While the Democrats are running their dog and pony impeachment hearings, they were making sure we continue living in a police state

[Koyaanisqatsi]

are there still lynchings?

You needn't be so literal for the point to remain.

 

[RVonse]

are there still lynchings?

Koy is still living in 1855.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

are there still lynchings?

Koy is still living in 1855.

Funny.

The lynching of Michael Donald in Mobile, Alabama on March 21, 1981, was one of the last lynchings in the United States.[1][2] Several Ku Klux Klan (KKK) members beat and killed Michael Donald, a 19-year-old African-American, and hung his body from a tree. One perpetrator, Henry Hays, was executed by electric chair in 1997, while another, James Knowles, was sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty and testifying against Hays. A third man was convicted as an accomplice, and a fourth indicted but he died before his trial could be completed.

Hays' execution was the first in Alabama since 1913 for a white-on-black crime. It was the only execution of a KKK member during the 20th century for the murder of an African American.[3] Donald's mother brought a civil suit for wrongful death against the United Klans of America (UKA), to which the attackers belonged. In 1987 a jury awarded her damages of $7 million, which bankrupted the organization. This set a precedent for civil legal action for damages against other racist hate groups.
...
In 1981, Josephus Anderson, an African American charged with the murder of a white policeman in Birmingham, Alabama while committing a robbery, was tried in Mobile, where the case had been moved in a change of venue. There were indications that the jury was struggling to reach a verdict.

At a meeting in Mobile before Anderson's verdict was announced, members of Unit 900 of the United Klans of America complained that the jury had not convicted Anderson because it had African-American members. Bennie Jack Hays, the second-highest-ranking official in the United Klans in Alabama, reportedly said: "If a black man can get away with killing a white man, we ought to be able to get away with killing a black man."[4][5] On Friday, a mistrial was declared on all four counts. The prosecutor declared his intention to retry the case. (After two more mistrials on the murder count, Anderson was convicted of murder in 1985 and sentenced to life in prison. He was convicted of assault and robbery in the second trial.)

The same night as the first mistrial was declared, Klan members burned a three-foot cross on the Mobile County courthouse lawn. After a meeting, Bennie Hays' son, Henry Hays (age 26), and James Llewellyn "Tiger" Knowles (age 17), armed with a gun and rope,[4] drove around Mobile looking for a black person to attack.[3][6]

At random, they spotted Michael Donald while he was walking home after buying his sister a pack of cigarettes. They lured him over to their car by asking him for directions to a local club, and then forced Donald into the car at gunpoint. The men then drove out to another county and took him to a secluded area in the woods. At this moment, Donald attempted to escape, knocking away Hays' gun and trying to run into the woods. The men pursued Donald, attacked him and beat him with a tree limb. Hays wrapped a rope around Donald's neck and pulled on it to strangle him while Knowles continued to beat Donald with a tree branch. Once Donald had stopped moving, Hays slit his throat three times to make sure he was dead. The men left Donald's body hanging from a tree in a mixed-race neighborhood in Mobile. The tree was on Herndon Street, across from a house owned by Klan leader Bennie Jack Hays, the father of Henry Hays.[3]

In short, it wasn't any kind of enlightenment that changed things, but enjoy joining ruby in pointless literalism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wrong. Racism is an attack by the oppressor power structure against the oppressed disempowered structure, not necessarily any one individual. That's the whole point, in fact; that there are no "individuals," they are all reduced to one single hated "other." A blow to one oppressed is a blow to all oppressed.

Yeah, the SJW definition that means only white males can be racist. That's not the real definition, though.

Fundamentally wrong. In that cycle, a parent abuses their child and then that child grows up to abuse their child, but that's the point; they can only abuse the vulnerable--i.e., their own children--and not turn around and abuse their parents, which is what one would intuitively think happens all the time, but in fact rarely does (because of the psychological side effects of this kind of abuse).

Except that's what's going on now. The beneficiaries of AA are not the victims of discrimination. All you're actually doing is creating more victims. Is it any wonder that victims fight back?

Even if you are never once racist yourself, the fact that you are white means you are a member of the oppressor class and thereby protected. You might be caught in the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time and pay the price, but then what happens? The oppressor class will strike back en mass and in overwhelming force in a myriad of different ways to keep the oppressed class oppressed en mass. It won't just be the individuals that struck you that's for sure; it will be the entire neighborhood at the very least that will get reprisals directly and then on a broader level, other ripples will be felt.

