First thing's first: KEEP. THIS. SHIT. CIVIL. If you can't talk about race without resorting to childish insults and rude generalizations or getting angry at people who don't see it your way, leave the thread.
With that said, I bring you to what can hopefully be the general thread about race.
First, a few starter questions.
- How, if at all, do you feel your race affects your everyday life?
- Do you believe that white people (or whatever the majority race in your area is) receive privileges simply because of the color of their skin. How much?
- Do you believe minorities are discriminated against for the same reason? How much?
- Do you believe that assimilation of cultures is better than people trying to keep their own?
- Affirmative Action. Yea, Nay? Why or why not?
Also, a personal question from me.
- Why (in my experience, not trying to generalize) do white people often try to insist that they aren't white? I can't count the number of times I've heard "I'm not white, I'm 1/4th English, 1/4th German, 1/4th Scandinavian 1/8th Cherokee, and 1/8th Russian," as though 4 of 5 of those things aren't considered "white" by the masses. Is it because you have pride for your ancestry, or an attempt to try and differentiate yourself from all those "other" white people? Or something else altogether?
edited 30th May '11 9:16:04 PM by Wulf
Not directly no, but he was doing his whole speil on the alt-reich, right next to an anti-facisim rally which is where the punch guy apparently originated from, as in a literal anti-facisim rally.
I have no doubt that the provocation on his end was intended due to that, or a slightly better location would have been chosen.
I don't expect anybody to feel sorry for the nazi that got punched, but uh. Vigilante justice is frowned upon in modern society for valid reasons. Those reasons don't go away just because the person it happened to is the worst kind of human being.
I mean, one thing that bothers me is that one of the many pro-nazi-punching posts on social media I've seen actually did raise the issue of "What if you intend to punch a nazi, but are mistaken, and you end up punching a non-nazi?". And its response was along the lines of 'Meh, who cares!"
I mean, I'm sure a lot of white supremacists handily announce themselves, but still. Are we at the stage where "he was a white dude wearing a fedora" is reason enough to punch people and claim you're doing the world a favour? Because that's where we're headed.
I should also mention that you CAN kill people with one punch. I'm not trying to make people feel sorry for a nazi because somebody punched him, but generally this is why we have things like, you know, innocent until proven guilty and due process and all that.
edited 24th Jan '17 1:50:42 AM by LoniJay
Be not afraid...
The law in the night
While it is hard to punch people who aren't overt racist and nazis, punching people like Duke or Spencer, who made themselves public and are overt in their intentions, isn't.
In normal circumstances, I'd abhor the use of violence as the first resort but the attacks on minorities and women after Trump got elected left a pretty clear message, one that those reactionary and racist groups aren't going to be hiding anymore and they feel empowered enough to act on their racism. So if one of them starts spouting their bullshit, I'd find completely acceptable to shut his mouth.
After it isn't unreasonable to suppress someone who thinks minorities should be lynched before the lynching starts.
Inter arma enim silent leges
Screaming Into The Void
Honestly, I've seen an awful lot of "yeah!!! punch Nazis!!" from people since it happened, and it bothers me mostly because I know 99% of the people saying it would never do any such thing. It's just posturing. I mean, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, because Spencer is an awful person, but I'm also not going to go around talking about punching people because realistically that's something I probably would not do.note
But I am so sick of words like "well, something has to be done" spoken in this current political climate by people who aren't going to do anything but talk tough on social media. Two years on, I'm certain most of these people won't even go to these protests, let alone actively try and help win seats in the next election, or even talk to their local officials about the change that they want to see.
I think I've just reached the point where I'm done with 'slacktivism,' which hasn't gotten us anywhere, and I guess I'm bringing my general frustrations out on this issue, so I apologize if I'm getting off track.
edited 24th Jan '17 8:57:50 AM by Pseudopartition
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Well, it's still less infuriating than the "I want my full luxury communism now" spam those types usually do.
The law in the night
So, this time it is a restaurant owner that needs some face punching.
Inter arma enim silent leges
United Earth
I like FLC, but that name seems designed to infuriate fiscal conservatives and other self-reliance fetishists.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I forgot to add earlier that Spencer probably isn't afraid to go anywhere. He just said that for extra sympathy points from his followers and people who still think we can just talk this out for some reason.
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
Well, if he actually stayed at home all the time, arranging an unusual toilet incident would be easier.
Glenn Beck thinks the Women's March was an astroturf by Soros and "radical Islam"
. Out of pills, Mr. Beck?
United Earth
My God....
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Sorry, wrong thread.
edited 24th Jan '17 2:47:46 PM by RBluefish
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."
use political terms to describe, not insult
My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare
Some morbidly fitting released today by Smithsonian Magazine.
This Map Shows Over a Century of Documented Lynchings in the United States
The map is part of a website created by a group called Monroe Work Today, which takes its name from an early 20th century sociologist named Monroe Nathan Work, who spent decades compiling data and statistics on lynchings. While working at Alabama’s Tuskegee Institute, Work founded the school’s Department of Records and Research—the archives of which form the bones of the map’s information, Laura Bliss reports for City Lab.
