Harrison Danneskjold

HD, Thanks for coming back. As for the wager, forget about it.

Space Debris Has Hit And Damaged The International Space Station
As the size increases, the quantity probably decreases in general, until getting to tracked size of 23,000 softball sized or larger. 
Roughly 2.22 x 1010 sq. kilometers of area, excluding a "thickness", at just under geosynchronous orbit (radius of 42,000 km.)

That is the question. The objection is that being in the courtroom, or being an actual juror, was some kind of advantage to discovering the truth in this case. I, however, think it was a disadvantage.
This is similar to the point Mr. Nelson made about perspective. The jurors were limited to their in-the-moment perspective, particularly regarding witness and expert testimony. The human mind can only take in and retain so much information, which limits its ability to integrate and evaluate a large body of evidence. I, however, was not limited to an in-the-moment perspective. When I became overwhelmed by the trial testimony, I could pause the proceedings, think critically about what I had heard and observed, notice fine details, and reach a greater understanding of the evidence. I could replay any confusing testimony. I wasn't in a stressed mindset, where I had to put aside confusions and push through mental fatigue or distractions. When I got confused, tired, or unfocused by other thoughts, I paused and took a break at my leisure. I was in a peak, objective mental state for nearly the whole trial. I'd call it a "free time" perspective. I could watch the live recording or rewind to history or stop and think freely about the evidence, even contemplate what the defense or prosecution might say or ask in the future. 

The fentanyl was at a possibly lethal level, but the meth was at a low level. One problem is that Floyd might have developed a high tolerance for fentanyl. Also, he was not found at home. There were other known factors. The fentanyl intoxication, however, is substantial grounds for reasonable doubt.
 

It should be said that the rioting started up anew towards the tail end of this trial, prompting a whole new round of curfews across Minnesota. In conjunction with the severed pig's head at the residence of one of the witnesses (etc) it seems fairly obvious what happened here.
 
Chauvin was attempting to deal with an unreasonable and uncooperative individual, who was already in the process of dying (please remember that his drug dealer feared legal liability for this). He used less force than would've been permissible under the circumstances and called an ambulance in the attempt to save Floyd's life.
Remember that our epistemic standard here is reasonable doubt. The defense did not have to prove that the balance of probability was on their side (although they seem to have done so anyway); all they had to demonstrate that the case for his guilt was not entirely airtight. The defense showed that we can't even be certain what role Chauvin played (if any at all) in the causal chain leading to Floyd's death; if we have reason to suspect that Floyd might've expired in precisely the same way, regardless of the police presence or absence, then we have reason to doubt the whole damn thing right down to the root.
And yet, in the words of Dear Leader Maxine Waters: "guilty, guilty, guilty".
 
This was a human sacrifice to appease the mob. And it didn't even work (as no form of appeasement ever does); no sooner had Chauvin's blood started drying on the altar than they found a new martyr to riot for: teenage knife fights!
That last is not hyperbole. A black teenager was just shot in the act of attempting to stab another black teenager (whose black life does not seem to matter after all) and resulted in a discussion of whether we need our police to prevent teenagers from stabbing each other.
 
I'm not sure how much track is left ahead of this crazy train.

