|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
2774 Posts
Article does in fact have a point, if you wish to actually read it. And yes this does in fact prevent hate from breeding and festering even more. Although people are quick to seek differences in political affliations instead to paint their pictures. Shame.
|
I think the point might have mostly been about timing... it is a bit questionable. Like, let's know his motives before an article like that - for all we know he had secretly converted to Islam.
|
So about the Vegas shooter not being ISIS. We may want to give that some time. A lot about his story doesn't make even a lick of sense and it seems like he was living a double life. ISIS is claiming he converted 6 months ago. Nobody he knew even knew he had this massive weapons stockpile. This is NYT's lead ISIS reporter who reads all of ISIS's materials and she found only 3 of 60 of the last 'ISIS' attacks were false positive claims by ISIS. If this turns out to be convert terrorism ... hey we might get gun control yet.
Giant twitter image:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 06 2017 10:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2017 10:17 Danglars wrote:
Slate magazine, reminding us to look on the bright side of this tragedy. If the shooter had been brown or Muslim an awful lot of innocent people would be getting victimized right now. With a white shooter the American majority will immediately absolve whites of blame in a way they would not for any other group. So yeah, this is better than the alternative. Fewer people getting fucked.
This is actually a good point, though true for all the wrong reasons.
|
Plot twist: Trump sells Puerto Rico to a country willing to rebuild it.
|
Julian Assange ladies and gentlemen
|
|
|
At least the new 280 character limit is coming in handy. He would've had to make another tweet to get the word out before.
|
On September 27 2017 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:08 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 06:07 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:On September 27 2017 04:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You call it a discomfort fetish, but you don't have to feel discomfort if you speak up for equality for all, ignore the racists charges and refute them at every turn if they are applied directly to you, and don't shy away from topics you are uncomfortable with, you'll be just fine. I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing. It's not a discomfort fetish, it's a simple recognition of the fact that if you try to protest in a way that doesn't upset people, it won't get you anywhere. It's a very simple logical chain. If people are perpetuating an oppressive status quo, especially if it's by choice, saying something that doesn't upset these people in the context of the status quo almost necessarily means you're not actually addressing any issues. You're not trying to upset people just to upset them, you simply have to recognize that when you're out protesting and spreading your message, people are going to be upset with you. Are you saying that the only way to get across your point is to upset people? I thought we live in a civilized society where people can calmly look at the situation, not get emotional, and mitigating collateral damage. Turns out you can't address white privilege without melting some snowflakes. But you can minimize it. People don't even attempt to be logical and go straight emotional to get their message across. Its the same thing as those religious people that goes "God hates fags! You are going to hell!". Except you are condoning it, because it is from the "right side". People would take you a lot more seriously if you argued with their points, and not strawmen set up to be exaggerated versions of their points. Maybe people do what you say. Don't take them seriously. No I wouldn't. It's clear he's arguing from a staggeringly ignorant place and that ignorance is only matched by his confidence in that ignorance. @"Calling out racists is counterproductive crowd": You realize using that logic there is absolutely no reason that black people should want their white opposition to enjoy the same rights they do? If being called "racist" is supposed to be a remotely legitimate reason for not wanting black people to have the same rights there's a long list of worse shit for black people. I mean xDaunt you told me to "get back on a boat back to Africa", of course I wouldn't know what part since white Amerikkka stripped my lineage of any history or context with Africa, destroyed my family lines, and killed any of us that they found smart enough to advocate their own freedom. Here's the thing, despite calling oppressed people "vermin", or telling black people like myself or Coats they should get on a boat back to Africa, or claiming racism isn't a big deal, I still think xDaunt deserves the same rights I should have because I'm not a petty elementary school child. The great tragedy here is is that I understand and even accept the bolded part above, but we can't get to a discussion on how to deal with it given the toxicity that the Left injects into the debate. Suck it up Suzy, and do the work. Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 07:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 07:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:12 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 07:02 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2017 06:54 Simberto wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul.
To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness.
Attacking the structures that keep that in place is a direct threat to those who benefit from it. That's why it's always going to upset them no matter how you do it.
[quote]
If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there.
If you get pissed off enough to want to RUN OVER another HUMAN BEING because they are blocking traffic (Republicans are trying to make this legal) , imagine how pissed we are about not having our rights? I am getting this feeling now, too. There just does not seem to be any protest that is in any way acceptable. I personally can barely imagine a tamer protest than taking a knee. This has literally no impact on any other people. And apparently that is still too much. Taking a knee is completely nonviolent, does not disturb anything, the only effect it does have is that people have to look at a guy on a knee instead of standing. If this is not acceptable, it seems very clear that the problem is not the way of the protest, but the actual subject. Which is weird, because apparently being a Nazi is an acceptable ground to protest, but being black and not content with the civil rights situation is not. You're still confusing what you have the right to do, and what forms of protest advance or hurt the cause. When a lawyer represents a client clearly guilty of the murder, we don't say he's pro-murder or is apathetic about murderers. But when it's neonazis marching in the streets, suddenly free speech and free assembly go out the window. It's a clear poisoning of the debate. Nope, it's just hypocritical for you to defend the rights of Nazis to speak on one hand, and on the other cry out that NFL players taking a knee is disrespectful to the country, and that they should just play the game. does the average american consider Ben Shapiro a nazi, white-supremacist? I'd suspect not. He does help advance arguments that aid in keeping white supremacy structures in place though. On September 27 2017 07:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:59 m4ini wrote:On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:
[quote]
If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection.
Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise. Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me. I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police. Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work. I always find this part mindbogglingly idiotic. Yeah. I will see your viewpoint, and on top of that, i will not give the slightest of shits because i'm pissed off since you potentially make me miss an important meeting/job interview/doctors appointment/prevent me from picking up my kids from school. It's like arguing that to get the attention of a police officer, instead of calling him over you should throw sticks at him. Yeah, you will get his attention, but not the way you intended to - and certainly not the reaction you apparently expected either. Interrupting the lives of people who have nothing to do with whatever you're protesting will not help your cause, it will in fact hurt it. The people in traffic will get pissed off, and your opposition to whatever you're advocating will have a field day pointing out what a menace you are to the public. If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there.
No, it really isn't. It's not like everyone lives a perfect white persons life, people have their own problems too. But it's a very suiting way for you to argue, "if you get angry because people fuck up your day, YOU are the problem". Fuck off. lol. See? You're angry about me pointing out getting angry and irrational about a traffic protest indicates that you don't appreciate why they are protesting in the first place. If you did, then you would expect them to do much worse than interrupt traffic. On September 27 2017 07:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul.
To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness. why do non-white people continue to flock to the USA if things are so bad? i have a close friend and colleague who is iranian. he went from Baghdad to Toronto. His first decent job offer in New York state and he is gone. Guy was making $10,000 USD a month in Toronto... and he couldn't leave fast enough. or is Iranian considered white? are jews white? my gf has 4 great parents who are white and 4 who are non-white. is she white? is white just a social construct? Legally, yes, Iranian is white. Jews pass for white all the time. Yes white is a social construct meant to dehumanize and subjugate those deemed "non-white". The US and other influential countries have exploited lots of places around the world, it would make sense for the people to want to follow where the wealth generated from their country went (and would also make sense why they try to send it back). how much wealth is Syria generating these days? For the MIC? Billions. so should Ben Shapiro be free to speak? great, if the Syrians do not like it here in Canada they can leave. if they commit crimes they go to jail. Sure, and people should be able to protest his speaking. I literally have no idea where this Syrians in Canada thing is coming from but I imagine that's an option for some and less so for others. I mean that's how it usually works for poor people (the wealthy or connected not as much, but I can't speak much to Canada's justice system). Considering the minimal information I know about indigenous people of Canada, I can imagine you guys have you're own problems with bigotry, though different than the US. everything here is just fine. people who want to be lifelong victims can find a reason to complain about anything though. I doubt that, but I don't doubt your sincerity in believing it. EDIT: For instance, this sounds kinda familiar: Show nested quote +A Canadian government minister has suggested that as many as 4,000 indigenous women have gone missing or been murdered over the past three decades.
Patricia Hajdu, minister for the status of women, said research from the Native Women’s Association of Canada put the figure much higher than the 1,200 mentioned in a 2014 report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).
Hadju said a lack of hard data made it almost impossible to reach an accurate figure but 4,000 could be correct because of a history of police underreporting murders or failing to investigate suspicious deaths. Source
Can you admit that maybe white ppl like me are so poor they are threatened to be evicted every month? Even while working as hard as they can with 12+ hour days? The issue I'm concerned with is socioeconomic, not racial. And until someone can point me to a black person making what I make struggling with more than I struggle with...I have my wages garnished every month by college loans. Honestly I'd rather be shot and killed by a cop than live in my god forsaken existence right now.
|
That Buzzfeed article on Breitbart is pretty fantastic. Then again it's not shocking to anyone with any sense or intellectual honesty. Hopefully nazis and nazi sympathizers can start to be extinguished now that its plainly obvious what is going on. This BS has gone on long enough.
|
On October 06 2017 11:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Plot twist: Trump sells Puerto Rico to a country willing to rebuild it.
Tell him he can add it to his infrastructure plan.
"So many jobs."
|
Billionaire Tesla founder Elon Musk says that he believes he can rebuild Puerto Rico’s power grid with batteries and solar power.
“The Tesla team has [built solar grids] for many smaller islands around the world, but there is no scalability limit, so it can be done for Puerto Rico too,” Musk tweeted on Thursday. “Such a decision would be in the hands of the PR govt, PUC, any commercial stakeholders and, most importantly, the people of PR.”
Tesla has already done similar battery and solar power projects with the Kauaʻi Island Utility Cooperative in Hawaii and in American Samoa.
Both projects were designed to supply power for much smaller populations than Puerto Rico, however. Still, the Tesla CEO is confident that his company’s existing operations can be scaled up to meet larger demand.
Currently, under 10 percent of the country has power. Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló said on Monday that it could take one month to restore power to only a quarter of households in the country.
The Puerto Rico state owned electric company says that some households be without power for four to six months. Any Tesla solution would likely be aimed more toward the long-term, rather than the immediate restoration of power that's required.
Tesla, however, has sent hundreds of its Powerwall batteries, which collect and store solar energy, to help provide power more immediately to Puerto Ricans.
Source
|
TLDR Elon Musk every time: For a small sum of $2421534 Billion I will deliver a fantastical product to you over budget and behind schedule.
|
Wouldn't doubt if it's not him anymore.
|
On October 06 2017 12:19 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 07:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:08 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 06:07 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing. It's not a discomfort fetish, it's a simple recognition of the fact that if you try to protest in a way that doesn't upset people, it won't get you anywhere. It's a very simple logical chain. If people are perpetuating an oppressive status quo, especially if it's by choice, saying something that doesn't upset these people in the context of the status quo almost necessarily means you're not actually addressing any issues. You're not trying to upset people just to upset them, you simply have to recognize that when you're out protesting and spreading your message, people are going to be upset with you. Are you saying that the only way to get across your point is to upset people? I thought we live in a civilized society where people can calmly look at the situation, not get emotional, and mitigating collateral damage. Turns out you can't address white privilege without melting some snowflakes. But you can minimize it. People don't even attempt to be logical and go straight emotional to get their message across. Its the same thing as those religious people that goes "God hates fags! You are going to hell!". Except you are condoning it, because it is from the "right side". People would take you a lot more seriously if you argued with their points, and not strawmen set up to be exaggerated versions of their points. Maybe people do what you say. Don't take them seriously. No I wouldn't. It's clear he's arguing from a staggeringly ignorant place and that ignorance is only matched by his confidence in that ignorance. @"Calling out racists is counterproductive crowd": You realize using that logic there is absolutely no reason that black people should want their white opposition to enjoy the same rights they do? If being called "racist" is supposed to be a remotely legitimate reason for not wanting black people to have the same rights there's a long list of worse shit for black people. I mean xDaunt you told me to "get back on a boat back to Africa", of course I wouldn't know what part since white Amerikkka stripped my lineage of any history or context with Africa, destroyed my family lines, and killed any of us that they found smart enough to advocate their own freedom. Here's the thing, despite calling oppressed people "vermin", or telling black people like myself or Coats they should get on a boat back to Africa, or claiming racism isn't a big deal, I still think xDaunt deserves the same rights I should have because I'm not a petty elementary school child. The great tragedy here is is that I understand and even accept the bolded part above, but we can't get to a discussion on how to deal with it given the toxicity that the Left injects into the debate. Suck it up Suzy, and do the work. On September 27 2017 07:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 07:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 07:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:12 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 07:02 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2017 06:54 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
I am getting this feeling now, too. There just does not seem to be any protest that is in any way acceptable.
I personally can barely imagine a tamer protest than taking a knee. This has literally no impact on any other people. And apparently that is still too much. Taking a knee is completely nonviolent, does not disturb anything, the only effect it does have is that people have to look at a guy on a knee instead of standing. If this is not acceptable, it seems very clear that the problem is not the way of the protest, but the actual subject. Which is weird, because apparently being a Nazi is an acceptable ground to protest, but being black and not content with the civil rights situation is not. You're still confusing what you have the right to do, and what forms of protest advance or hurt the cause. When a lawyer represents a client clearly guilty of the murder, we don't say he's pro-murder or is apathetic about murderers. But when it's neonazis marching in the streets, suddenly free speech and free assembly go out the window. It's a clear poisoning of the debate. Nope, it's just hypocritical for you to defend the rights of Nazis to speak on one hand, and on the other cry out that NFL players taking a knee is disrespectful to the country, and that they should just play the game. does the average american consider Ben Shapiro a nazi, white-supremacist? I'd suspect not. He does help advance arguments that aid in keeping white supremacy structures in place though. On September 27 2017 07:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:59 m4ini wrote:On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me.
I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police.
Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work. I always find this part mindbogglingly idiotic. Yeah. I will see your viewpoint, and on top of that, i will not give the slightest of shits because i'm pissed off since you potentially make me miss an important meeting/job interview/doctors appointment/prevent me from picking up my kids from school. It's like arguing that to get the attention of a police officer, instead of calling him over you should throw sticks at him. Yeah, you will get his attention, but not the way you intended to - and certainly not the reaction you apparently expected either. Interrupting the lives of people who have nothing to do with whatever you're protesting will not help your cause, it will in fact hurt it. The people in traffic will get pissed off, and your opposition to whatever you're advocating will have a field day pointing out what a menace you are to the public. If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there.
No, it really isn't. It's not like everyone lives a perfect white persons life, people have their own problems too. But it's a very suiting way for you to argue, "if you get angry because people fuck up your day, YOU are the problem". Fuck off. lol. See? You're angry about me pointing out getting angry and irrational about a traffic protest indicates that you don't appreciate why they are protesting in the first place. If you did, then you would expect them to do much worse than interrupt traffic. On September 27 2017 07:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul.
To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness. why do non-white people continue to flock to the USA if things are so bad? i have a close friend and colleague who is iranian. he went from Baghdad to Toronto. His first decent job offer in New York state and he is gone. Guy was making $10,000 USD a month in Toronto... and he couldn't leave fast enough. or is Iranian considered white? are jews white? my gf has 4 great parents who are white and 4 who are non-white. is she white? is white just a social construct? Legally, yes, Iranian is white. Jews pass for white all the time. Yes white is a social construct meant to dehumanize and subjugate those deemed "non-white". The US and other influential countries have exploited lots of places around the world, it would make sense for the people to want to follow where the wealth generated from their country went (and would also make sense why they try to send it back). how much wealth is Syria generating these days? For the MIC? Billions. so should Ben Shapiro be free to speak? great, if the Syrians do not like it here in Canada they can leave. if they commit crimes they go to jail. Sure, and people should be able to protest his speaking. I literally have no idea where this Syrians in Canada thing is coming from but I imagine that's an option for some and less so for others. I mean that's how it usually works for poor people (the wealthy or connected not as much, but I can't speak much to Canada's justice system). Considering the minimal information I know about indigenous people of Canada, I can imagine you guys have you're own problems with bigotry, though different than the US. everything here is just fine. people who want to be lifelong victims can find a reason to complain about anything though. I doubt that, but I don't doubt your sincerity in believing it. EDIT: For instance, this sounds kinda familiar: A Canadian government minister has suggested that as many as 4,000 indigenous women have gone missing or been murdered over the past three decades.
Patricia Hajdu, minister for the status of women, said research from the Native Women’s Association of Canada put the figure much higher than the 1,200 mentioned in a 2014 report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).
Hadju said a lack of hard data made it almost impossible to reach an accurate figure but 4,000 could be correct because of a history of police underreporting murders or failing to investigate suspicious deaths. Source Can you admit that maybe white ppl like me are so poor they are threatened to be evicted every month? Even while working as hard as they can with 12+ hour days? The issue I'm concerned with is socioeconomic, not racial. And until someone can point me to a black person making what I make struggling with more than I struggle with...I have my wages garnished every month by college loans. Honestly I'd rather be shot and killed by a cop than live in my god forsaken existence right now.
No I get it. But you also exemplify pretty well why the "colorblind" approach suggested by many "moderates" wouldn't work. "The issue you are concerned with is socioeconomic" which means once that part is resolved, your motivation for the necessity of reform fades. Meaning both socioeconomically and at the hands of the justice system PoC can continue to be oppressed and abused while the problem becomes a faded stain for folks like yourself.
Remember, it wasn't long ago when people on the left and the right would perpetuate the "it's not a big problem, look at the FBI stats" lie. If Black people stop focusing on the disproportionate abuse they suffer, so will white people. If there wasn't a problem for white people, then there wouldn't be "a problem" anymore.
Look at the very argument "you'll never convince them only talking about how police abuse Black people!" It's saying right in the argument "if this get's fixed for us we won't need to be your ally anymore".
It's far more extraordinary for the president to call one out than for a Governor to do it.
|
On October 06 2017 13:09 GreenHorizons wrote:It's far more extraordinary for the president to call one out than for a Governor to do it.
The part about this that's really sneaking up on folks is in the replies. People are letting Trump's insanity become the norm. Once his behavior is normalized, political discourse is going to take a large-scale turn for the worse for the foreseeable future. The situation we face is going to be steadily made worse when people decide to stop calling shit out for what it is.
|
I don't know about "almost all", but this is totally a thing.
Osmakac was the target of an elaborately orchestrated FBI sting that involved a paid informant, as well as FBI agents and support staff working on the setup for more than three months. The FBI provided all of the weapons seen in Osmakac’s martyrdom video. The bureau also gave Osmakac the car bomb he allegedly planned to detonate, and even money for a taxi so he could get to where the FBI needed him to go. Osmakac was a deeply disturbed young man, according to several of the psychiatrists and psychologists who examined him before trial. He became a “terrorist” only after the FBI provided the means, opportunity and final prodding necessary to make him one.
Source
|
On October 06 2017 12:19 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2017 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 07:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:08 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 06:07 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 27 2017 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
I call it a discomfort fetish because it is a discomfort fetish. People see other people being uncomfortable as a virtue, something to strive for because it's supposed to "open their mind." An organization marching for "no more extrajudicial killing" who helps support individuals who go out on a police-murdering spree makes me feel uncomfortable too. But it'd probably be better if that weren't a thing. It's not a discomfort fetish, it's a simple recognition of the fact that if you try to protest in a way that doesn't upset people, it won't get you anywhere. It's a very simple logical chain. If people are perpetuating an oppressive status quo, especially if it's by choice, saying something that doesn't upset these people in the context of the status quo almost necessarily means you're not actually addressing any issues. You're not trying to upset people just to upset them, you simply have to recognize that when you're out protesting and spreading your message, people are going to be upset with you. Are you saying that the only way to get across your point is to upset people? I thought we live in a civilized society where people can calmly look at the situation, not get emotional, and mitigating collateral damage. Turns out you can't address white privilege without melting some snowflakes. But you can minimize it. People don't even attempt to be logical and go straight emotional to get their message across. Its the same thing as those religious people that goes "God hates fags! You are going to hell!". Except you are condoning it, because it is from the "right side". People would take you a lot more seriously if you argued with their points, and not strawmen set up to be exaggerated versions of their points. Maybe people do what you say. Don't take them seriously. No I wouldn't. It's clear he's arguing from a staggeringly ignorant place and that ignorance is only matched by his confidence in that ignorance. @"Calling out racists is counterproductive crowd": You realize using that logic there is absolutely no reason that black people should want their white opposition to enjoy the same rights they do? If being called "racist" is supposed to be a remotely legitimate reason for not wanting black people to have the same rights there's a long list of worse shit for black people. I mean xDaunt you told me to "get back on a boat back to Africa", of course I wouldn't know what part since white Amerikkka stripped my lineage of any history or context with Africa, destroyed my family lines, and killed any of us that they found smart enough to advocate their own freedom. Here's the thing, despite calling oppressed people "vermin", or telling black people like myself or Coats they should get on a boat back to Africa, or claiming racism isn't a big deal, I still think xDaunt deserves the same rights I should have because I'm not a petty elementary school child. The great tragedy here is is that I understand and even accept the bolded part above, but we can't get to a discussion on how to deal with it given the toxicity that the Left injects into the debate. Suck it up Suzy, and do the work. On September 27 2017 07:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 07:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 07:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:12 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2017 07:02 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2017 06:54 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
I am getting this feeling now, too. There just does not seem to be any protest that is in any way acceptable.
I personally can barely imagine a tamer protest than taking a knee. This has literally no impact on any other people. And apparently that is still too much. Taking a knee is completely nonviolent, does not disturb anything, the only effect it does have is that people have to look at a guy on a knee instead of standing. If this is not acceptable, it seems very clear that the problem is not the way of the protest, but the actual subject. Which is weird, because apparently being a Nazi is an acceptable ground to protest, but being black and not content with the civil rights situation is not. You're still confusing what you have the right to do, and what forms of protest advance or hurt the cause. When a lawyer represents a client clearly guilty of the murder, we don't say he's pro-murder or is apathetic about murderers. But when it's neonazis marching in the streets, suddenly free speech and free assembly go out the window. It's a clear poisoning of the debate. Nope, it's just hypocritical for you to defend the rights of Nazis to speak on one hand, and on the other cry out that NFL players taking a knee is disrespectful to the country, and that they should just play the game. does the average american consider Ben Shapiro a nazi, white-supremacist? I'd suspect not. He does help advance arguments that aid in keeping white supremacy structures in place though. On September 27 2017 07:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2017 06:59 m4ini wrote:On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me.
I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police.
Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work. I always find this part mindbogglingly idiotic. Yeah. I will see your viewpoint, and on top of that, i will not give the slightest of shits because i'm pissed off since you potentially make me miss an important meeting/job interview/doctors appointment/prevent me from picking up my kids from school. It's like arguing that to get the attention of a police officer, instead of calling him over you should throw sticks at him. Yeah, you will get his attention, but not the way you intended to - and certainly not the reaction you apparently expected either. Interrupting the lives of people who have nothing to do with whatever you're protesting will not help your cause, it will in fact hurt it. The people in traffic will get pissed off, and your opposition to whatever you're advocating will have a field day pointing out what a menace you are to the public. If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there.
No, it really isn't. It's not like everyone lives a perfect white persons life, people have their own problems too. But it's a very suiting way for you to argue, "if you get angry because people fuck up your day, YOU are the problem". Fuck off. lol. See? You're angry about me pointing out getting angry and irrational about a traffic protest indicates that you don't appreciate why they are protesting in the first place. If you did, then you would expect them to do much worse than interrupt traffic. On September 27 2017 07:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul.