I don't buy into this SJW bullshit.

You want to reduce it to individual behavior, of course, because that's the excuse; that's the false equivalence, but it's never individualized at the oppressor level. It is always "they" not "this guy I know." Let's go get us some niggers to make an example of! Never, This one guy did me wrong and he needs to pay!

I want to look at the individual level because it's individuals being affected.

Suppose I put your head in the fire and your feet in the icebox. Are you ok because on average your temperature is fine? Because that's what you're trying to do here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree with a lot of the above, but I would have three quite large caveats.

First, imo it's getting dangerously close to saying that white people (who we agree are the dominant/predominant class/group, especially in the 'west') can't be victims of racism. Imo they can. It is just that it is by and large of a different order of severity and extent, when it happens. In other words, they are protected, but not completely. How much they are protected depends on their circumstances. Poor, disadvantaged whites may not be protected very much. And I agree that this group have been somewhat neglected when it comes to public or social policies.

It's not dangerously close, it is exactly on.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Except that's what's going on now. The beneficiaries of AA are not the victims of discrimination. All you're actually doing is creating more victims.

No that's not all. It's also exploiting the original victims further, doing nothing for them specifically, and just adding another further case of "all x are the same and interchangeable". It's offensive that some privileged person gets even more special advantage because they pretend they are the same as somebody underprivileged, because they share some superficial physical trait. Especially while pointing at somebody actually underprivileged and equating them to the Uber privileged because of another suoerficial physical trait they have in common.

And also, there should be a special word for it when people are racist bout racism, and claim only one race can be racist and other races are this that or the other. It's pretty ironic. People thinking they are fighting racism, but are actually deeply steeped in it themselves. If only they could see it. As soon as people catch themselves generalizing an entire "race" of people and basing policy on that generalization, they should give their heads a shake.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yeah, the SJW definition

that means only white males can be racist.

Then simply change it to "only the oppressor class can oppress." You're intelligent enough to accomplish that, aren't you?

I want to look at the individual level because it's individuals being affected.

Except that that isn't true. Anyone with a certain amount of melanin in their skin is being affected in this country. You can call any black guy "nigger" and it will severely impact them, often to the point of violence.

You wouldn't give too shits if a black guy called you "honkie."

Why? Because there is no history of severe and lasting oppression behind "honkie." Hell, they could call you cracker and you wouldn't even break your stride, precisely because you were never oppressed (and the word "cracker" actually comes from the the one holding the whip, so you might actually feel some pride at the epithet).

But, fine, let's go to the individual level...

Suppose I put your head in the fire and your feet in the icebox.

Suppose I and thirty prominent men in the town cowardly hid behind hooded robes, raped your mother in front of you after forcing you to help hang your father from the tree you played in as a child and then we locked you and your whole neighborhood in your church and set it on fire as a threat to every other black person within a hundred mile radius to never move there?

Then suppose that some years later--after you miraculously survived all of that--some white guy in your new town innocently called you "boy." How do you think you might react?

Then imagine a few months later, some smug asshole online who has never walked the walk in his entire life only read the part where you beat the shit out of that white guy who innocently called you "boy" and accused you of being a racist, because, hey, it's all SJW samey samey.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You beat up some innocent guy because he looks like some other people who were oppressive to you, and you expect people to not see you as a dangerous racist idiot?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You beat up some innocent guy because he looks like some other people who were oppressive to you

No, you beat up some innocent guy because he looks like some other people who were oppressive to you and he called you "boy," a derogatory term used by the people who were oppressive to you as a means of oppression that triggered you and would not have were it not for the culture of oppression you both exist within.

Here, I'll dumb it way the fuck down for you. Hooded men you nevertheless knew were prominent members of your town forced you to watch your mother raped and your father murdered and you survived being locked in a burning church by them, after witnessing your friends all burn to death. Years later, someone who looks like one of the town folk says something derogatory they all used to say to you on a daily basis, you lose it and you beat him up.

You didn't beat him up because you're a racist; you beat him up because you have PTSD.