I'm not going to speculate on the motivations of the jury members. I do know, however, that if I had been on the jury, I would have feared for my life, and I would have been deeply concerned by my vote's potential impact on the mob. Still, I like to think that I would have voted not guilty, because that's what I believe after closely watching the entire trial.
If Chauvin didn't cause Floyd's death, then he's not guilty, plain and simple. And I don't think Chauvin caused the death. At least, I don't think the state proved that he did.
I'm not a pathologist, so to a large degree I must rely on the opinions of the experts. I found Dr. Baker and Dr. Fowler to be the most reliable and trustworthy in terms of the cause of death. Baker, who actually did the autopsy, said that "the law enforcement subdual, restraint and the neck compression was just more than Mr. Floyd could take by virtue of those heart conditions." The prosecution attempted to downplay the role of the heart conditions, but Baker made it clear that when he placed other significant conditions on the death certificate he was saying that he thought they contributed to Floyd's death. "You don't list trivial stuff that didn't play a role."
I was most impressed by Dr. Fowler, who said that "Mr. Floyd had a sudden cardiac arrhythmia due to his arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease ... during his restraint and subdual by police." I recommend listening to Fowler's testimony if you want to understand what happened.
I think the defense should have stressed how Floyd irrationally resisted the police and over-exerted himself by refusing to get in the police car. Floyd then continued his irrational behavior on the ground, kicking and struggling, while saying he couldn't breathe when clearly he was breathing for several minutes on the ground.
What made Floyd act so irrationally and communicate his problem so poorly? I think that's where the drugs and criminality enter the picture. First, he was not sober, and therefore wasn't thinking clearly. Rather than remain calm and think and communicate precisely, he panicked and repeated nonsense. Second, he stupidly concealed his drug use when asked what he was on.
If Floyd had been sober he might have survived by simply sitting in the police car like a rational person would do. And if he had been honest about his drug use, perhaps the police could have known to give him Narcan or some other treatment. A sober Floyd might have also said something about his hypertension and heart issues. But then a sober Floyd probably wouldn't have panicked and resisted in the first place, knowing that he would risk his life by pushing his heart to the extreme.
I think Floyd was responsible for over-exerting his own body and causing his heart to fail. It's very possible that he did not realize what he was doing due to the cocktail of drugs in his system at the time. According to his friends in the car, he had been falling asleep moments before the police arrived, after being quite active and shuffling around in the food store. This suggests that the fentanyl had taken effect and his breathing was being chemically depressed. So when he resisted and struggled with the officers, his half-awake body was in no condition to sustain such a physical effort. To maintain such action would require more oxygen, which would mean faster, effective breathing. But from the experts we know that Floyd was breathing at a normal rate of 22 breaths per minute. He should have been breathing at 30 or more. I submit that 22 was all Floyd could achieve under the depressive influence of fentanyl. He should have been asleep but was compelled into wakefulness by the police interaction.
Many blame Floyd's breathing problem on the police restraint. The prosecution and the jury certainly do. And perhaps being held in the prone position exacerbated the problem, but I think the most reasonable and primary cause was the fentanyl, because Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe even before going to the ground.
Ultimately the police were in a bind of Floyd's own making. Floyd was a criminal who got the police called on him at Cup Foods. He wasn't taking his prescribed medication for hypertension. Instead he was taking illicit fentanyl and passing out in his car when he had just offered to drive his ex-girlfriend home. The police walked into a lose-lose nightmare. They didn't know about Floyd's health and drug problems. Reasonable officers would see a large, muscular man who appeared to be physically healthy apart from probably being on some unknown drug causing him to act strangely. Thinking excited delirium, reasonable officers would attempt to immobilize Floyd for everyone's safety. Obviously they wouldn't want to be kicked or bitten or exhausted themselves. But also there would be the risk of Floyd giving himself a heart attack, which is exactly what the police and one onlooker warned Floyd about while he was resisting.
It looks bad that the police maintained their restraint positions even after Floyd lost consciousness. Obviously the knee placement looks particularly bad from the viral video. But no evidence or testimony has convinced me that Floyd was asphyxiated due to the pressure applied by the police. I believe Dr. Fowler, who said, "Positional asphyxia is an interesting hypothesis unsupported by any experimental data." And I believe Dr. Baker who also didn't see pressure to the back of the neck that would explain asphyxiation.
Given Floyd's heart disease, hypertension, fentanyl intoxication and physical exertion, there is plenty of reasonable doubt to support a conclusion of not guilty. I think the defense blundered by not explaining the physical exertion issue better, but I'm not sure whether it would have mattered to the jury, and I'm not going to speculate.

One can't lose sight of the climate of intimidation outside the trial. The jurors are only human and as much as they likely wanted the verdict be truthful to the evidence could not have not known that their personal lives, families and associates were under very possible threat, and violent acts, egged on or covertly encouraged by pols and the rest would spread through the country at large. At very least they would suffer social and work ostracization from that point on. One has to feel sorry for them being placed in an invidious position, damned if they do .... The facts presented them didn't change what was already a fait accompli. They would have to find him guilty on all charges. Chauvin is guilty of manslaughter with aggravating circumstances. Murderous intent wasn't there, or wasn't obvious - nor was proven. A 10 to 15 sentence fits the crime, probably. This was trial by camera: everyone saw the clip, and the rest was details. Every armchair 'expert' has been swayed by his facial expression and "body language", which was all it needed. That he is a brutal person and a bad policeman has been turned into - and confirms - white men are racist, all police are rotten and racism is entrenched in the system. The verdict is an implicit admission of guilt of these contemptible allegations. There's how street justice gradually gains control over rule of law. Also how policemen will become afraid to act promptly and forcibly in defense of citizens or themselves.