To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness. why do non-white people continue to flock to the USA if things are so bad? i have a close friend and colleague who is iranian. he went from Baghdad to Toronto. His first decent job offer in New York state and he is gone. Guy was making $10,000 USD a month in Toronto... and he couldn't leave fast enough. or is Iranian considered white? are jews white? my gf has 4 great parents who are white and 4 who are non-white. is she white? is white just a social construct? Legally, yes, Iranian is white. Jews pass for white all the time. Yes white is a social construct meant to dehumanize and subjugate those deemed "non-white". The US and other influential countries have exploited lots of places around the world, it would make sense for the people to want to follow where the wealth generated from their country went (and would also make sense why they try to send it back). how much wealth is Syria generating these days? For the MIC? Billions. so should Ben Shapiro be free to speak? great, if the Syrians do not like it here in Canada they can leave. if they commit crimes they go to jail. Sure, and people should be able to protest his speaking. I literally have no idea where this Syrians in Canada thing is coming from but I imagine that's an option for some and less so for others. I mean that's how it usually works for poor people (the wealthy or connected not as much, but I can't speak much to Canada's justice system). Considering the minimal information I know about indigenous people of Canada, I can imagine you guys have you're own problems with bigotry, though different than the US. everything here is just fine. people who want to be lifelong victims can find a reason to complain about anything though. I doubt that, but I don't doubt your sincerity in believing it. EDIT: For instance, this sounds kinda familiar: A Canadian government minister has suggested that as many as 4,000 indigenous women have gone missing or been murdered over the past three decades.
Patricia Hajdu, minister for the status of women, said research from the Native Women’s Association of Canada put the figure much higher than the 1,200 mentioned in a 2014 report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).
Hadju said a lack of hard data made it almost impossible to reach an accurate figure but 4,000 could be correct because of a history of police underreporting murders or failing to investigate suspicious deaths. Source Can you admit that maybe white ppl like me are so poor they are threatened to be evicted every month? Even while working as hard as they can with 12+ hour days? The issue I'm concerned with is socioeconomic, not racial. And until someone can point me to a black person making what I make struggling with more than I struggle with...I have my wages garnished every month by college loans. Honestly I'd rather be shot and killed by a cop than live in my god forsaken existence right now.
I don't know your situation, although it does sound pretty bad. Ironically, you may have just highlighted one very twisted downside of being white. Your suicide by cop is much more likely to fail than if you were black.
The fact that suicide by cop is even a thing at all in the US is horrific in the 21st century.
The racial and the socioeconomic issues are and have been entwined for hundreds of years, all the way back. It doesn't have to be this way, and the insistence on trying to split the two issues up is exactly why the socio-economic issue will be ignored.
The sentiment that it's at all okay for racial issues to be this bad is exactly the same sentiment that allows some underprivileged people to use emergency rooms as their only medical resource (how in the hell can that even be called civilized in the 21st century beats me), have whole communities of underprivileged people be turned into farms for fine money, the list goes on literally ad nauseam (yes, that includes crippling student debt and the twisted rules around that sort of debt).
|
On October 06 2017 14:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Osmakac was the target of an elaborately orchestrated FBI sting that involved a paid informant, as well as FBI agents and support staff working on the setup for more than three months. The FBI provided all of the weapons seen in Osmakac’s martyrdom video. The bureau also gave Osmakac the car bomb he allegedly planned to detonate, and even money for a taxi so he could get to where the FBI needed him to go. Osmakac was a deeply disturbed young man, according to several of the psychiatrists and psychologists who examined him before trial. He became a “terrorist” only after the FBI provided the means, opportunity and final prodding necessary to make him one. Source Again? First it was the CIA and their failed informant scheme in Afghanistan where Afghans would "inform" on their enemies and mentally ill to be taken away to Guantanamo Bay for monetary benefit, and now the FBI are doing the exact same thing, but on American soil. Ridiculous.
|
On October 06 2017 14:07 GreenHorizons wrote:I don't know about "almost all", but this is totally a thing. Show nested quote +Osmakac was the target of an elaborately orchestrated FBI sting that involved a paid informant, as well as FBI agents and support staff working on the setup for more than three months. The FBI provided all of the weapons seen in Osmakac’s martyrdom video. The bureau also gave Osmakac the car bomb he allegedly planned to detonate, and even money for a taxi so he could get to where the FBI needed him to go. Osmakac was a deeply disturbed young man, according to several of the psychiatrists and psychologists who examined him before trial. He became a “terrorist” only after the FBI provided the means, opportunity and final prodding necessary to make him one. Source
Thankfully the RCMP here got smacked down hard when they tried to do the same kind of sting setup in BC. Not very often that an entrapment ruling goes all the way through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
