"They" won't. This simply isn't a realistic goal. There will always be a perceived gap when you raise a people to think that there is one to begin with. It doesn't matter how equal you make everything else.
That's the great right/white invention in rhetoric: shit doesn't fit your agenda? Just fucking deny it. Wanna take it up a notch? Make up an "industry" that heavily profits from that shit that doesn't fit your agenda. Next step: LOL on your way to the bank...
BTW: titles like "Someone's got to say it" actually try to create the impression, that no one ever does, cause its like forbidden. Or that the goody-two-shoes put you in a concentration camp once you break that law. That's adorable...
Doesn't that apply to almost every show on tv, every popular fast food and every sex partner you can pick up with a one liner and a cheesy smile? Does it make any of these less popular? The world is full of people making very bad decisions.
I don't think he acted like a twelve year old over Megan Kelly; hell the RNC told NBC they would never host another Republican debate after the MSNBC attempted assassination of all the candidates. I thought Kelly's treatment of Trump was along those same lines. I do think he acted like a butt hurt school child after Iowa with the complaints about Cruz's emails and the threats to sue him over his eligibility to even run. Trump's supporters are mainly those who are disaffected, sick of being lied to by career politicians, and just want to see things change at any cost. They range from Tea Party types who have elected Republicans, only to see them actually work with Obama instead of stop him, to ignorant welfare bums who are upset Obama hasn't given them enough and think Trump will. Trump's a showman who knows how to play to any audience. What he actually believes and what he will actually do is anyone's guess.
" Trump's supporters are mainly those who are disaffected, sick of being lied to by career politicians, and just want to see things change at any cost." - so basically the Trump supporters are the Republican counterparts to the Bernie supporters?
Sure, that actually sounds about right. Most of Bernie's supporters want more government, most of Trump's want less, but they all want what we have now changed.
Bingo. While Sanders' supporters are certainly hard left, I think Trump's supporters pretty much cover the spectrum, though. Trump has alternated between sounding conservative, libertarian, and pretty close to outright liberal. I know what a Sanders presidency would be since he has never changed his tune, but Trump has been all over the map and concerns me.
Uhm... look at people who support Sanders and those who support Trump. One kind of folks you will find in a museum, a library, a delicatessen or a greengrocer, or actively doing sport. They will go to an indie concert, maybe folkrock, also electronic music and elaborate hip hop He would also rate pretty good with Hillbillies, cause he's a straight no-shit guy with manners, but they don't go too well with jewish folks, do they? Same may apply to black people whoi should definitely have a look at what he is saying, cause they are overprepresented in the financially lower classes. The other kind of folks you will find at Walmart, at a Monster Truck or WWF event or basically in front of the TV. Rednecks and imbeciles love him most. His main political supporter is Sarah Palin and you'll find them at Kid Rock shows and shit like that.
Most of Trump's base are NOT Republicans. He has an overwhelming amount of blacks (racists?), Latinos (rednecks?), democrats (okay definitely racist imbeciles), and independents (yep, damn Kid Rockin jackasses). Sanders has mostly millennial idiots who think socialism sounds cool, but are too young to have seen it. Feeling the Bern there?
Its kinda funny how I wrote "[Rednecks and imbeciles] [you will find at Walmart, at a Monster Truck or WWF event] and you read "republicans". I know the traditional GOP is not in favor of Trump, but he's killing it in the republican primaries. Howzat?
The numbers of black and hispanic trumpicionados are plus 7 weeks old. He's said and done a lot of shit since then. Lets wait for recent figures. Even when he has 40-50% of the black and hispanic votes, he could still have >90 % of the rednecks and imbeciles. No contradiction there.
Sanders is in no way a socialist, he's a classic social democrat, whatever he calls it. Calling himself "democratic socialist" was just dumb and wrong. Nothing he wants has anything to do with what so-called socialist governments ever did.
BTW: dissing people for being "too young to have seen it" is classic you.
Classic me? You don't know me. Besides, that was a simple statement of fact. Feeling "dissed" is childish. FYI hurling insults at people you don't agree with is childish too.
You claim Sanders is not a socialist?!? HE SAYS HE IS!!! I really don't think he takes your opinion into account in his campaign. Of course I could be wrong.