I, too, am disappointed in the guilty verdict. Providing the epistemic justification requires being able identify and guide others through judicial landscape presented.
Thanks for providing the summation. It was nice having it in one place, unfolding as you presented it.

It's not the most egregious loaded question I have ever seen, and they can even serve a purpose for the person asking besides trickery. But the prosecution didn't need to worry much about it because it was successfully addressed and didn't continue as an issue. 
Driving him to jail still wouldn't be the only possibility, another would be that he would die of a drug overdose anyway. Better to answer in a neutral way to avoid a bias of any sort: "well, I do know that if this didn't happen, he wouldn't have died in this way". There are hidden premises in the question as phrased. If you ask me, at best, Nelson asked a poorly phrased question where he failed to extract an argument. It looks like perhaps he recognized that the answer was fair and moved on. But it was a potential way to find a new path for an argument so I don't fault for asking. 

Week two began with prosecutor Mr. Blackwell calling Dr. Bradford Langenfeld. Langenfeld treated Floyd at the hospital and pronounced him dead after resuscitation efforts failed. Blackwell asked if Langenfeld was told whether Floyd suffered a heart attack or overdose. The doctor answered no. They covered several medical concepts such as asystole (flatlining) and PEA (pulseless electrical activity). The prosecution once again noted that "cardiac arrest" doesn't necessarily mean that Floyd had a heart attack. It just means that the heart has stopped functioning. Langenfeld discussed various treatments he performed such as using ultrasound and a blood-gas sample in an attempt to diagnose Floyd's particular problem. His leading theory for why Floyd's heart stopped was hypoxia (lack of oxygen). He also considered an acidosis such as excited delirium, though he hadn't received a report of excessive sweatiness or agitation which is common in excited delirium cases.
On cross Mr. Nelson asked if fentanyl and meth (or a combination of the two) can cause hypoxia, and the doctor said yes. Langenfeld also confirmed that the blood-gas sample showed an "exceptionally high" amount of CO2. Normal range is 35-45. Floyd's was 100. So his blood was very acidic when the doctor took the sample.
Nelson made some general points through the doctor. High CO2 could mean that someone is not properly eliminating CO2 through breathing. It can cause people to have a sensation of shortness of breath. It can happen even without other stress factors involved. The doctor also agreed that fentanyl is dangerous because it suppresses the respiratory system. And Nelson asked about drugs having a more powerful onset if taken inter-rectally, but it wasn't clear why he raised this issue. Perhaps it will produce dividends later.
On redirect the prosecution asked Langenfeld if there was any indication that Floyd administered drugs inter-rectally. There wasn't. The doctor added more context to the blood-gas sample, explaining that because Floyd's blood had not been circulating for 30 minutes or so, his CO2 level would be expected to be higher than normal. Also, the issue of using Narcan to treat drug overdose had come up. Langenfeld said that Narcan only works if the heart is still pumping, so that's why he didn't give it to Floyd.
It had been pointed out that police carry Narcan in their emergency kits, but, as a bit of analysis on my part, the officers might also argue that they didn't use Narcan due to Floyd lacking a pulse. Furthermore they did not know Floyd's exact problem because he took measures to conceal his drug use from the officers.
Mr. Schleicher called police chief Medaria Arradondo next. After a long interview about Arradondo's work history and the various operations and outreach efforts of the police department, the prosecutor revisited some policy issues that have become a big part of the prosecution's case. They discussed "de-escalation," "medical care," "use of force," "critical decision making," "defensive tactics," "choke hold," "neck restraint," etc. After viewing the viral video, Arradondo concluded that Chauvin's restraint of Floyd was "not de-escalation, not a trained MPD defensive tactic." Per policy, it did not appear to be "light to moderate pressure" on the neck. He said it "violates policy" and is "not what we teach"; "once Floyd stopped resisting" the neck restraint should have stopped. It also "violated policy on rendering aid."
Mr. Nelson began his cross-examination by pointing out that it has been many years since the chief personally arrested someone. He then focused on the policy manual's repeated use of the "reasonableness" standard. Officers are required to perform certain duties such as medical care or de-escalation when reasonable. Nelson quoted the manual stating that the "reasonable standard applies to the facts and circumstances known by the officer at the time force is being used."
He and the chief agreed that minor incidents (detaining a suspect) can turn into major arrests. Earlier the prosecution used Arradondo to say that passing a fake bill is a minor, nonviolent offense.
Nelson then addressed the issue of defensive tactics, distinguishing between a "best practice" and an explicitly prohibited one. Just because a new tactic is being taught instead of the old one, that doesn't mean the old one is against policy.
Regarding de-escalation, Nelson then asked Arradondo if he agreed that "sometimes you have to display a weapon so that you can de-escalate ... the use of force can be a de-escalation tactic." The chief didn't quite like Nelson's formulation, and they agreed that it would be better to ask the training instructors about that aspect. This question seems pertinent to Chauvin brandishing mace to control the man who stepped toward him onto the street.
Nelson also established that the chief does not have a degree in physics and is thus not qualified to speak to the amount of pressure Chauvin applied to Floyd.
Finally Nelson introduced the concept of "camera perspective bias." He showed Arradondo two video clips of the same time period but from different angles. Looking at the clip from the viral video, the chief said Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's neck performing a neck restraint. But then Nelson showed him an angle from bodycam footage, and Arradondo agreed that Chauvin's knee was "more on Mr. Floyd's shoulder blade."
During redirect Arradondo said the knee was on the neck up until the paramedic arrived. But Nelson's point about the camera angle remained. Arradondo was basing his conclusion on a misleading camera angle which had just fooled him in the courtroom during cross-examination.
The final witness of day six was Katie Blackwell, a police inspector in charge of the training center where officers receive instruction throughout their careers. She testified that Chauvin's restraint was "not a trained technique." She was also used to introduce Chauvin's training records. On cross Nelson pointed out that the records don't break down all the various instructors and classes an officer might have had during, for example, an 8-hour unit of training. Frankly I'm not sure what to make of this issue regarding Chauvin's training. Even if Chauvin wasn't trained to do what he did, that doesn't mean he murdered Floyd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV4tMvr7xZY
 

