and affirmative action did more to hurt the communities they were intended to support. Unintended effects were, for example, the subsidizing of poor life choices. African-American communities were hit especially hard by these government failures. — Tzeentch

Let's assume this is all true. This is different from systemic racism because...? Or do you agree there's systemic racism but think people are not clear on the causes yet?

What's actually misused in these debates is the inability for people to make a coherent argument and instead of that post videos from which their interlocutors are apparently to derive their point. I'm not playing it again because I already did that with your previous video and apparently inferred the wrong point. Time for you to make an effort then.

Let's go back a few steps. Are blacks disproportionality killed by police and incarcerated in the US or not?

What's the cause or causes according to you if not one of the two options I provided?

I already did. You cannot infer what you wanted to infer about systemic racism within the police in their interactions with suspects from the way police treat victims. That's not an issue with the study, it's an issue with using the study for a conclusion it doesn't support.

Obviously if certain ethnicities are overrepresented in certain crimes like homocide, that needs to be taken into account when judging the numbers, even when it is a 'rate'. — Tzeentch

You need to be careful with this too due to Simpson's paradox.

In any case, I think it's irrelevant as to the question if there is systemic racism in the US. We know blacks are disproportionaly killed and incarcerated in the US. Let's assume the police are not biased. Let's assume the criminal justice system is fair. Blacks are still disproportionally killed and incarcerated. So either that's

a) due to race essentialism because blacks have a propensity for crime, or
b) something about the way society works or has worked causing the disparity (eg. systemic racism).

Simpson's paradox. Look it up.

Wrong. So you put out a blurb referencing a survey, which I then look up and read, share with you, you allege I haven't read and then you don't even now the universe of respondents after I literally quoted it word for word from the latest survey? Disingenuous much?

Edit: again, what's the universe of respondents?

I did and I'm not questioning their methodology. I'm questioning the conclusions you think you can derive from it.

So again, what's the universe of people questioned as part of the PPCS?

Because victims and perpetrators are treated the same by police?

Is he talking about this : https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=251 ?

Universe: Respondents aged 16 years and older to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) during the last six months of 2011.

So people who were victims of a crime that either went to the police, were then approached by the police or were involved in a traffic accident and we are to infer no systemic bias from that?

And how are those means and capabilities comparable? We're talking not about foreign powers clashing but citizens being murdered by the society that's supposed to protect them. The ius in bello calculus becomes totally different. So yes, terrorist acts by Jews causing mass casualties among citizens who do nothing as their fellow countrymen are slaughtered would've been totally justified by the time they started the concentration camps.

I said this earlier with Baden: Even Jews in 1935-1936 wouldn't have been justified in destroying local German businesses (ones unconnected with Nazism) because even in war there are valid and invalid targets. — BitconnectCarlos

And in 1939, 1942 or 1944? When exactly was it justified for them to attack the society murdering them with impunity?

And perhaps he fears that he will be in court in no time if he isn't a President. — ssu

One hopes.

You expected that because...? He doesn't want to look like a loser at any cost.

What's going on with the prosecutor Berman? He resigned but he didn't?

Piracy for the win.