Would you take a knee?

[irksomesauce]

Truth simply is that underachievers are always going to whine about something.

 

[BotanyBoy]

St. Louis clearly needs to elect some more Democrats and POC to positions of power so all the white Nazi scum running that town are no longer oppressing POC.

 

[richard_daily]

St. Louis clearly needs to elect some more Democrats and POC to positions of power so all the white Nazi scum running that town are no longer oppressing POC.

Or maybe the cops just need to stop murdering unarmed black men?

 

[KimGordon67]

It amuses me when people say <paraphrase> Good men died defending your right to free speech, so stop insulting them by using the thing they died defending! </paraphrase>

And seriously, the flag and the anthem are symbols of the country they represent and the respect a country deserves depends on how it treats all its citizens. All how it deals with dissidence and protest.
Right now the US administration is not scoring very high, certainly not in my opinion. But hey, who cares? I don't live there.

It's sort of interesting to see how 'patriotism' works like this though. I hadn't really thought much before about how it means that, for example, people go and fight wars not so much for particular wars, but 'for my country'. I guess the notion of one's country can encompass particular values, but just phrasing it like suggests a different way of thinking about them.

 

[richard_daily]

It's sort of interesting to see how 'patriotism' works like this though. I hadn't really thought much before about how it means that, for example, people go and fight wars not so much for particular wars, but 'for my country'. I guess the notion of one's country can encompass particular values, but just phrasing it like suggests a different way of thinking about them.

Note that there are barely any NFL coaches, owners, or players supporting Trump's dog whistle racism.

He's trying to drum up more white "resistance" to black people getting "uppity", and it's failing this time, just like it failed last time.

 

[adrina]

It amuses me when people say <paraphrase> Good men died defending your right to free speech, so stop insulting them by using the thing they died defending! </paraphrase>

And seriously, the flag and the anthem are symbols of the country they represent and the respect a country deserves depends on how it treats all its citizens. All how it deals with dissidence and protest.
Right now the US administration is not scoring very high, certainly not in my opinion. But hey, who cares? I don't live there.

It's sort of interesting to see how 'patriotism' works like this though. I hadn't really thought much before about how it means that, for example, people go and fight wars not so much for particular wars, but 'for my country'. I guess the notion of one's country can encompass particular values, but just phrasing it like suggests a different way of thinking about them.

The supreme irony here is there hasn't been a war which was fought for American values or freedom since WW2.

 

[lickitandstickit]

The supreme irony here is there hasn't been a war which was fought for American values or freedom since WW2.

American Values is a subjective term. Every single one of them were fought for American Values. . Wars are being fought now because natural resources need liberating for American values..

You simply go because A. you signed up B. you had no choice.

Values is something they rather you didn't have...

 

[KimGordon67]

The supreme irony here is there hasn't been a war which was fought for American values or freedom since WW2.

I guess that's true ... I hadn't really thought about it.
From the outside, it's interesting how easy it is to mobilise this notion of 'patriotism' though, and how it provokes such rage at what is, ultimately, a pretty harmless action. I guess that's what make the action effective though.

 

[Wordsworth]

Or maybe the cops just need to stop murdering unarmed black men?

Didn't having Obama as your President help the situation at all?

 

[SalviaDivinorum]

Historically, wars have been about resources, not values. Sometimes it's blatant, like the colonial land grabs or the two Gulf wars, other times it's hidden behind historical smoke and mirrors, like the inter family squabbling that was WW1.

Even WW2 was initially a defensive war which became a geopolitical land grab, once Hitler had been beaten. The Allies could have intervened much earlier to close down the concentration camps, had there been a moral imperative to their war. But there wasn't so they didn't.

No, most wars are not to defend values, but resources, and lately to cash in on the enormous profits that the war machine generates.

 

[adrina]

Didn't having Obama as your President help the situation at all?