Well, yes. Except I do believe a look at exactly who the supporters are, what they believe in, is warranted here. Who the supporters of these men are is as valid as the candidates themselves. That does not mean insults.
I like Kid Rock. I don't consider that an insult, but I was paraphrasing @funsubstanceuser. I HOPE you understand most of what he said is certainly insulting those he disagrees with? What's with the youth of today thinking any statement they do not agree with is an insult?
First of all Sanders said "democratic socialist" which is clearly not "socialist". Democratic socialism means the government controls vital resources, to a degree forces the rich to support the poor and guarantees the free development of EVERY individual as much as possible without hurting other people. A socialist government is jailing you for demanding free elections, is obstructing your career for having the wrong opinion and will eventually shoot you for trying to leave the socialist paradise.
What americans call pizza has not that much to do with a real pizza. Same applies to socialism. That's why the "been there" attitude is pretty ridiculous by itself. And its even more hilarious coming from someone who is clearly a minor, thus the "classic you" - he tends to pretend he's the old greyback who's seen it all. I just love when he does that!
You insult my intelligence? I insult your fucking face. You offended? Wanna victimize yourself? Cry me a fucking river...
Sorry, no. Socialism is socialism. Adding another word does not negate the fact that he wants to tax everyone at as much as 90% in the name of "fairness" and so he can give free healthcare, education, etc.
1. If we're paying taxes out the ass, nothing the government "gives" us in exchange is free.
2. The government controlling everything and determining winners and losers is SOCIALISM.
3. http://nypost.com/2016/01/16/dont-be-fooled-by-bernie-sanders-hes-a-diehard-communist/
4. The cursing and insults when you have nothing substantive to say is exactly why I called you a child. That is immature.
I might just have to start taking your rantings personally. Lol
Most of Sanders' taxing propositions so far have appeared to be erasing current corporate loopholes, etc. A couple of the ideas, if I remember correctly, were potentially problematic (in that they might drive corporate interests overseas), but most of them seemed less "unfair" and more "removing the current unfairness." There is no un-game-able system, but we've let ours stagnate to the point where using loopholes to not pay a company's fair share of taxes is standard practice.
True, but as you said "most". Furthermore, while I wholly agree that corporate welfare and cronyism is and has been a problem for quite awhile, one has to be very careful how one tries to fight it. After all, those at the top are the ones who hire and pay those at the bottom. I'm all for reform, but Bernie wants to simply slash and burn (no pun intended). His ideas will cost jobs.
You're an american, and apparently you haven't got a clue of one of the major presidential candidates ideas and plans, and I'ld bet money on the assumption that you haven't got a clue on any of the other candidates either. You refuse to even recognize any difference between democratic socialism and socialism ("Sorry, but..." - LOL). One of your "arguments" is a NYP (LOL - you KNOW its not the NYT, right?) article calling Bernie Sanders a "die hard communist" - da fuck? You're what's wrong with the internet. What respect exactly do you expect?
From an entitled immature child I expect exactly what I'm getting from you. Who gives a flying fornication it's not the Times? Is that the only paper out there? And everyone knows the Times is extremely left wing so of course they wouldn't run an anti communism article. And I'm what's wrong with the internet??? No, what's wrong with the internet is what's wrong with public discourse in general; that too many people cannot manage a civil discussion of differing opinions and ideas without resorting to childish insults. After all our previous encounters I expected better from you.
This is why whenever my family goes off about some show not a having a black person in it, I lose my shit.
It.
Is.
Not.
Racist.
I don't give a fuck if a show doesn't even show a single black person for 700 seasons. If that show is good, I'm fucking watching it. That's also why I'm never going near BET or ever going to contribute to BHM. I mean seriously, we need our own month to show what we did over the years? THERE IS A CLASS FOR THAT CALLED SOCIAL STUDIES.
Ugh, we blacks always want something "blacks only" and that doesn't make us racist? How dumb. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it(although to a smaller scale).
Lol I find "if that show is good, I'm fucking watching it" hilarious but good point tho... also let me add...as a black person..if can honestly say we have a LOONNGGG ways to go until we can even consider ourselves "equal".. our mindsets have to change considerably before anything else.
I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed but, isn't it weird that the media/hollywood/varying companies/celebrities pushing black lives matter, black history month and other such things for their own monetary gain? That doesn't piss anybody off? They're having yall push against a wall that isn't there anymore so that you'll buy more black "oriented" so they can make more money off of you and your perceived inequality. They want you to think there's racism, so they can make more money off of you. Take beyonces super bowl performance for example, where did she stand on black lives matter before it got popular? Just a thought is all......
No one really wants to be "equal" people just say they want to be "equal" but really they want to get sympathy for not being treated "equal" and get the the benefits of being better than "equal". So in other words no one really wants "equal rights" it just sounds better than we want to be treated better than you are treated. (And that goes for every one, woman vs men, gays vs strights, race vs race, all them.)
BHM always confused me, as a black guy. Why the hell do we need our own month? We want equality; shouldn't we create at least a White History Month to show what white people have done too?
How about a Native American month, and an Asian month, a French month, a German month, every race gets a month that way we learn more about what makes us all amazing individuals.
Actually there is Asian History month and Jewish History Month, both in May: German History and Italian history month in October; November is Native American Heritage month; July is French History month; March is Irish History Month; April is Arab History month. The schools and media just don't cover them.
There shouldn't be any of it. It's a race you're born as not an achievement. If we put this amount of thought into bigger problems like idk cancer, aids, global warming, famine, etc... maybe we d all live in a better place. But naw let's argue over this nonsense instead
Morgan Freeman said that? Not calling BS, it's just I've heard him say things more than once that led me to believe he is a "black lives matter" kind of guy, including glowing praise for Barack Obama just because he's black. Of course that was early on in Obama's presidency and maybe it was optimism more than anything else. I saw him interviewed by Stephen Fry a few years ago on BBC and Freeman spoke a lot of common sense about race relations then. I fully agree BTW; we need to just get past identity politics and think of ourselves as PEOPLE.
Surprise, Motherfucker: Mr. Freeman is actually a "Black Lives Matter" Kind of guy. This s how he commented the Blatimore riots
“That unrest [in Baltimore] has nothing to do with terrorism at all, except the terrorism we suffer from the police, [...] And the fact that now that’s out in the open [referring to Amadou Diallo] Forty-one times he was shot. That was the beginning of our understanding of how dangerous police are. [...] Because of the technology—everybody has a smartphone—now we can see what the police are doing, [...] We can show the world, Look, this is what happened in that situation. So why are so many people dying in police custody? And why are they all black? And why are all the police killing them white? What is that?”
Also, his quote on BHM isn't really meant the way you'ld like it to be...
I'm waiting for the day when we have Entertainment Television, and History Month. We are all people; I see skin color no differently than, say eye color or hair color (except for those damn gingers!). As a fine upstanding citizen and ambassador for race relations once so eloquently opined: "Can't we just get along?"
Who's getting gunned down? Surely you're not talking about the 90% of black murders committed by other blacks!
According to the FBI, out of 2491 murders of black victims in 2013 (the most recent year I could find reliable data), 2245 of those were found to have been committed by black offenders. Equality? I don't know but that sure as hell isn't racism. Check your facts.
5
deleted
· 8 years ago
Pretty disappointing that we don't stick together though. If us as a human race want to be living in harmony, then us as independent races need to work on that first.
So Mr. Fact Warrior, why do you think that is? Why are so many young black men killing young black men? I would really like to know how you explain this fact you're so eager to present.
You know of course the guest referred to black people gunned down by the police... but, hey, whatever...
Funsubstanceuser, I feel like you're hinting that black people are somehow driven to commit violence against other black people and shouldn't be held responsible? If that is the case and you feel them murdering people is a result of 'black oppression' then you're an idiot. If not I apologise.
Wow you really are stalking me aren't you Chester? Of course the guest was referring to the police you twit! Guest believes the lies from the race hustlers.
The data I cited is from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Look it the hell up yourself.
Why are young black men killing young black men? Are you fucking serious? Gang activity. The media doesn't report such things though, do they?
Regardless WHY, the fact is that statistically blacks should fear other blacks a whole hell of a lot more than the police.
Yes, 90% of black murder victims were killed by black offenders. And 83% of white murder victims were killed by white offenders. By your source, guestwho, people are a lot more likely to be killed by someone of their own race, regardless of what that race is.
