Are black on white attacks justified?

[Town Heretic]

which are made up of individuals

And:

Individuals don't constitute a majority. Populations do. So the dominant population of Russia can be viewed in how they treated the subcultures living alongside them. The Jews, for instance. And the answer is, historically, poorly. And my note remains true, that the dominant culture doesn't tend to exclude, repress and otherwise harm itself, though its history with subordinate cultures is another matter.

 

[ok doser]

Not a point of dispute...

then why bring it up?

 

[Town Heretic]

then why bring it up?

I made a comment about majorities. You tried to rebut using individuals.

And so:

Individuals don't constitute a majority. Populations do. So the dominant population of Russia can be viewed in how they treated the subcultures living alongside them. The Jews, for instance. And the answer is, historically, poorly. And my note remains true, that the dominant culture doesn't tend to exclude, repress and otherwise harm itself, though its history with subordinate cultures is another matter.

 

[ok doser]

I made a comment about majorities. You tried to rebut using individuals.

stalin was an individual, yes

but he was a member of the majority russian ethnicity which he (and the soviet communist party - made up of russians) repressed and maltreated

same as with mao

same as with Kim Jong-un

 

[Town Heretic]

stalin was an individual, yes

but he was a member of the majority russian ethnicity which he repressed and maltreated

I didn't say anything about ethnicity as a defining trait of the dominant culture in Stalin's Russia...or necessarily in any. In fact, it doesn't need to be, though it tends to play out that way in Western forms of government.

The majority in Stalin's country didn't actually control the government, wasn't empowered to help or harm anyone. Unless you're arguing that given power they'd have mistreated themselves you haven't actually countered my point, which remains:

"...historically speaking, majorities don't repress and maltreat themselves."

A people without the power to help or hinder aren't in the discussion and the real dominant culture is then defined less broadly.

In Stalin's Russia it was defined by a particular Marxist zeal and loyalty. In Western republics, it's much broader, or can be.

 

[Ktoyou]

You are assuming he is doing it to bug or provoke them . He has a right to protest the racist organization that they are. Protesting a repugnant group is not wrong last time I checked .

Ah, you don't even know what you are talking about, silly kid. The person I am talking about is 'the assumptive object' as used to rhetoric, as we do not know the mind of the person in question. We can only assume, wearing the Trump hat is an act to harass the group of people.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Ah, you don't even know what you are talking about, silly kid. The person I am talking about is 'the assumptive object' as used to rhetoric, as we do not know the mind of the person in question. We can only assume, wearing the Trump hat is an act to harass the group of people.

He has the right. Take it up with TH since he agrees with me. There is no excuse for violence. It's not harassment to wear a hat. All of the offense is in the mind of the offended.

 

[Ktoyou]

He has the right. Take it up with TH since he agrees with me. There is no excuse for violence. It's not harassment to wear a hat. All of the offense is in the mind of the offended.

You must be a bit obtuse. If TH thinks provocative acts are not provocative, then he must be obtuse also.

 

[Town Heretic]

You must be a bit obtuse. If TH thinks provocative acts are not provocative, then he must be obtuse also.

lain: I don't, but you should know better without the speculation.

Got a bee in your bonnet? :think: Try a different hat.

 

[Ktoyou]

lain: I don't, but you should know better without the speculation.

Got a bee in your bonnet? :think: Try a different hat.

You should know I was posting to the cuckoo bird.

 

[Town Heretic]

You should know I was posting to the cuckoo bird.

I did, but one good nudge and whatnot.

I think the guy meant to provoke something or should have understood the probability, given the circumstances. I understand the fighting words doctrine, but it's pretty narrowly applied. And, ultimately, I believe that people are responsible for their own actions and that criminal activity is rarely justifiable.

 

[Ktoyou]

You already know I know all that and know why you posted it :cigar:

 

[annabenedetti]

Your link was a truncated FB bit. So I went to the site and looked at the article about a guy who wore a Trump hat to a BLM protest that had been organized right after the shooting death of a black man.

Cruc will tell you that he had it coming. Well, if he's consistent. I won't. You should be able to wear the emblem of association with what many in the black community feel is a racist candidate for the presidency. Even at an event where you know passions will be enflamed, given the particular nature/reason for this rally. You should be able to take a vacation to Israel wearing your Arafat t-shirt too. But the chances are if you're doing that you have something other than participating in a peaceful, stress free afternoon.

It's a little like protesters who show up at a Trump rally. Here's a link to one being physically assaulted. There are more. And you know what both videos prove? Nothing, as far as establishing a rule goes. All they manage to support is the notion that if you are in a provocative stance among "the enemy" of your position and tempers are flaring, someone (likely you) will get hurt.


Anecdotes can be good for illustrating a rule, but they don't establish the rule.

I'm very familiar with the area where this happened, I've lived and worked not far from there. Within walking distance. I've been on that street a thousand times. This guy shouldn't have been attacked, I don't condone it, but I think he went there with an agenda (in a city with the highest poverty rate in San Diego County in his "100,000-dollar car," of course), because he was looking for some selfie action. Amazing how he never lost his grip on his phone.