I find it hilarious in a sad and pathetic way that Obama has been said to be so divisive, yet here we are with Trump rated as even more so. Leave it to the GOP to outperform on that metric. Eeesh.

 

[water505]

Historically, wars have been about resources, not values. Sometimes it's blatant, like the colonial land grabs or the two Gulf wars, other times it's hidden behind historical smoke and mirrors, like the inter family squabbling that was WW1.

Even WW2 was initially a defensive war which became a geopolitical land grab, once Hitler had been beaten. The Allies could have intervened much earlier to close down the concentration camps, had there been a moral imperative to their war. But there wasn't so they didn't.

No, most wars are not to defend values, but resources, and lately to cash in on the enormous profits that the war machine generates.

How could the Allies have intervened much earlier to close the concentration camps?

 

[richard_daily]

Truth simply is that underachievers are always going to whine about something.

Especially mediocre white guys.

 

[richard_daily]

Didn't having Obama as your President help the situation at all?

In some ways, it did. In other ways, the mediocre white guys go so uppity that they just "couldn't keep silent" about their status as mediocre white guys any longer.

 

[richard_daily]

How could the Allies have intervened much earlier to close the concentration camps?

Specifically, the US business community could have started by not supporting the Nazi Party until 1939.

Right wingers all tend to stick together though, to enforce the hierarchy that they believe "inherent". You're just at the bottom of that hierarchy in their eyes.

 

[Sean]

How could the Allies have intervened much earlier to close the concentration camps?

Well, you lot could have stopped profiteering for two years and actually got off your fat arses.

 

[KimGordon67]

Of the total incarcerated population in the world, the US has roughly 22%. Of those, 40% are black (while 13% of the general population are black) [source - various Wiki entries]. I'm pretty rubbish at maths, but that means roughly 10% of all the incarcerated people in the world are black Americans.

In 2016, 1,093 people were killed by police officers. 266 of them were black - so roughly a quarter (again, compared to 13% of the general population). [Source.]

I already knew most of the incarceration data. The police shootings data took about 30 seconds to find.

13% of black men of voting age can't vote because they're felons (will add citation later).

I'm pretty angry at the little shit who burgled my home and stole, then crashed, my car. But I don't think he should be denied the right to vote ... because, you know, democracy ...

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Oh....really?

According to the following link, the Southern Poverty Law Center claims 917 hate groups were operating in the United States at the end of 2016 -- 101 less than the peak number in 2011. https://www.splcenter.org/news/2017/...-radical-right

That 917 number includes 193 black separatist groups. You know, NOT the Klan separatists, but the Black Panther Party kind who hates "whitey." But even better, that 917 figure also includes 623 anti-government "patriot" groups of whom SPLC admits:


Mostly tin-foil hatters or fat, beer guzzlers with a camo-utility fetish who think playing paintball will prepare them to overthrow the United States military if we ever have another black President someday. These people are a joke. A sick joke, to be sure, but the punchline is people like you viewing them as a serious threat.



https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-h...-and-extremism

“2016 was an unprecedented year for hate,” said Mark Potok, senior fellow and editor of the Intelligence Report. “The country saw a resurgence of white nationalism that imperils the racial progress we’ve made, along with the rise of a president whose policies reflect the values of white nationalists. In Steve Bannon, these extremists think they finally have an ally who has the president's ear.”

The increase in anti-Muslim hate was fueled by Trump’s incendiary rhetoric, including his campaign pledge to bar Muslims from entering the United States, as well as anger over terrorist attacks such as the June massacre of 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando.

The overall number of hate groups likely understates the real level of organized hatred in America as a growing number of extremists operate mainly online and are not formally affiliated with hate groups.

That wasn’t all. In the immediate aftermath of Election Day, a wave of hate crimes and lesser hate incidents swept the country — 1,094 bias incidents in the first 34 days, according to a count by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The hate was clearly tied directly to Trump’s victory. The highest count came on the first day after the election, with the numbers diminishing steadily after that. And more than a third of the incidents directly referenced either Trump, his “Make America Great Again” slogan, or his infamous remarks about grabbing women by the genitals.