To begin the fourth day Mr. Frank brought Floyd's girlfriend, Courteney Ross, to the witness stand. She told the story of how they met in 2017 at the Salvation Army where Floyd worked at the time. Frank used Ross to portray Floyd as a father and a "mama's boy." After Floyd's mother died in 2018, Ross said he became "a shell of himself," a "broken" man.
Floyd and Ross were both opioid addicts, using their own prescriptions and other people's prescriptions to acquire Oxycodone for pain. They also purchased pills off the "streets and the black market." Despite the drug use, she said Floyd was athletic, lifting weights and playing sports a lot. She didn't hear him complain about difficulty breathing.
On cross-examination Mr. Nelson asked Ross about Morries Hall, the man in red sweatpants who was sitting next to Floyd in the car. Nelson referred to a prior FBI interview in which Ross admitted that they bought pills from Hall. Ross, however, attempted to backtrack from these earlier statements, claiming she didn't recall saying them. Apparently she also had said that Floyd got heroin from Shawanda Hill, the woman in the backseat of Floyd's car that day, but in court Ross said she was only "speculating" for the FBI.
Nelson asked Ross about the time Floyd overdosed on opioids in March 2020, a couple months before he died. Floyd had complained to her that his stomach hurt and then she drove him to the hospital.
Also in March 2020 they bought some different pills which were a "really strong stimulant." They made her "jittery" and she "couldn't sleep all night." She told the FBI that sometimes Floyd was "up and bouncing around," other times he was "unintelligible." Nelson asked if she recalled telling the FBI that, a week before Floyd's death, she had taken some of the new pills and it "felt like she was going to die." Ross replied that now she "doesn't remember feeling that way."
Nelson then mentioned that sometimes couples have pet names for each other. This made Ross smile brightly, perhaps recalling fond memories. Then he asked what was Floyd's pet name for her. Under what nickname did Floyd list her in his phone contacts? Ross' smile quickly vanished from her face. She now glared at the defense attorney and answered, "Mama."
On redirect Mr. Frank felt the need to establish that Floyd also referred to his mother as "mama," but anyone with a brain scored that round for the defense.
Next the prosecution called the two paramedics, Seth Bravinder and Derek Smith, who responded to the incident. They arrived on scene about six or seven minutes after being dispatched. Smith was the lead who checked Floyd's pulse and pupils. He could not detect a pulse and Floyd's pupils were large. Smith testified that he thought Floyd was dead, and that Floyd's condition never improved while they worked on him in the ambulance. They did a "load and go," driving around the block to work on Floyd, because the spot in front of Cup Foods "didn't feel like a welcoming environment," according to Smith.
On cross, Nelson reiterated the point that sometimes overdose patients wake up violent, which is why police are called to assist EMS with such patients. Bravinder testified that he had personally seen overdose patients turn violent after being revived. Also when he arrived on scene he recalled seeing Floyd "primarily on his left side."
Nelson also pointed out that Smith was able to check for a carotid pulse even with Chauvin still in position over Floyd, suggesting that the knee was not blood choking Floyd.
During redirect of Bravinder the prosecution tried to establish that an opioid overdose would result in small pupils, but on recross Nelson asked if someone under the influence of meth could have large pupils, and Bravinder agreed.
The fire captain, Jeremy Norton, also testified, but I didn't find much relevance to it, except to establish that the firefighters were dispatched a few minutes after EMS and they arrived on scene after the ambulance had already moved around the block.
The final witness of the day, David Pleoger, was the police sergeant supervising the officers. He received the phone call from concerned dispatcher Jena Scurry and then called Chauvin about the use of force incident.
Mr. Schleicher of the prosecution team asked Pleoger about a couple police policies. Relating to "medical assistance" the policy is "as soon as reasonably practical, determine if anyone was injured and render medical aid consistent with training." Regarding "maximal restraint technique," the policy is "if a hobble restraint device is used the person shall be placed in the side recovery position." Pleoger stated that the side recovery position helps the person breathe easier. He said that the dangers of "positional asphyxia" have been known for a long time. Pleoger concluded that after Floyd stopped moving the restraint could have ended.
On cross Nelson emphasized the first part of the policy, "as soon as reasonably practical," and brought up the police's "critical decision making model," of which factors include size and state of the crowd, tactical or disadvantaged position, traffic conditions, etc. He suggested that rendering aid in a busy street might not be the best decision, and Pleoger said "right." It depends on the circumstances. Nelson also asked about the term "hold for EMS," but Pleoger said he wasn't familiar with it.