By scrolling around a slider included on the map, users can see the earliest-known lynchings in the U.S. across the country. The data points can be viewed by year as well as by the victim’s ethnicity, allowing users to approach the sobering subject from a variety of perspectives.
The website also explains how lynching as term evolved in meaning throughout different regions and time periods. As the creators write on the website:
"There is no single way to describe all lynchings. Often a mob in western states (like California) staged a mock trial at the gallows, in order to pronounce the person ‘guilty’ before hanging. The spectacles of public mutilation happened most often in the South, but sometimes in West Virginia, Delaware and Maryland too. People in Northern states perpetrated lynchings as well: sometimes as a brutal execution, and sometimes more swiftly. Finally, the accusations levelled against Mexican- or dark skinned Sicilian-Americans to justify their murder were typically different than the charges made against black Americans."
It’s unlikely historians will ever know just how many lynchings happened throughout the history of the U.S., as many likely went unreported, or were not classified as lynchings in documentation at the time. However, the sheer number of those that are on the books is staggering—according to the Equal Justice Initiative’s (EJI) 2015 report, Lynching in America, more than 4,000 black people were publicly murdered in the U.S. between 1877 and 1950. Tools like this site serves as an important endeavor to help mark these dark parts of American history and make it more visible and accessible for all.
Collector Of Fine Oddities
I remember my great-grandmother talking once about witnessing a lynching as a child in the 1920's. Apparently some black travelers set up camp in the mountain pass one night and word go out, so the local farmers ambushed them the next morning and murdered them. Was in college taking history and anthropology courses at the time so I tried to see if I could track anything down about it, but apparently the locals made a point of not keeping a paper trail of such happenings. Having the bodies never found was apparently considered more of a "deterrent".
The law in the night
United Earth
What's the point of doing such a thing?!
What do you think?
United Earth
I thought lynchings involved actual accusations. They're killing blacks just for passing through?!
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Yeah? Welcome to America.
Oh really when?
The law in the night
Being black while doing nothing is a criminal offense in America.
That's what lynchings were, most of the time. Done out of pure sadism and racial hatred. If there was an accusation, it would be an incredibly flimsy one, and for a crime that a white person wouldn't have been looked twice at for committing.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."
Well...speaking of which. Carolyn Bryant Donham, the woman who accused Emmett Till of whistling at her (leading to his brutal murder at the hands of white supremacists), has admitted that she fabricated the most damning parts of her story.
"That part's not true," Donham reportedly told Tyson about her claim that Emmett made verbal and physical advances toward her.
Conveniently, according to Vanity Fair, she said that she couldn't remember the rest of what happened that August evening in the store. The news site noted that the now-82-year-old's whereabouts have been kept a secret by her family.
Tyson's book is due to be published next week by Simon & Schuster. And, according to Vanity Fair, although several other authors have written about Emmett's story, no one, with the exception of Tyson, has ever had the opportunity to interview Donham. Both her ex-husband and brother-in-law are now dead.
"That case went a long way toward ruining her life," Tyson said, explaining how the elderly woman never escaped the case's notoriety. (Poor thing. I wonder why?)
[...]
As Vanity Fair notes, however, she didn't officially repent and is apparently not the type to join any racial-reconciliation groups.
However, Donham reportedly told Tyson, "Nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him."
Tyson writes that Donham "felt tender sorrow for Mamie Till-Mobley," Emmett Till's mother, who died in 2003 after decades spent advocating for her son and for civil rights.
"When Carolyn herself [later] lost one of her sons, she thought about the grief that Mamie must have felt and grieved all the more," Tyson reflected.
Whether or not Donham feels "sorrow" or remorse or whatever it is, while it's a nice sentiment for someone who has lived eight decades, it's a little too late for a scared 14-year-old who was brutally murdered.
But hey, maybe her acknowledgment of Emmett Till and her own lies will allow us to properly look into the darkest parts of our history and push ourselves into action, particularly at a time when the nation seems more at odds than ever.
Why is my reaction to this "gee. Ya think?"?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I would agree with lack of violent if we lived in an ideal world. We do not. I actually really hate vigilantism, I much prefer to work within the system.
The problem is, as many have noted, the system is not good at protecting people. And until it is reliable, I am going to go back to what I learned, which is self defense. As I said before, if someone stated frequently how much they wanted to rape someone, you bet your ass I would punch them, or whatever else I needed to keep them far away.
The same logic applies to black genocide, of which the man who got punched supports.
If teaching that fighting can be necessary against danger, that means every karate school on the block is a form of radicalization.
Violence by itself is not an inherent indicator of radicalizing, it must be looked at as a piece of the whole. The situations at hand, and who is in danger.
edited 23rd Jan '17 10:58:52 PM by MrAHR
Read my stories!