In any event, my recalculation gives me 193 Black Separatist groups plus 623 John Birchers fighting mainly poison ivy and snakebite, for a total hate sub-population of 816 out of 917. Leaving about 100 Klan-type groups of REAL racist haters. That's your picture of hate groups "on the rise."

But "WAIT," you say. "What about the SPLC's analysis of a 197% increase in anti-Muslim hate groups"?

Yeah, what about them. Says SLPC:



This latter category is heavily populated with members of the alarmist religious right which, despite the Islamophobia directed at the entirety of the Muslim religion, have displayed not the slightest propensity of actual crimes of violence directed at Muslims nor does any of their religious dogma advocate such extremism.


From the link you posted:

The growth has been accompanied by a rash of crimes targeting Muslims, including an arson that destroyed a mosque in Victoria, Texas, just hours after the Trump administration announced an executive order suspending travel from some predominantly Muslim countries. The latest FBI statistics show that hate crimes against Muslims grew by 67 percent in 2015, the year in which Trump launched his campaign.

Meanwhile, SPLC seems little concerned with the obviously small minority of Muslims in the United States who advocate militant jihad and openly agree with the very worst of fears and assumptions which the Muslim haters hold. You are aware such people actually exist, right? You've at least heard of ISIS and Al Qaeda, yes?

So how come? Is it just because they are not openly aligned in card-carrying member GROUPS? Or is it because they enjoy the same First Amendment rights of speech and association which the other groups -- the ones SPLC actually monitors -- enjoy? You know, as long as everybody behaves themselves


That's just a bunch of disappointing, unnecessary, unrelated and provocative BS.[/I]
.

But, hey. "We're only as blind as we want to be."

Really.

Holy selective quoting, Colonel.

I'll give you a mea culpa on my grossly optimistic assumption that no hate crimes were committed against Muslims (what was I thinking? )

But you're still missing the greater point I was making -- that people like to misuse "hate group data" from folks like SPLC to inflate the size and impact of the Klan and Nazis when the black separatist racial hate groups focus their racial hatred on whites. Far more importantly, the overwhelming number of SPLC-defined hate groups are not even racially motivated. They're anti-government gun nuts who are lucky not to shoot each other when they're out in the woods on "training maneuvers."

Finally, I wager to offer that most of the Muslim hate groups aren't truly hate groups at all. They're Islamophobes. And the root word of the second half of that compound word is "phobia." And phobia is all about fear, not hatred.

Now we can quibble about how much their fear of ALL Muslims is justified because some of that is rooted in a belief that some radical, militant homicidal Muslims deceive their hostile intentions by practicing taqiya and pose as moderate, non-violent Muslims. But there is no denying that many radical, militant jihadist Muslims preach and practice their violent jihad quite openly and various Muslims and non-Muslims alike have had every reason to fear the terror directed against them. There is not a thing unreasonable about that fear.

In short, the label "hate group" has been generally tossed around carelessly to mean only that group that we LOVE to hate. But there seems not the slightest reluctance to refrain from applying criminal or otherwise disparaging data implicating OTHER hate groups to unfairly malign the targets we wish malign.

And that's it's own separate disingenuous "crime."

 

[richard_daily]

I'll give you a mea culpa on my grossly optimistic assumption that no hate crimes were committed against Muslims (what was I thinking? )

But you're still missing the greater point I was making -- that people like to misuse "hate group data" from folks like SPLC to inflate the size and impact of the Klan and Nazis when the black separatist racial hate groups focus their racial hatred on whites. Far more importantly, the overwhelming number of SPLC-defined hate groups are not even racially motivated. They're anti-government gun nuts who are lucky not to shoot each other when they're out in the woods on "training maneuvers."

Finally, I wager to offer that most of the Muslim hate groups aren't truly hate groups at all. They're Islamophobes. And the root word of the second half of that compound word is "phobia." And phobia is all about fear, not hatred.

Now we can quibble about how much their fear of ALL Muslims is justified because some of that is rooted in a belief that some radical, militant homicidal Muslims deceive their hostile intentions by practicing taqiya and pose as moderate, non-violent Muslims. But there is no denying that many radical, militant jihadist Muslims preach and practice their violent jihad quite openly and various Muslims and non-Muslims alike have had every reason to fear the terror directed against them. There is not a thing unreasonable about that fear.

In short, the label "hate group" has been generally tossed around carelessly to mean only that group that we LOVE to hate. But there seems not the slightest reluctance to refrain from applying criminal or otherwise disparaging data implicating OTHER hate groups to unfairly malign the targets we wish malign.

And that's it's own separate disingenuous "crime."

The number of actual klansmen is small. The number of people who espouse similar views is large and dangerous.

You don't have to be a card carrying KKK member to be a shithead racist. The alt-right, breitbart, and fox news has made it a cornerstone of their propaganda campaign.

 

[RobDS_sucks_cocks]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r53G7s7Ep_U

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The number of actual klansmen is small. The number of people who espouse similar views is large and dangerous.

You don't have to be a card carrying KKK member to be a shithead racist. The alt-right, breitbart, and fox news has made it a cornerstone of their propaganda campaign.

Most racists are NOT inherently dangerous. They're just stupid. Like most liberals.

Most racism AND most liberalism is imminently survivable. It takes an extreme amount of either one to be truly dangerous.

And, no, I'm not kidding around or just trying to be cute.

 

[doowdniw]

Would the knee be on a certain dotard's throat?

 

[richard_daily]

Most racists are NOT inherently dangerous. They're just stupid. Like most liberals.

Most racism AND most liberalism is imminently survivable. It takes an extreme amount of either one to be truly dangerous.

And, no, I'm not kidding around or just trying to be cute.

You're sort of right. Racism is survivable as long as you're not murdered by a racist cop.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You're sort of right. Racism is survivable as long as you're not murdered by a racist cop.

That's true. And again, most racists, be they cops, plumbers, car salesmen, accountants, letter carriers, truck drivers, waiters, engineers, dairy farmers, stock brokers, or air traffic controllers don't murder people.

So they aren't inherently dangerous. Just stupid.

Conversely, any racist who does murder people IS inherently dangerous. This isn't difficult to figure out, so why the emphasis on the aberration? I get the irony of a racist police officer under oath to protect citizens, killing them instead. But that is a long way from declaring all "shithead racists" as dangerous. Hell, even most Klansmen aren't truly dangerous. They'd like to believe they are, but most of them are just brainless stupid fucks as well talking shit. But I'm all for watching them closely and infiltrating their ranks.

 

[butters]

I guess that's true ... I hadn't really thought about it.
From the outside, it's interesting how easy it is to mobilise this notion of 'patriotism' though, and how it provokes such rage at what is, ultimately, a pretty harmless action. I guess that's what make the action effective though.

the building block of propaganda since forever
how else (historically) do the aging generals get young men to sign up in a fever of swollen-hearted pride in their country when they're so likely to get killed or wounded? i include britain in all of this just as much as any other country

Most racists are NOT inherently dangerous. They're just stupid. Like most liberals.

Most racism AND most liberalism is imminently survivable. It takes an extreme amount of either one to be truly dangerous.

And, no, I'm not kidding around or just trying to be cute.

individually, most racists are not dangerous. as a group, spreading their ideology till hatred becomes the norm? that's another matter altogether, surely?

in my opinion, the most dangerous are those who may not even be genuinely racist themselves but are the manipulator of men and whom, when occupying a position of power, utilise the fear and hate of extreme groups for their own purpose.

and, yes, that crosses the divide to any kind of extremist group.