It should prove interesting to contrast Dr. Andrew Baker's eyewitness testimony of the cause of death with Dr. Michael Baden's and Dr. Alecia Wilson's later eyewitness testimony of the same.
Dr. Michael Baden's eyewitness autopsy testimony regarding Michael Brown was key in establishing the fact Brown was facing, not fleeing Officer Darrin Wilson when Brown had been shot in Ferguson, Missouri back in August 2014.

The Stop the Steal. Game.
When you open the game, text immediately says "the creator has been canceled, donate money to help save his freedom of speech!". That's it.
Very similar way to cash in on buzzwords without meaning anything. This is just what happens when you're free to make anything you want. You get a lot of trash.

Kristoffer Polaha played John Galt in the movie Atlas Shrugged. It's movie trivia to me, but a comment that arose from one of the viewers in the audience.

The trial started on Monday. Jerry Blackwell presented opening remarks for the prosecution's case. He argued that Derek Chauvin violated the police oath by using "excessive and unreasonable force" on George Floyd. He described Chauvin as "grinding and crushing" Floyd on the ground, and said that Chauvin "squeezed the life out of" Floyd. As evidence that Floyd died from asphyxiation, he said the video shows Floyd suffering anoxic seizures and agonal breathing from oxygen deprivation. He said pressure was maintained on Floyd's neck even after the police could not find a pulse. 
Blackwell then played the viral video and pointed out how often Floyd repeated that he couldn't breathe and was going to die. The video shows Floyd moving his right shoulder up, and Blackwell said this was to create space for Floyd's rib cage to expand so he could breathe while in the prone position.
As for the question of intent, Blackwell said the whole case would offer an "umbrella of intent." He mentioned the dangers of the prone position and how officers are trained to avoid putting pressure on areas above the shoulders, spinal column or neck, and the importance of the side recovery position. He told the jury, "You can believe your eyes that it's a homicide. It's murder."
Addressing the idea that Floyd overdosed on drugs, Blackwell said that you can see from the video that Floyd doesn't look like someone who would die from an opioid overdose, since Floyd was actively struggling and opioids put you in a stupor.
As for the idea of heart attack being the cause of death, Blackwell said Floyd's heart had no sign of damage.
Chauvin's attorney, Eric Nelson, then gave his opening remarks. He started with a soliloquy on using reason and applying common sense. He said 50,000 documents were generated pertaining to four different locations (the Cup Foods store, the Mercedes Benz car, police squad 320, and the Hennepin County Medical Center), so the case is about more than the nine minutes and twenty-nine seconds, the time Floyd was restrained on the ground.
Nelson pointed out that the Cup Foods cashier thought Floyd was under the influence of something. Prior to the police arriving, Floyd's friends watched him take pills and fall asleep in the car. According to lab results, those pills were likely speedballs (opioid and meth) manufactured to appear as Percocet. Nelson also said that Floyd put drugs in his mouth to conceal them from the police.
As for intent, Nelson said Chauvin used the maximal restraint technique he had been trained to use. And to cause, Nelson mentioned excited delirium. He said the autopsy revealed no evidence of asphyxiation, no petechial hemorrhaging or signs of mechanical asphyxia.