But consider also: analysis of 2015 U.S. census data found that at least 1 in 3 black people killed by police were unarmed, that 37% of unarmed people killed by police were black despite black people representing only 13% of the population, and that unarmed black people are killed at 5 times the rate of unarmed white people.
Are black people more likely to be killed by other black people than by the police? Yes.
But are unarmed black people at a much greater risk of being killed by police than unarmed white people are? Also yes. Which is fucked up, and definitely not equal.
I could find no concrete data easily enough to bother with, but I do know that in almost every case that has made the news recently the black person that got shot was resisting arrest or attacking the officer (Michael Brown in Ferguson).
Do what a police officer tells you to do! Another helpful hint is STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE!
Also never reported is that the officers in these shootings are often black themselves, so racism doesn't wash. http://nypost.com/2016/01/02/myth-of-the-cop-killing-epidemic/
4
·
Edited 8 years ago
deleted
· 8 years ago
Here's a tip: how about everyone shuts the fuck up and we all go about our day.
Leave Carlton Banks alone, he is pretty much on your side, isn't he?
"Not part of the argument" - well, actually you brought up the gangs, didn't you? So, what's your assumption? Why are there so many violent black men in street gangs killing each other? Any idea whatsoever, or is this a complete enigma to you? Usually you have a precise, pointed idea of pretty much everything, haven't you?
" I suppose you think racist crackers are forcing them into it?" - this is of course way too simplified, so I'm not surprised this is how you try to wrap this up.
As to this NYP article: 965 killings, "only" nearly 4% of those were white cops shooting !U!NA!R!M!E!D! black men, that's 38 unarmed black men shot and killed by white policemen in one single year. One in twenty-fucking-five persons shot by the police. To you that's nothing at all to worry about?
BTW: 38 is more than the total number of persons, no matter what race, killed by the british police. In 15 years.
No, why they are committing crimes and killing each other doesn't matter. It's never the criminal's fault to you liberals is it? They are committing crimes because that's what criminals do, until they are caught or killed.
No, "racist crackers" is not an attempt to wrap anything up. Funny you have not answered my question though.
As to your assertion about unarmed black men; IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THEY WERE ARMED OR NOT WHEN THEY ATTACKED THE POLICE OFFICERS. THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE RESISTED/ASSAULTED THE COPS AND THEY WOULD PROBABLY STILL BE ALIVE. Do you really think a cop has to wait until he has a bullet in his head before taking a threat seriously??? If these criminals had any intelligence they wouldn't have fought the cops unarmed. That's just stupid on their part.
No, obviously I don't think racist crackers are forcing young black men into street gangs and killing each other. As I said, this is way too simplistic to make any sense at all. Now answer my question please. If you can. Or dare. The question is not: what is a criminal, I know that. But this is about races, and the fact that a certain fraction of a certain race does commit certain crimes. You brought that up actually. If you don't know it or have no idea, just say so. Maybe then you shouldn't have mentioned this at all, but hey, it's the internet, right? You pretend you know my exact point of view, but I have no idea what you really think, and that is because you seem to refuse to answer. Kind of funny. Carlton Banks is a distant relative to this guy Uncle Tom btw. Google him. He's a great dancer, too. Like most of his kind. So they say.
BTW: so all of those unarmed, black men attacked police officers? There you go with your funny shit again. I missed that. The capslock made it funnier even. Keep it up. I'm having a lot of fun here.
Uncle Tom is a bit of racist reference, no? Also the "most of his kind" bit. I bet you have a dog named Jim Crow don't you?
And yes, if you refuse to comply with a police officer's commands you run a risk of getting your ass shot.
And as to your incomprehension of gang life, violent thugs with no regard for others are not confined to any one race. There are a lot of blacks in gangs. There are a lot of Latinos in gangs. There are a lot of Russians in gangs. There are a lot of Asians in gangs. There are a lot of whites in gangs. I have a feeling you lean toward the progressive sociological theory that young black men join gangs because they have no other options due to the institutional racism that keeps them confined to poor, crime-ridden ghettos and allows them no means of elevating themselves.
This is bullshit, by the way. As I have said, criminal gang activity knows no racial boundaries.
Stop dissing Uncle Tom. Read the book and you will see what a brave man he was. Everything, and I mean everything, he did was to protect his wife and children and the people he loved. And that's a bad thing? It also made people understand the horrors of slavery. Read the book!!!
Actually, the "Uncle Tom" stereotype doesn't come directly from the book. The popularity of the book made it a common subject for minstrel shows, and like most popular entertainment, minstrel shows preferred to cater to what people wanted to believe to make themselves more palatable and popular. The "Uncle Tom" most often presented in minstrel show format was sniveling, cowardly, and ingratiating, which is what the insult "Uncle Tom" was originally associated with - not the character as originally portrayed in the book.
Abel is exactly right. Calling a black person an Uncle Tom is far from a compliment. This is usually an epithet leveled by blacks at other blacks who accept society as it is and get along with the white man.
That said, I'm kind of on the other side of the argument here: there IS systemic racism at work in our society; however, as far as I can tell, it's at least partially driven by the twin force of systemic classism. The reason many underprivileged people are the victims of violent crime committed by other underprivileged people is nastily simple: regardless of the REASON for the privilege (race, socioeconomic status, education level, etc.), privileged people use that privilege to do what common sense indicates you'd do, and stay out of locales and situations that make them vulnerable to violent crime. Underprivileged people don't have the resources to allow them to do that. Underprivileged people also don't necessarily have access to the resources to allow them to effectively pursue other vocation, so a greater portion will resort to the blunter tools in humanity's workshop. Privileged people in similar situations, if unsatisfied with legal methods, resort to white-collar crime.
Well spoken (typed) response there. I don't think you really described racism per se, though. Someone who has the capability to stay out of Compton isn't a racist for doing so. It seems like a chicken-and-egg sort of thing; does the ses of those in the ghetto contribute to rampant crime or does rampant crime contribute to the ses of those in the ghetto. I think the answer is far more complex, and something of a perpetual cycle. Poverty means living in areas people avoid because rent is cheaper because people avoid them; areas people avoid draw criminals because no one will chase them out; crime causes people to avoid these areas except those in poverty, and so on. I also think, however, that crime in these areas would be less of an issue if police could patrol without being accused of profiling.
A city not too far from me had a bad problem with crime and gang activity in a certain section of town for years. The police department was condemned for not caring about the residents of this area, who were primarily black. The police chief organized a task force to concentrate on the high crime neighborhoods, and started to make a difference. Those same residents who raised hell about the police not stopping the crime in these neighborhoods then started complaining the police were unfairly targeting these neighborhoods and cried racism until the police backed out and disbanded the taskforce. Now that crime has climbed back up the police are racists because they are not patrolling these neighborhoods as much.
I'm not saying that staying out of Compton (Oak Cliff, whatever your local equivalent is) is racist; I'm saying that the phenomenon forms a pattern that keeps the majority of the people in that area away from the opportunities that would allow them to leave and/or protect themselves. Is "racism" cried often in our society for causes to which it does not directly relate/for personal gain? Yes. Does that mean that it does not legitimately exist/affect people? Hell no.
I meant that while I agree with your assessment of the circumstances I would not call what you describe "racism." After all, there are many poor whites living in high crime ghettos too. If anything I could maybe go with classism.
I have to wonder, though; doesn't there come a point where people (any people) really have to take some personal responsibility for their situation instead of sitting idly by and allowing themselves to be victims? What would happen if residents in these neighborhoods banded together and fought back against the criminals?
I believe they call that "vigilante justice," and while society thinks it's cool when, like, one guy does that, if a neighborhood does that, regardless of whether or not they're actually receiving the protection they need from law enforcement, actual sanctioned law enforcement gets nervous about them and we all end up, sooner or later, back in Waco.
And at least from my experiences in the South, racism does play into classism. My neighborhood was "rural," where some of my friends' neighborhood was "the ghetto." Same number of drug dealers, pretty sure there were more visible guns on my block than on theirs.
I'm not necessarily talking about nuking up and hunting gangbangers. I'm talking about taking a stand and not cowering in their homes while the goblins run amok outside. Criminals operate on fear. If no one is afraid of them, they lose much of their power.
I'm also talking about taking some pride in their neighborhoods. Little things like cleaning up trash, scrubbing or painting over graffiti, mowing lawns. If you've never heard of the Broken Windows Theory, I highly suggest looking into it.
There's a lot to be said for the underpinnings of broken windows theory, but the possibility relies on certain assumptions about the structure of a neighborhood that aren't always viable. My neighborhood had a lot of neatness to the block and a steady flow of communication because, as "poor" as we might have been, about half the households in the block had a regular stay-at-home (i.e., not employed outside the home) member - neighbor's dad had a bad back, stayed home and took care of the house, my mother was a homemaker, etc. However, one of my cousins grew up in a different neighborhood - trash on the sidewalks, boarded windows, etc. - and I didn't think anything of the difference at the time, but I do remember their mother (disabled, unable to work) being one of the only adults in the neighborhood home (i.e., with time to invest in watching the neighborhood) and several of their friends with whom I was acquainted mentioning that their parents worked two or three different jobs.
Guestwho: with all your lecturing proving you have an opinion and expertise with pretty much every theme... you still kinda forgot to answer a pretty simple question. Why is that?
There's always going to be racism wherever you go, but as an English person I'd say people don't feel the need to apologise for slavery and such that went on so long ago
Yeah that's been the recurring theme here. Never mind that America was not the only country to hold black slaves, and never even had the most slaves. Some people here actually make a lot of money giving speeches and stirring trouble over racial issues, and they understandably do not want racism to end.
1
deleted
· 8 years ago
Obviously there is racism in every country (which is sad I know) but I guess race relations here...I dunno..FEEL different? I don't know how to describe it really...I guess it's not as big of an issue here as in the USA?
Bear in mind, the US did hang onto the institution of slavery about, what, thirty to forty years longer than most of the rest of the "Europeanized" world? There's also the fact that in the US, the institution was changed not by a vote, but by a war, and on top of that, by a war that semi-permanently impoverished the major region it most strongly affected (the American South is, to this day, less industrialized than its neighboring regions and is commonly associated in popular culture/stereotypes with lower education and wealth levels). There's a load of cultural resentment all tied up with the issue of racism that doesn't directly have anything to do with racism.
How exactly do I make money by "fanning the flames" in the controversy about racism? So many people say its done all the time, how exactly do I do it? Sounds like a great job opportunity.
Everything isn't about you, you egocentric bastard! I was referring to people like Al Sharpton or almost any Democrat politician. They get paid hundreds of thousands or more for speeches or campaign contributions.
Name one person who get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for fanning the flames... Al Sharpton is a tv host and gets paid for being a tv host. Even Bill O'Reilly gets paid for more than lies and hate mongering...
Do you think Sharpton just dropped out of space onto MSNBC???? He's been around for several decades. Maybe you haven't noticed but he pops up EVERYWHERE whenever someone cries racism. He has made his living for decades from the race industry. Jesse Jackson too. Neither of them are poor, and haven't been for some time.
About the bullshit I expected. A black guy on TV talking about racism and joining the debate when the topic's up? Clearly a business model. Wow... A sorry little klans-kid like you foaming over something like "race industry" tells me there's a lot going right in this world. "Race industry" is your klan-speak for civil right movement, right? So what, MLK was like the Henry Ford of the race industry? So rich...
See? Once you stop trying to be funny, you're a real blast again. Keep it up.
Abel, would you include people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in this "tiny, but loud and extant" class "making their living stirring shit", ergo members of a "race industry"? Reduce the both of them to that? That your opinion?
Someone had to say it. Also I have the slight impression that I understand some of the subtleties of your native language better than you. I believe you did not express what you wanted to express. Thats why you think I agree with you
But you don't address the fact that that particular response was unadulterated ad hominem.
As to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.... Jesse Jackson I know jack about. Al Sharpton is a mixed bag. He's done a lot over the years, but he *also* occasionally does shit like implying that black people should have a cultural monopoly on fried chicken (a dish that is common in both poor white and poor black communities and has a dual origin in Scottish and West African cuisines) and using "yellow" (originally a term for light-skinned black people or black people with partial nonblack ancestry) as a political insult. So he's done the occasional touch of shit-stirring, and he does make a living as a public figure.
Last I heard, though, he was getting involved in Black Lives Matter, and we need as many people involved in that as possible.
Also, I thought it was pretty clear that garlog meant "reduced" as in "by waning social relevance" and you used his quote "reduced" as in "by coercion."
In my understanding Its an important difference if someone reduces himself (= active) to a certain role by concentrating on a certain aspect and leaving all other activities behind, or if he is reduced (passive) to that role by someone else, by concentrating on just one aspect and ignoring all others. And reducing Sharpton (which you refer to a a mixed bag, and thats quite balanced) and Jackson (get some info on him, he has done great things for cilvil rights, not only for blacks) to something as bullshitty as a "race industry" does not deserve a courteous reply, as this expression alone is way beyond ad hominem and full proof of aggressive knobism and breathtaking ignorance.
I read recently that the current culture leans toward pessimism. The inability to image things changing pervades our culture. I think things can change. I think different ethnicities get to embrace their culture and I think "white guilt" should stop being a reason we make certain decisions.
BTW: titles like "Someone's got to say it" actually try to create the impression, that no one ever does, cause its like forbidden. Or that the goody-two-shoes put you in a concentration camp once you break that law. That's adorable...
The numbers of black and hispanic trumpicionados are plus 7 weeks old. He's said and done a lot of shit since then. Lets wait for recent figures. Even when he has 40-50% of the black and hispanic votes, he could still have >90 % of the rednecks and imbeciles. No contradiction there.
Sanders is in no way a socialist, he's a classic social democrat, whatever he calls it. Calling himself "democratic socialist" was just dumb and wrong. Nothing he wants has anything to do with what so-called socialist governments ever did.
BTW: dissing people for being "too young to have seen it" is classic you.
You claim Sanders is not a socialist?!? HE SAYS HE IS!!! I really don't think he takes your opinion into account in his campaign. Of course I could be wrong.
What americans call pizza has not that much to do with a real pizza. Same applies to socialism. That's why the "been there" attitude is pretty ridiculous by itself. And its even more hilarious coming from someone who is clearly a minor, thus the "classic you" - he tends to pretend he's the old greyback who's seen it all. I just love when he does that!
You insult my intelligence? I insult your fucking face. You offended? Wanna victimize yourself? Cry me a fucking river...
1. If we're paying taxes out the ass, nothing the government "gives" us in exchange is free.
2. The government controlling everything and determining winners and losers is SOCIALISM.
3. http://nypost.com/2016/01/16/dont-be-fooled-by-bernie-sanders-hes-a-diehard-communist/
4. The cursing and insults when you have nothing substantive to say is exactly why I called you a child. That is immature.
I might just have to start taking your rantings personally. Lol
It.
Is.
Not.
Racist.
I don't give a fuck if a show doesn't even show a single black person for 700 seasons. If that show is good, I'm fucking watching it. That's also why I'm never going near BET or ever going to contribute to BHM. I mean seriously, we need our own month to show what we did over the years? THERE IS A CLASS FOR THAT CALLED SOCIAL STUDIES.
Ugh, we blacks always want something "blacks only" and that doesn't make us racist? How dumb. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it(although to a smaller scale).
“That unrest [in Baltimore] has nothing to do with terrorism at all, except the terrorism we suffer from the police, [...] And the fact that now that’s out in the open [referring to Amadou Diallo] Forty-one times he was shot. That was the beginning of our understanding of how dangerous police are. [...] Because of the technology—everybody has a smartphone—now we can see what the police are doing, [...] We can show the world, Look, this is what happened in that situation. So why are so many people dying in police custody? And why are they all black? And why are all the police killing them white? What is that?”
Also, his quote on BHM isn't really meant the way you'ld like it to be...
According to the FBI, out of 2491 murders of black victims in 2013 (the most recent year I could find reliable data), 2245 of those were found to have been committed by black offenders. Equality? I don't know but that sure as hell isn't racism. Check your facts.
You know of course the guest referred to black people gunned down by the police... but, hey, whatever...
The data I cited is from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Look it the hell up yourself.
Why are young black men killing young black men? Are you fucking serious? Gang activity. The media doesn't report such things though, do they?
Regardless WHY, the fact is that statistically blacks should fear other blacks a whole hell of a lot more than the police.
But consider also: analysis of 2015 U.S. census data found that at least 1 in 3 black people killed by police were unarmed, that 37% of unarmed people killed by police were black despite black people representing only 13% of the population, and that unarmed black people are killed at 5 times the rate of unarmed white people.
Are black people more likely to be killed by other black people than by the police? Yes.
But are unarmed black people at a much greater risk of being killed by police than unarmed white people are? Also yes. Which is fucked up, and definitely not equal.
Do what a police officer tells you to do! Another helpful hint is STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE!
Also never reported is that the officers in these shootings are often black themselves, so racism doesn't wash. http://nypost.com/2016/01/02/myth-of-the-cop-killing-epidemic/
*edit: crap I meant to put a "lol" in there. Sorry.
"Not part of the argument" - well, actually you brought up the gangs, didn't you? So, what's your assumption? Why are there so many violent black men in street gangs killing each other? Any idea whatsoever, or is this a complete enigma to you? Usually you have a precise, pointed idea of pretty much everything, haven't you?
" I suppose you think racist crackers are forcing them into it?" - this is of course way too simplified, so I'm not surprised this is how you try to wrap this up.
As to this NYP article: 965 killings, "only" nearly 4% of those were white cops shooting !U!NA!R!M!E!D! black men, that's 38 unarmed black men shot and killed by white policemen in one single year. One in twenty-fucking-five persons shot by the police. To you that's nothing at all to worry about?
BTW: 38 is more than the total number of persons, no matter what race, killed by the british police. In 15 years.
No, "racist crackers" is not an attempt to wrap anything up. Funny you have not answered my question though.
As to your assertion about unarmed black men; IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THEY WERE ARMED OR NOT WHEN THEY ATTACKED THE POLICE OFFICERS. THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE RESISTED/ASSAULTED THE COPS AND THEY WOULD PROBABLY STILL BE ALIVE. Do you really think a cop has to wait until he has a bullet in his head before taking a threat seriously??? If these criminals had any intelligence they wouldn't have fought the cops unarmed. That's just stupid on their part.
And yes, if you refuse to comply with a police officer's commands you run a risk of getting your ass shot.
And as to your incomprehension of gang life, violent thugs with no regard for others are not confined to any one race. There are a lot of blacks in gangs. There are a lot of Latinos in gangs. There are a lot of Russians in gangs. There are a lot of Asians in gangs. There are a lot of whites in gangs. I have a feeling you lean toward the progressive sociological theory that young black men join gangs because they have no other options due to the institutional racism that keeps them confined to poor, crime-ridden ghettos and allows them no means of elevating themselves.
This is bullshit, by the way. As I have said, criminal gang activity knows no racial boundaries.
I have to wonder, though; doesn't there come a point where people (any people) really have to take some personal responsibility for their situation instead of sitting idly by and allowing themselves to be victims? What would happen if residents in these neighborhoods banded together and fought back against the criminals?
And at least from my experiences in the South, racism does play into classism. My neighborhood was "rural," where some of my friends' neighborhood was "the ghetto." Same number of drug dealers, pretty sure there were more visible guns on my block than on theirs.
I'm also talking about taking some pride in their neighborhoods. Little things like cleaning up trash, scrubbing or painting over graffiti, mowing lawns. If you've never heard of the Broken Windows Theory, I highly suggest looking into it.
See? Once you stop trying to be funny, you're a real blast again. Keep it up.
I'll take that victory.
As to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.... Jesse Jackson I know jack about. Al Sharpton is a mixed bag. He's done a lot over the years, but he *also* occasionally does shit like implying that black people should have a cultural monopoly on fried chicken (a dish that is common in both poor white and poor black communities and has a dual origin in Scottish and West African cuisines) and using "yellow" (originally a term for light-skinned black people or black people with partial nonblack ancestry) as a political insult. So he's done the occasional touch of shit-stirring, and he does make a living as a public figure.
Last I heard, though, he was getting involved in Black Lives Matter, and we need as many people involved in that as possible.
Also, I thought it was pretty clear that garlog meant "reduced" as in "by waning social relevance" and you used his quote "reduced" as in "by coercion."
"...I'm not racist, but..."
Remove it all.