Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Derec]

No, the situation is entirely asymmetric. That’s what people like you who whine about losing your white male privileges will never get,

I am young enough that I never enjoyed "white privilege", certainly not when it came to preferences in education and employment.

because you can’t afford to. Unqualified, evil white boobs like Trump and Kirk have been getting affirmative action since the nation began.

Maybe "since the nation began" until 1960s or so. But since the 70s there have been strong preferences for women and certain minorities.

There are also "unqualified, evil black boobs" who have huge audiences, for example racist fuck Al Sharpton on MSNBC.

 

[Derec]

Weren't the individuals who supported the institution of slavery degenerates (and far worse than someone who simply had drug problems)?

You have to judge people by the time they lived in. I do not see why a great man like Thomas Jefferson should be cancelled just because he owned slaves, as did almost everybody of his standing at that time.

And with somebody like Abraham Lincoln, the hate is even more baffling. He played an instrumental role in ending slavery in the US.

Are you really going to tell me that he is degenerate, but "the hero of the movement" George Floyd is not?

 

[Derec]

It's been going on for a lot longer than that.

It really picked up steam then. Core 90s until 2010s were a rather peaceful time as far as civil unrest is concerned.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Weren't the individuals who supported the institution of slavery degenerates (and far worse than someone who simply had drug problems)?

You have to judge people by the time they lived in.

Nope, I don't. This is just an assumption.

 

[pood]

Why yes, yes it is in fact racist to assume that certain ‘slots’ are for whites only.

You (and ld) are misinterpreting Kirk's point here. What he obviously meant is a slot that would have likely went to somebody white if not for the pernicious practice of racial preferences, and people were treated as individuals.

Of course that is what he obviously meant — and it is racist through and through! How the fuck would he, or you, know that some “slot” would likely have gone to somebody white, without the hidden premise that non-whites would be unable to fill that particular slot because they “lack the brain processing power,” to use the odious little man’s odious words? If people were treated as individuals, and not as group skin colors, you have no evidence that this precious “slot” could not be filled by any number of nonwhite males.

When Kirk spoke of “slots” which he apparently thought white men were entitled to, he spoke the quiet part out loud: Our entire history has consisted of affirmative action for white men and white male privilege, and he wanted to keep it that way.

 

[Derec]

Which two?

We are still talking about the list from way back in post #97, right?

I already answered that back then: Sheila Jackson Lee, one of the dimmest bulbs in the already unimpressive chandelier that is US Congress, and Joy Reid, an annoying midwit commentator who pursued one of the easiest majors while at Harvard.

The other too, KBJ and Michelle Obama, I think are smart. But admission to schools like Harvard is a crapshoot even for well-qualified students, and those two were undoubtedly helped by Harvard (and similar universities) giving a preference based on their skin color.
Let me ask you this: why are you and other hardcore leftists so wedded to the concept of racial preferences? Why are you so allergic to the idea of treating people as individuals?

and the other two were still helped by racial preferences.

People like you have been helped by white male preferences since the nation began.

Wrong! Neither I nor any of my ancestors benefited from it.

I do not see why I should be paying for it now just because of my skin color just because some people who had a similar hue enjoyed advantages for it a long time ago.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sorry, but in this case he's basically correct.

It is racist to assume there is a “white person’s slot”.

You very conveniently failed to quote the rest of what I said, making it badly out of context.

 

[Derec]

Of course that is what he obviously meant — and it is racist through and through!

No, it is your position that is racist "through and through".

How the fuck would he, or you, know that some “slot” would likely have gone to somebody white, without the hidden premise that non-whites would be unable to fill that particular slot because they “lack the brain processing power,” to use the odious little man’s odious words?

It is pretty obvious that if you no longer give preferences to group A, and discriminate against B, then there will be fewer As and more Bs filling available slots.
I ask you again: why are you and your fellow leftists so allergic to treating people as individuals?

If people were treated as individuals, and not as group skin colors, you have no evidence that this precious “slot” could not be filled by any number of nonwhite males.

First of all, there are no physical slots as such - it's a rhetorical device. But if you treat people as individuals then the composition of the newly admitted class will be different than if you actively give preferences to certain groups. That's the whole point of these policies - to increase admissions of certain groups at the expense of others.

When Kirk spoke of “slots” which he apparently thought white men were entitled to, he spoke the quiet part out loud: Our entire history has consisted of affirmative action for white men and white male privilege, and he wanted to keep it that way.

Bullshit! But past discrimination is not a justification for discrimination in the present. You seem to think that if blacks were discriminated in the past, it's ok, laudable even, to discriminate against whites (and Asians) today. That does not follow.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm concerned about the increasing view among younger people that violence like this is justifiable and acceptable. It bodes poorly for our future.

Do you have any evidence that that view is increasing?

What Americans really think about political violence | YouGov

Most Americans say political violence is never justified, but younger and more liberal Americans are more likely to say it can be.

today.yougov.com

Was there a point to your cite? What I found interesting is that among Democrats the range of them who thought political violence was a big deal ranged from 44% to 58%. And that was mixed regardless of who was targeted... and yes it is a big deal because I forgot about the arson at Shapiro's residence. It is becoming like school shootings. Regardless, for Republicans, that range was 31 to 67 percent and heavily biased on the party targeted.

That graph seems more accurate than that 'being happy' after a death graph. However, there are some younger liberals that need to be sat down and talked to.

I kind of think my point was pretty much exactly your last sentence. Although I don't think it's just young liberals that need a talking to, it's also young moderates and conservatives - all of the <44 crowd are 2x as supportive of political violence than their older cohorts.

Did you look through the whole thing? The second question in particular is concerning to me: Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals? 19% of people aged 18-29 said it's justifiable, irrespective of their politics. That should concern all of us, a lot.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A bunch of quotes from [Charlie Kirk], including that black women lack the brain processing power to be taken seriously

Um, no, Kirk didn't say that. I watched the clip and what he said was that four specific individuals he named lack the brain processing power to be taken seriously. He did not generalize about black women. I can't say the HuffPost was actually lying -- it looks like HuffPost just uncritically reposted BuzzFeed's lie without bothering to do even the most trivial fact-checking: watching the clip to see whether Kirk said what BuzzFeed claimed he said.

In the same clip, Mr Kirk referred to them “stealing a white person’s slot”. So, while he did not specifically generalize about black women, it is a reasonable conclusion that he was, given his blatant racist comment.

To quote someone, what a dirt bag.

Sorry, but in this case he's basically correct.

If the only reason someone got there is Affirmative Action then they stole a position that would otherwise have gone to a white or Asian. In the cases in question I do not believe that they were correct in stating they got there only because of Affirmative Action, though.

It is always interesting to read your assumptions that every good thing in society by rights belongs to whites or Asians, especially conservatives seeing that you are white and your wife is Asian…

Note the word I bolded in the original.

Slots only exist in a realm with discrimination. I'm saying he reached a "correct" conclusion based on a false premise. The problem is with the premise--but it's part of your holy writ so you don't see the problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course, the critical words in LP's post are "If the only reason"... then yes, LP would be right. No one should get a position strictly because of their race.

I'm glad somebody gets it.

The issue we have here is that this isn't strictly about race... as much as people want to assume it is. Harris didn't become a VP candidate because she was black. She did stuff, had a career. No one wants to look at anything else in the resume. LP is obsessed with the answer on the ethnicity line.

But here you are wrong. "Black" was a required characteristic, but not the only one. That is discrimination. (But I consider all VP picks to be discriminatory, I'm not singling her out.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course he did. It’s called dog whistling. Malign four specific black women who obviously have the brain power to be where they are,

Except that two out of four clearly did not, and the other two were still helped by racial preferences.

and you by implication malign all black women and black people in general.

Bullshit. So when you, pood, malign four specific white men, does that mean you malign all white men for being white and male?

That’s what people like you who whine about losing your white male privileges will never get, because you can’t afford to.

You and those like you need to stop with this nonsense. You're ridiculing the struggles that 90% of all humans go through. As if money and jobs are given to us simply because we're caucasian. It's not only absurd, it's deeply insulting.

Why did Trump win all the battleground states and get elected twice? One big reason is because he didn't make explicitly or implicitly go about insulting the largest voting demographics. He didn't chase away centrist white menand by extension their families. He didn't offend white women married to white men.

Bullshit like "white privilege" and "white people problems" are just that; bullshit. Women have lost identifiable rights and same sex marriage is next on the chopping block, but by all means, keep up with doing your best to drive away the two largest voting demographics in the nation.

Your ideals have been a significant part of getting us into the mess and now the very people you claim to protect are and will continue to suffer for it.

While I agree with much of what you're saying about the Democrats the fundamental reason was that The Felon sold a lie. His promises were junk, we could see that from the start, but many want to believe. We see the same mistakes from the left, listening with an uncritical ear to people proposing the impossible.

 

[Toni]

Of course, the critical words in LP's post are "If the only reason"... then yes, LP would be right. No one should get a position strictly because of their race.

I'm glad somebody gets it.

The issue we have here is that this isn't strictly about race... as much as people want to assume it is. Harris didn't become a VP candidate because she was black. She did stuff, had a career. No one wants to look at anything else in the resume. LP is obsessed with the answer on the ethnicity line.

But here you are wrong. "Black" was a required characteristic, but not the only one. That is discrimination. (But I consider all VP picks to be discriminatory, I'm not singling her out.)

And yet, she’s the only one you’ve mentioned. And not a single word about how, with a single exception, being a white make was a requirement to be POTUS or VP.

 

[Toni]

A bunch of quotes from [Charlie Kirk], including that black women lack the brain processing power to be taken seriously

Um, no, Kirk didn't say that. I watched the clip and what he said was that four specific individuals he named lack the brain processing power to be taken seriously. He did not generalize about black women. I can't say the HuffPost was actually lying -- it looks like HuffPost just uncritically reposted BuzzFeed's lie without bothering to do even the most trivial fact-checking: watching the clip to see whether Kirk said what BuzzFeed claimed he said.

In the same clip, Mr Kirk referred to them “stealing a white person’s slot”. So, while he did not specifically generalize about black women, it is a reasonable conclusion that he was, given his blatant racist comment.

To quote someone, what a dirt bag.

Sorry, but in this case he's basically correct.

If the only reason someone got there is Affirmative Action then they stole a position that would otherwise have gone to a white or Asian. In the cases in question I do not believe that they were correct in stating they got there only because of Affirmative Action, though.

It is always interesting to read your assumptions that every good thing in society by rights belongs to whites or Asians, especially conservatives seeing that you are white and your wife is Asian…

Note the word I bolded in the original.

Slots only exist in a realm with discrimination. I'm saying he reached a "correct" conclusion based on a false premise. The problem is with the premise--but it's part of your holy writ so you don't see the problem.

Knock off your religious bullshit, Loren. As a mod you should know better than that. You don’t but that’s on you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oversimplified, but not bullshit. We are literally seeing racial profiling with immigration. ICE aren't pulling over white folks. White privilege is a thing. It isn't a live wealthy card. Yes, white people do struggle. Lots of them due to the decisions made by the people they keep voting for. Some of them due to bad decision making. Much like everyone else, as you note. But being white in America comes with privileges

Now we are. We are rapidly going back to the bad old days.

Women have lost identifiable rights and same sex marriage is next on the chopping block, but by all means, keep up with doing your best to drive away the two largest voting demographics in the nation.

These are the same people doing this though.

Your ideals have been a significant part of getting us into the mess and now the very people you claim to protect are and will continue to suffer for it.

No... not remotely close.