https://youtu.be/ssvSsMqTtjo
Kibbe on Liberty: Pandemic imprisoning and the culture war. Perspectives from Britain and the USA.
Great conversation.

Zuby noted how he liked to keep it real, as opposed to saying what he thought his audience might want to hear, and associated keeping it real as a contributing factor to his growing fan base. (around 20 minutes.)

Rand started writing AS on September 2, 1946. I don't suspect her of using numerology. Just self-reference.
The reason I think Chinese numerology might be relevant to Firefly is because the Chinese language and culture are components of the show. The Alliance is really a union of the American and Chinese core planets. So like all the other yin-yanging in the show, Whedon also depicted the West and the East joining together.
Yeah, that's a whole debate on its own. I don't think Fox understood or appreciated the show. The person who cancelled it, Gail Berman, said the show was expensive to produce and wasn't getting good enough ratings. But airing episodes out of sequence and in the "Friday night death slot" didn't help matters. Also, Whedon had to fight Fox over basic story elements. For example, Fox wanted a romance between Mal and Zoe, but Whedon stood firm and insisted that the Zoe-Wash marriage was important. 

Yes, I like to think I see most of the themes including freedom. I've watched the series and movie multiple times, but it's the sort of show where I notice something new with each viewing. I hadn't read the Wikipedia article by the way. The family theme hit me when I realized the brother-sister symbolism of Simon/River and Mal/Zoe. Also, if you're into numerology (which normally I'm not), you might find it curious that Simon and River both have five letters in their names, Mal and Zoe have three. In Chinese numerology 5 is either good luck (Simon) or bad luck (River). The number 3 means life and growth. Of course Mal is a nickname but I think it counts.
Big Damn Hero.
I see Wash as Mal's brother-in-law. He's not much of an uncle figure.
She's like the beloved housekeeper, keeping the ship's engine clean and running properly.
I see Jayne as that close associate who's not sure whether he wants to become part of the family or not. Kind of like Inara, who initially keeps her distance. Both of them take awhile to learn the value of family. Jayne ultimately takes on the tough but silly uncle role after his betrayal and repentence.

Back to the future. The discoveries of an unprecedented theory of concepts, a metaphysical basis for morality, treatises from the roots of war to it's counter-part in the yet unknown ideal provided by capitalism, await more minds that value them.
The Verunca Salts are singing "I Want It Now", while the Oompa Loompas are queueing up for their retort of " Who Do You Blame When Your Kid Is A Brat." 
 

The Bros. are good alright, I liked that one too. Not a hint of parodying the original. Watched 'Fargo' last night once more, like here, a very believable, strong-minded female role.  

"lies, damned lies and statistics"
The list of the top ten strongest men in the world, that is the ranking of the participants in the competition of the same name , not the actually ranking of the strength of men on earth .

Violence with sexual attraction; violence with humor. These achieve what the script writer wants, that we second-guess and negate the ugliness of violence to find hidden motives. Instead of violent acts being the last recourse, when reason has failed, violence is - normal. Or sexy or funny. It's in fact the substitute for reason. Which is why there's hardly a film made now that hasn't a fight scene in it: Muscles over minds.
 In a distorted pursuit of the hero values people inchoately still need, the last man(woman) standing *must* be somewhat better, 'heroic', than their antagonists, by definition. And all he/she did was beat them in combat.

Avoiding racism?  Heavens, no; I actually find actual racism to be quite funny.  Those are my favorite sorts of jokes!
Because actual racism is fucking silly!
 
 
Good night.