Are you seriously so fucking stupid you can't comprehend the distinction?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What if instead of a white guy calling you "boy" it was an Asian or Indian? Are you being racist or just reacting to the slur?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What if

You avoid my point thus conceding it? Par for your course.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You were clarifying. I am seeking further clarification. That's the opposite of avoiding. And I can't conceed a point that isn't clear. I wouldn't know what I was agreeing to.

If you are merely reacting to a slur and we are presuming the "innocent" man is at least guilty of speaking the slur with intent to insult you and mock the abuse you endured in your story, that is one thing. But you seemed to be saying it was about this man being of the same race. Is it or isn't it? Is it the slur or is it the race you are offended by? If an Asian guy or Latino woman called you "boy" with the same intent, would their race make it different?

BTW I see nothing wrong with agreeing with a point you make if it makes sense to me. I don't lose anything doing so. It's funny that you phrase it a concession.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You were clarifying.

No, I was restating my point that you pretended to miss like you're doing again now because you think sea-lioning is...funny, I guess? Something idiotic.

If you are merely reacting to a slur and we are presuming the "innocent" man is at least guilty of speaking the slur with intent to insult you and mock the abuse you endured in your story, that is one thing.

But you seemed to be saying it was about this man being of the same race.

So I must restate it again. As I stated the first and then the second time and now for the third time, the scenario is, the guy is white AND using a slur that he did not know was a slur--hence my deliberately describing him as an "innocent"--thus underscoring the fact that it's an ingrained problem that goes beyond the individuals. The white guy didn't realize he was insulting the black guy and the black guy reacted not to the individual, but to the effect of a lifetime of oppression.

In short, neither one is a racist. They are both victims of racism, but neither is a racist in regard to their actions. Had the white guy said pretty much any other thing--"hello" or "excuse me" or even "hey" or "get out of my way"--the reaction would not have been triggered.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No, I was restating my point that you pretended to miss like you're doing again now because you think sea-lioning is...funny, I guess? Something idiotic.

Now you're goading. I've been told that's against the board's rules. Its also rather rude. You can do better. I'm not pretending anything. Not even that I believe you can be civil. I think you have it in you if you try.

But you seemed to be saying it was about this man being of the same race.

As I stated the first and then the second time and now for the third time, the scenario is, the guy is white AND using a slur that he did not know was a slur--hence my deliberately describing him as an "innocent"--thus underscoring the fact that it's an ingrained problem that goes beyond the individuals.

He doesn't even know its a slur? Then the assaulting of him is absolutely inexcusable.

The white guy didn't realize he was insulting the black guy and the black guy reacted not to the individual, but to the effect of a lifetime of oppression.

Which apparently may have ingrained some bigotry into this particular black man.

In short, neither one is a racist.

That's not clear. The white people who abused this black man are racist. And this black man may have now become racist towards other white people. Its also possible that the initial white people who abused this black man had some bad experiences with black people that created or amplified their initial racism.

Had the white guy said pretty much any other thing--"hello" or "excuse me" or even "hey" or "get out of my way"--the reaction would not have been triggered.

And again, what if it wasn't a white man, but was still "boy"? Why do you avoid this question?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then simply change it to "only the oppressor class can oppress." You're intelligent enough to accomplish that, aren't you?

As if there's some binary state of "oppressor".

I want to look at the individual level because it's individuals being affected.

Except that that isn't true. Anyone with a certain amount of melanin in their skin is being affected in this country. You can call any black guy "nigger" and it will severely impact them, often to the point of violence.

Only because racists have told them they need to overreact like this.

You wouldn't give too shits if a black guy called you "honkie."

Why? Because there is no history of severe and lasting oppression behind "honkie." Hell, they could call you cracker and you wouldn't even break your stride, precisely because you were never oppressed (and the word "cracker" actually comes from the the one holding the whip, so you might actually feel some pride at the epithet).

What if the black person came from Africa? Most of them have never been oppressed by whites.

But, fine, let's go to the individual level...

Suppose I put your head in the fire and your feet in the icebox.

Suppose I and thirty prominent men in the town cowardly hid behind hooded robes, raped your mother in front of you after forcing you to help hang your father from the tree you played in as a child and then we locked you and your whole neighborhood in your church and set it on fire as a threat to every other black person within a hundred mile radius to never move there?

Then suppose that some years later--after you miraculously survived all of that--some white guy in your new town innocently called you "boy." How do you think you might react?

Then imagine a few months later, some smug asshole online who has never walked the walk in his entire life only read the part where you beat the shit out of that white guy who innocently called you "boy" and accused you of being a racist, because, hey, it's all SJW samey samey.

You're not addressing my point at all.

What you're doing is looking at the plight of poor black students and using that as a justification to help well off black students. The poor black students aren't helped one bit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You beat up some innocent guy because he looks like some other people who were oppressive to you

No, you beat up some innocent guy because he looks like some other people who were oppressive to you and he called you "boy," a derogatory term used by the people who were oppressive to you as a means of oppression that triggered you and would not have were it not for the culture of oppression you both exist within.

Here, I'll dumb it way the fuck down for you. Hooded men you nevertheless knew were prominent members of your town forced you to watch your mother raped and your father murdered and you survived being locked in a burning church by them, after witnessing your friends all burn to death. Years later, someone who looks like one of the town folk says something derogatory they all used to say to you on a daily basis, you lose it and you beat him up.

You didn't beat him up because you're a racist; you beat him up because you have PTSD.

Are you seriously so fucking stupid you can't comprehend the distinction?

Has beating up the innocent guy accomplished anything beneficial, though?

No, it's just providing support for the notion that blacks are subhumans that can't be trusted to behave in society.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Has beating up the innocent guy accomplished anything beneficial, though?

No, it's just providing support for the notion that blacks are subhumans that can't be trusted to behave in society.

Yes. His racist behaviour may now create or bolster any racism that was in that innocent white man he attacked. That white man may then act racist against an innocent black man, and the cycle of racism will continue rolling. If Koy thinks he can justify violence against innocent white people because of abuse from other white people, then should that logic now follow through to justifying abuse of innocent black people because of this man's violence?

 

[RVonse]

Has beating up the innocent guy accomplished anything beneficial, though?

No, it's just providing support for the notion that blacks are subhumans that can't be trusted to behave in society.

Yes. His racist behaviour may now create or bolster any racism that was in that innocent white man he attacked. That white man may then act racist against an innocent black man, and the cycle of racism will continue rolling. If Koy thinks he can justify violence against innocent white people because of abuse from other white people, then should that logic now follow through to justifying abuse of innocent black people because of this man's violence?

Koys way of thinking is what I call the human condition. It is (has been) the source of pretty much all confict in history including all the wars.

And the golden rule of practically every religion would solve the problem. But try as they may, men fail at the golden rule every time.

 

[laughing dog]

You beat up some innocent guy because he looks like some other people who were oppressive to you

No, you beat up some innocent guy because he looks like some other people who were oppressive to you and he called you "boy," a derogatory term used by the people who were oppressive to you as a means of oppression that triggered you and would not have were it not for the culture of oppression you both exist within.

Here, I'll dumb it way the fuck down for you. Hooded men you nevertheless knew were prominent members of your town forced you to watch your mother raped and your father murdered and you survived being locked in a burning church by them, after witnessing your friends all burn to death. Years later, someone who looks like one of the town folk says something derogatory they all used to say to you on a daily basis, you lose it and you beat him up.

You didn't beat him up because you're a racist; you beat him up because you have PTSD.

Are you seriously so fucking stupid you can't comprehend the distinction?

Has beating up the innocent guy accomplished anything beneficial, though?

No, it's just providing support for the notion that blacks are subhumans that can't be trusted to behave in society.

Koy provided an explanation for the attack that does not depend on any bigoted or racist motivation. There is a clear and distinct difference between an explanation and a justification.

Why anyone would think that an explanation based on PTSD provides support that the race of the attacker is subhuman is truly fascinating.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Has beating up the innocent guy accomplished anything beneficial, though?

No, it's just providing support for the notion that blacks are subhumans that can't be trusted to behave in society.

Koy provided an explanation for the attack that does not depend on any bigoted or racist motivation. There is a clear and distinct difference between an explanation and a justification.

Why anyone would think that an explanation based on PTSD provides support that the race of the attacker is subhuman is truly fascinating.

He's trying to justify behavior that's actually making the situation worse.