• ACA, led to the red tidal wave that sent massive majorities into State Legislatures that gerrymandered the fuck out of the State Districting and US House districting.
• A dirty push poll in South Carolina asking about McCain's mixed race child... which gave us W instead of McCain as President.
• Black dude getting elected president led to an astro-turfed Fox News rebellion

The alt-right, before they were the alt-right, have been pissing in their shorts since they started whining about not being able to smack secretaries on the ass and not being allowed to called people "retarded".

I don't think we can resolve how much is due to what.

But there certainly is some truth in what he's saying.

 

[pood]

Wrong! Neither I nor any of my ancestors benefited from it.

Wrong. You have.

I do not see why I should be paying for it now just because of my skin color just because some people who had a similar hue enjoyed advantages for it a long time ago.

And what exactly is it you think you are “paying” for?

 

[Derec]

As I’ve written several times before, I never ‘watch’ news, mostly because so much of it is opinion, not fact or as the story develops.

And yet, you are quick to form opinions despite very selective information.
Unfortunately, yes, a lot of news reporting is biased one way or another. That makes sussing things out more challenging, but it is not an excuse to stay uniformed about things that are happening in the world. At least not when you still want to discuss them with others.

Whatever you may think, I do not hate or resent or have grudges against white men or men in general.

And yet, you always find ways to denigrate white men specifically in these discussions.

I am, as I have stated before, an egalitarian.

Your posts do not really reflect that.

I believe that all people have inherent worth and all are entitled to pursue the lives they want, so long as they do not harm or infringe on the rights of others.

Unless you morally disagree with their choices, for example with consensual sex work.

[personal anecdotes snipped, because they did not require comment]

I don’t know every right winger in existence but I more than aware of white supremacist who had children with black partners.

Question: how do you know this person was a "white supremacist" exactly?

Please note that I focused on mass shootings of mostly schools and an occasional church, mall or concert

But this is not a thread about a mass shooting. So why focus on that? And note that in your post that I debunked with actual numbers you were talking about crimes in general. Will you at least acknowledge that you were wrong?

—and the vast majority of the shooters have been white and male.

You have not shown that to be true. And I also do no think that it is fruitful to define "relevant" shootings more and more narrowly until you can blame the demographic you want to blame. If a mall or a concert is shot up by a gang member, well that's not really a mass shooting, you would say. Why? Bystanders are endangered either way.
In any case, this is not a mass shooting thread, so we should not derail further.

AFAIK, my reading has suggested that part of the motivation is trying to claim some fame/out-do one another. I absolutely cannot understand why anyone could shoot up an elementary school. It is insane. But it tends not to be female shooters nor shooters of color who commit such atrocities.

Again, this thread is not about a mass shooting, much less of an elementary school. This is about a targeted assassination.
That said, you have not shown that whites are overrepresented in school shootings. And there even have been some female shooters, one of which inspired this song.

This is contrasted with violence associated with other criminal activity where the motivation is much more clear and does include collateral damage —bystanders, children.

My question is, why make a distinction? A disturbed young person growing up in a nice suburban home may become a lone schoool shooter. The same person growing up in a neighborhood with street gangs may become an enforcer for a gang and kill that way.

 

[Derec]

Wrong. You have.

In what way, concretely?

And what exactly is it you think you are “paying” for?

For being born with the un-woke skin color.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why yes, yes it is in fact racist to assume that certain ‘slots’ are for whites only.

You (and ld) are misinterpreting Kirk's point here. What he obviously meant is a slot that would have likely went to somebody white if not for the pernicious practice of racial preferences, and people were treated as individuals.

Except that's based on the false premise that it's only because of AA that they are where they are.

 

[Elixir]

I'm concerned about the increasing view among younger people that violence like this is justifiable and acceptable. It bodes poorly for our future.

Master of understatement.
The acceptability of “second amendment solutions” has orange roots.

Democrats have done their fair share of fanning the flames too, Elixir. If we stand any chance of halting this runaway train, you're going to have to acknowledge that this isn't a one sided problem.

There will be no chance of “halting this runaway train” as long as the orange engineer is bent on causing a train crash.
You can bleat “both sides” til you’re blue in the face and it won’t change that FACT.