 

[Nick M]

Flashing lights and sirens from a police vehicle interrupted a routine Saturday morning walk in my golf-course community in Corinth.

I often walk about 3 miles near daybreak as part of my daily exercise. However, on Oct. 24, I delayed my walk until late morning as I waited for the rain to stop. I was dressed in a gray hooded “Boston” sweatshirt, black leggings, white socks, plus black-and-white Nike running shoes. Like most African-Americans, I am familiar with the phrase “driving while black,” but was I really being stopped for walking on the street in my own neighborhood?

Yes. In the words of Sal Ruibal, “Walking while black is a crime in many jurisdictions. May God have mercy on our nation.”

This is just how racist people are. They see life through a race filter. She is racist. She thinks white people did something because they are white and she is not.

And here is what really happened.

 

[Crucible]

The reason why 'All Lives Matter' is a problem is because it's out of ignorance of what 'BLM' actually expresses- that they feel their lives do not matter.
When you counter it with 'ALM', you are exhibiting what is called 'racial paranoia'- in other words, it's a fear driving it, not some righteous, humanitarian thing.
If white people want to be against BLM, there needs to be dialogue.

However, there's whites who, being victims of the real agenda, have been brainwashed into spreading an acceptance of sitting by the wayside and letting other cultures run over them.

They have perpetuated an idea that it should be okay that white people have no pride in their culture or that securing their interests and prominence is somehow wrong.

They labor under white liberal guilt, and want to spread the mental illness to you :chuckle:

 

[annabenedetti]

This is just how racist people are. They see life through a race filter. She is racist. She thinks white people did something because they are white and she is not.

And here is what really happened.

There was no reason to ask for her ID. None.

You're in complete denial that you're a straight up racist.

 

[ClimateSanity]

You should know I was posting to the cuckoo bird.

I'm a cuckoo bird? Based on what?

 

[Tyrathca]

There was no reason to ask for her ID. None.

You're in complete denial that you're a straight up racist.

That was a completely innocuous stop, they quite clearly stated the reason for talking to her and it was clear they were not charging her with anything. They at no point accused her of anything sinister, quite the opposite as they thought she was oblivious to the danger she was putting herself in and inconvenience she was creating by a simple activity. Asking for her ID is fairly common procedure for law enforcement etc to log their activities, it probably varies whether they can compel it or not though. He even says the reason why he asked for it "so I can put it with the call" - i.e. document what he was doing.

There are legitimate concerns regarding racial profiling but jumping up and down about such innocuous stuff like this just undermines those legitimate concerns.

 

[annabenedetti]

That was a completely innocuous stop, they quite clearly stated the reason for talking to her and it was clear they were not charging her with anything. They at no point accused her of anything sinister, quite the opposite as they thought she was oblivious to the danger she was putting herself in and inconvenience she was creating by a simple activity. Asking for her ID is fairly common procedure for law enforcement etc to log their activities, it probably varies whether they can compel it or not though. He even says the reason why he asked for it "so I can put it with the call" - i.e. document what he was doing.

There are legitimate concerns regarding racial profiling but jumping up and down about such innocuous stuff like this just undermines those legitimate concerns.

If they don't have a reasonable suspicion that she was engaged in criminal activity, they don't have the right to ask her for ID.

If you want to get right down to it, I wonder if there's even a legal requirement for her to walk against traffic. She's walking down a quiet residential street, it's something I do all the time, and no cop has ever stopped me and told me I should walk on the other side of the street, let alone get out of the car to tell me.

And she was hardly jumping up and down. She was polite but assertive. Good for her.

 

[Tyrathca]

If they don't have a reasonable suspicion that she was engaged in criminal activity, they don't have the right to ask her for ID.

They don't have to nor can they generally force it but that doesn't mean they don't ask for it for the reasons specified. It's not a race thing it's a bureaucracy/paperwork thing.

If you want to get right down to it, I wonder if there's even a legal requirement for her to walk against traffic. She's walking down a quiet residential street, it's something I do all the time, and no cop has ever stopped me and told me I should walk on the other side of the street, let alone get out of the car to tell me.

Probably not, but it was a safety thing. She was also impeeding traffic since she was on the road and they even mentioned a truck which had to avoid her (a traffic issue and a safety issue). This doesn't strike me as an odd thing for the cops to have done to anyone of any appearance. They were extremely polite and open to.

You could just as easily argue it would have been racist for the cops to NOT talk to her. By not talking they were not caring for her safety and thus not acting like black lives matter.

And she was hardly jumping up and down. She was polite but assertive. Good for her.

I'm more talking about your reaction. After I posted I realised I'd left out my opinion on her reaction and could be misunderstood. Unfortunately for me you replied before I could get in an edit.

Based on the video alone I'm not sure how she reacted was racist either. Getting your back up when police ask for ID is fairly natural and common because it feels like you're being accused of wrong doing even if you're not. Even without the increased tensions regarding policing at the moment I know many people would react defensively (possibly even myself). A probably unnecessary reaction but understandable.

He subsequent public reaction after the event is another matter entirely.


Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk