-
Features
#BLM find themselves another dindu: Mario Woods, 26, gangbanger
- Thread starter Derec
- Start date
Derec
Contributor
I have no problem with interracial dating/marriage so your baseless insults are just that, baseless.
But I do have a problem with political correctness, which is why I like descriptive terms like "dindu" which get faux-liberals' panties in a bunch.
- - - Updated - - -
So the term was coined or popularized in reference to an individual to whom the term very much applies (all the pro-Michael Brown narrative focused on how he didn't do nothing). How is that racist?
If a derisive term for criminals starts with a white thug, would that term then automatically be considered racist against white people? Or is it yet another example of racial double standards?
Derec
Contributor
He is undeserving of the support he is getting, of all the protests etc. In other words, he is undeserving of being a cause celebre. As I already wrote.
Not sure what you mean. Had he survived he'd certainly be deserving of getting prosecuted.
If you mean the cops, no they should not get prosecuted.
No compassion in the world erases the simple fact that he could have avoided getting shot by just dropping the damn knife. I mean how hard is that to do? Of course, had he done that he'd be going to jail. First for parole violation, and he'd also be prosecuted for the stabbing. So perhaps it was suicide by cop...or is that compassion?
Arctish
Centimillionaire
So long as it's two dudes, right?
Derec
Contributor
repoman
Contributor
At least it would prevent this grandpa from having to pretend to be happy:
fast
Contributor
repoman
Contributor
this is ridiculous, no shame at all:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,969
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
"Baseless"? :laughing-smiley-014 :laughing-smiley-014 :laughing-smiley-014
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
You like it because it is a racist term with a modicum of plausible deniability - just like your over-use of the word "thug" always and only for black people.
When you start regularly using either word for blue-eyed white men, then and only then will I believe that you don't mean it in a racist way (or that you are at least trying to hide the racism better)
Derec
Contributor
I disagree that it is a racist term. It is a term mocking thoughtless support for thugs like Michael Brown, Jamar Clark or Mario Woods, when they are killed by police.
Not surprising that you think that even such a race-neutral term is somehow racist. There are thugs of any race. But there is an unfortunate tendency in the black community and among white faux-liberals to give support to thugs who happen to be black. Michael Brown, killed after he attacked a cop after robbing a store, would never have become a big story if he was white. He'd still have died a thug though.
When there is a case of a blue-eyed white thug being defended by his family, friends, Twitterati and the white community at large as "having done nothing" when he clearly did do something then I think he would and should rightly be called a "dindu" as well. "Thug" only depends on one's own actions, but "dindu" by necessity also depends on how people react to one's thuggery.
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
Every case has people defending the innocence of the accused/victim* and insisting he was such a good boy... but you never do choose to use either word to describe the accused/victim, nor do you dig and dig and dig until you can find "dirt" with which to smear the accused/victim
* sometimes it is a person who has been or is being accused and/or arrested for a crime, but you do the same thing even when it is a completely innocent victim... if their skin is black.
Derec, you can protest the obvious all you want. As I said, you think by using "thug" and "dindu" you can pretend you are not using racist slurs, but given the context you consistantly choose to use them in you are not fooling anyone. That you even started this thread at all, and used that subject header is stomach-turning.
laughing dog
Contributor
The irony of Derec protesting that he "dindu" is overwhelming.
Derec
Contributor
Again, cases of white thugs getting shot by police rarely if ever lead to widespread apologetics for the criminal.
Take this guy for example. While clearly a thug, I don't think he's a dindu, at least not yet.
And I wonder if a bunch of people are going to be occupying a police precinct in Miami demanding "no grand jury", "indict killer cops", "bow down Bernie" and similar nonsense.
Well I am disgusted that violent thugs get turned into cause celebres and that hard-working police officers are demonized. And while there are thugs of all races, the posthumous stardom of thugs shot by police is very much race-based. But that is hardly my doing, is it now?
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
You are making up positions. No one here is celebrating certain people. It's their rights and lives that are important. Just like liberals will defend political speech of those with whom they disagree, they will also defend civil rights of thugs, other despicable people, and not-so-despicable people, like those whom no one else will defend. We used to be called nigger-lovers, now we're called terrorist sympathizers, but we're just standing up for values including life and liberty of individuals.
You, on the other hand, have no problem using words such as "dindu" and "thugs" to try to continue the oppression of people who should at this point in time be free. No one here is going to take away your right to speak, but we also all know who engages in that kind of talk.
Derec
Contributor
I said cause celebre.
That said, it is telling that this thread has been chiefly about whining and bellyaching about using certain words like "thug" or "dindu" and not much has been said about Sub Mario (opposite of Super Mario, get it?) or in defense of BLMers who are predictably calling it "murder" and even "execution". Maybe that's a sign that even they see that this latest BLM hysteria has no merits whatsoever.
But there is no evidence Mario's rights were violated. In fact there is plenty of evidence that he was a dangerous violent felon (he stabbed somebody which caused police to look for him, remember?) who refused the order to drop his knife and on whom non-lethal methods were attempted before deadly force was used.
And face it, the only reason BLM is championing his cause and the cause of the likes of Jamar Clark and Michael Brown is because of their skin color.
Big difference there. A person has a right to political speech, even and especially controversial speech. A person does not have the right to go around stabbing people and refusing to drop the knife when ordered by the police. In such a case police may use force, up to and including deadly force, to stop that individual.
I don't give a shit what Sub Mario's skin color is. He should have dropped the damn knife and let himself be arrested (face it, there was no possibility of a happy ending for Mario, at least not for a long while). If somebody calls police murderers simply because the shootee is black, then the racism problem lies with the "somebody", not with those that call them out on it.
Some people should not be free. I think Mario's own actions that day showed clearly that the parole board erred when they granted him conditional freedom because it only took him months to abuse it by stabbing someone.
Those that abhor political correctness. I see nothing wrong with calling thugs "thugs" and thugs who get apologetics that they didn't do nothing "dindus".
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Translation: you dindu nuffin
Derec
Contributor
Translation: you are still bitching about one word used in the OP rather than saying anything about the actual topic of the OP.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
What about in the whole thread, Derec? ...and your allegiance to the Internet dindus?
Derec said:
I'm not bitching. I'm just persistently responding to bullshit when I see it.