PDA

View Full Version : The new KKK


Southpaw2012
09-03-2015, 05:52 PM
Huffington Post, or as others rightfully call them, Puffinton Host, continues to deny that the hate group Black Lives Matter is behind the violence against cops. I'm sure this will bring about more liberal censorship attempts by calling me a "racist" (a term that has become ridiculous in today's politically correct society), but it's truth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-lives-matter-violence-cops_55e77d82e4b0c818f61a9de8

No evidence that Black Lives Matter is behind the attacks? How about the marches calling for "Pigs in a blanket?" What about the Twitter and Facebook posts calling for blacks to rise up and kill whites, especially law enforcement? What about the assassinations? Black Lives Matter isn't here to solve societal issues, but to cause violence and create an anarchical state. It's funny when people bash the Tea Party for being a bunch of anarchists when all they do is march with an American flag calling on our politicians to follow the law. However, when Black Lives Matter has law enforcement agents assassinated, no one speaks up. Although, to do so would get yourself labeled a racist, so why bother?

These attacks don't bring about change, they start wars. It would be wise for Black Lives Matter to either shut it down, or protest in a civil way that makes people think, not resist of violence of their own.

Black Lives Matter is turning into the new KKK, except black on white. I'm sure the argument that they aren't the same is that the KKK was trying to maintain the social order of white control, while BLM is trying to cause change (though whether they are trying to cause actual change or destroy stuff is debatable). However, the KKK and BLM use (and used) violence to bring about their desired outcomes. The KKK failed, thankfully, and now it's time to make sure BLM fails or things will get bad. Perhaps in 2016 we will get a true black leader in Ben Carson whose goal isn't to incite a race war but to create change through civil discussion, instead of the idiot we have now who has made it clear what his mission is.

Kimon
09-03-2015, 06:18 PM
Huffington Post, or as others rightfully call them, Puffinton Host, continues to deny that the hate group Black Lives Matter is behind the violence against cops. I'm sure this will bring about more liberal censorship attempts by calling me a "racist" (a term that has become ridiculous in today's politically correct society), but it's truth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-lives-matter-violence-cops_55e77d82e4b0c818f61a9de8

No evidence that Black Lives Matter is behind the attacks? How about the marches calling for "Pigs in a blanket?" What about the Twitter and Facebook posts calling for blacks to rise up and kill whites, especially law enforcement? What about the assassinations? Black Lives Matter isn't here to solve societal issues, but to cause violence and create an anarchical state. It's funny when people bash the Tea Party for being a bunch of anarchists when all they do is march with an American flag calling on our politicians to follow the law. However, when Black Lives Matter has law enforcement agents assassinated, no one speaks up. Although, to do so would get yourself labeled a racist, so why bother?

These attacks don't bring about change, they start wars. It would be wise for Black Lives Matter to either shut it down, or protest in a civil way that makes people think, not resist of violence of their own.

Black Lives Matter is turning into the new KKK, except black on white. I'm sure the argument that they aren't the same is that the KKK was trying to maintain the social order of white control, while BLM is trying to cause change (though whether they are trying to cause actual change or destroy stuff is debatable). However, the KKK and BLM use (and used) violence to bring about their desired outcomes. The KKK failed, thankfully, and now it's time to make sure BLM fails or things will get bad. Perhaps in 2016 we will get a true black leader in Ben Carson whose goal isn't to incite a race war but to create change through civil discussion, instead of the idiot we have now who has made it clear what his mission is.

It is possible to make a thoughtful critique of Black Lives Matter and of their tactics. The above was however, clearly not meant to be such, but instead just a Molotov cocktail.

For what it's worth, they remind me of BAMN, an organization that was active at Michigan while I was there in the late 90s. The tactics were, unfortunately, quite similar. BAMN was very confrontational, and those confrontations were often directed more against progressives than against conservatives. In Ann Arbor (and Berkeley, where they were also active, and for the same reason) it was as a reaction to the Supreme Court decisions that ended the use of Affirmative Action, which had the result of diminishing the numbers of African Americans enrolled in subsequent years. BAMN began interrupting the meetings of the university administration, shouting and refusing to allow them to speak until their demands were met, usually of increasing the numbers of African American student accepted into the university. The diversity they were calling for was something that the progressives that ran the university, and the students (since the overwhelming majority of us were very liberal), were sympathetic to, yet as a result of that supreme court ruling, was difficult to address without lowering entrance standards, something which clearly was not going to be supported. Their aggressive and confrontational tactics also really alienated those who had they been more diplomatic would have been their allies. The result was that most of us thought that BAMN were a bunch of unreasonable jerks. Black Lives Matter similarly has a very noble cause, but their aggressive tactics, and their hostility towards allies (going after Bernie just made them look like jerks) seem counter-productive.

Do you see the difference Southpaw? It is possible to question the direction (or lack thereof) of their movement without ignoring the just nature of their cause. Comparing them however to the KKK leaves the overwhelming impression that you are merely intending your thread to be incendiary.

Davian93
09-03-2015, 07:18 PM
Oh Southpaw...you so crazy!!!

The Unreasoner
09-03-2015, 08:04 PM
Oh for God's sake, Southpaw...

Khoram
09-03-2015, 09:06 PM
It is possible to make a thoughtful critique of Black Lives Matter and of their tactics. The above was however, clearly not meant to be such, but instead just a Molotov cocktail.

For what it's worth, they remind me of BAMN, an organization that was active at Michigan while I was there in the late 90s. The tactics were, unfortunately, quite similar. BAMN was very confrontational, and those confrontations were often directed more against progressives than against conservatives. In Ann Arbor (and Berkeley, where they were also active, and for the same reason) it was as a reaction to the Supreme Court decisions that ended the use of Affirmative Action, which had the result of diminishing the numbers of African Americans enrolled in subsequent years. BAMN began interrupting the meetings of the university administration, shouting and refusing to allow them to speak until their demands were met, usually of increasing the numbers of African American student accepted into the university. The diversity they were calling for was something that the progressives that ran the university, and the students (since the overwhelming majority of us were very liberal), were sympathetic to, yet as a result of that supreme court ruling, was difficult to address without lowering entrance standards, something which clearly was not going to be supported. Their aggressive and confrontational tactics also really alienated those who had they been more diplomatic would have been their allies. The result was that most of us thought that BAMN were a bunch of unreasonable jerks. Black Lives Matter similarly has a very noble cause, but their aggressive tactics, and their hostility towards allies (going after Bernie just made them look like jerks) seem counter-productive.

Do you see the difference Southpaw? It is possible to question the direction (or lack thereof) of their movement without ignoring the just nature of their cause. Comparing them however to the KKK leaves the overwhelming impression that you are merely intending your thread to be incendiary.

The call for "greater equality" for minorities in various situations, like in university or in the workplace, has always been iffy. It's great to want more equal representation, but if the students, who happen to be from various minorities, do not have the ability to perform at the expected levels, then what gives these groups the right to complain about unequal representation. If anything, they should be calling for better elementary education, which allows for the formation of young minds.

I'm all for equal representation in higher education and the workplace, but if they don't earn it, I don't feel it is justified. Earn your place, and then fight to keep it. If you can't get in in the first place, keep fighting for it, and maybe, if you put enough effort in, you can get in. But you shouldn't be allowed in just because you're a token minority (black, Hispanic, a woman, etc.). That defeats the purpose of your getting in in the first place.

Kimon
09-03-2015, 09:21 PM
The call for "greater equality" for minorities in various situations, like in university or in the workplace, has always been iffy. It's great to want more equal representation, but if the students, who happen to be from various minorities, do not have the ability to perform at the expected levels, then what gives these groups the right to complain about unequal representation. If anything, they should be calling for better elementary education, which allows for the formation of young minds.

I'm all for equal representation in higher education and the workplace, but if they don't earn it, I don't feel it is justified. Earn your place, and then fight to keep it. If you can't get in in the first place, keep fighting for it, and maybe, if you put enough effort in, you can get in. But you shouldn't be allowed in just because you're a token minority (black, Hispanic, a woman, etc.). That defeats the purpose of your getting in in the first place.

Affirmative Action was designed both to foster diversity and to address long-standing racial inequities. Part of the argument against it however was that it was perhaps more efficient to address those concerns by focusing on applying those policies instead to combat those who came from poorer communities where the quality of the schools was far worse than in the more affluent suburbs. Doing so, it could be argued, was more race-neutral, but still served to level the playing field between affluent and impoverished communities. The diversity angle should however also not be overlooked in terms of its importance. The University of Michigan never had many African American students even when Affirmative Action was in place, but that policy at least sought to address that problem. With it gone the university has become overwhelmingly white and Asian. The same is true after the Affirmative Action ruling of the top public schools in the Cal system - Berkeley and UCLA. But the problem remains, diversity is valued, but how do you address it without changing admission standards, which at those three universities, the three best public universities in America, are very selective.

Affirmative Action was very controversial, but it served a useful purpose.

connabard
09-03-2015, 09:26 PM
I am not entirely sure what to say to these threads anymore...

Davian93
09-03-2015, 09:28 PM
I think the idea and thought behind AA was good but that in application, it was a failure on a lot of levels. It created a feeling that all minorities could only get in due to lowered standards which didnt do anyone any good. The better option would have been to attempt to change the underlying conditions that led to that issue in the first place...which is what they were 'trying' to do on one level by giving a hand up with college but the poverty and societal issues are just massive even today.

Khoram
09-03-2015, 09:45 PM
I think the idea and thought behind AA was good but that in application, it was a failure on a lot of levels. It created a feeling that all minorities could only get in due to lowered standards which didnt do anyone any good. The better option would have been to attempt to change the underlying conditions that led to that issue in the first place...which is what they were 'trying' to do on one level by giving a hand up with college but the poverty and societal issues are just massive even today.

It's almost a "chicken or the egg" conundrum. Which should come first: children having better education earlier on, or the minorities having easier access to higher education so that they can use that to better teach the children?

The Unreasoner
09-03-2015, 10:04 PM
I am not entirely sure what to say to these threads anymore...
As hard as it will be for me to follow my own advice, I think the answer is...nothing. While I could engage in the AA debate (which is clearly not the topic), I think it will just legitimize the thread. And keep it in the front page, which I do not want. It's not like Southpaw has anything even approaching a source for this bullshit, nor will he stick around to press his point.

Something that is documented, however, is that the guy who shot up the black church thought along similar lines, and was influenced by the Black Lives Matter movement (or, more specifically, Southpaw's friends' response to it). They influenced him to look up 'black on white crime', as if that's relevant (there's no fucking scoreboard here), and obviously a lot of what is turned up in such a search is incredibly racist.

But why am I surprised, we're talking about South 'black people are thugs and crooks' Paw here. I think it's time to just put him on my ignore list.

Terez
09-03-2015, 10:06 PM
I am not entirely sure what to say to these threads anymore...
Nothing is always best. Why do we keep these threads (usually with inflammatory titles) alive? Just don't respond. There's no point. Let the thread sink into oblivion where it belongs.

Nazbaque
09-03-2015, 10:33 PM
It's almost a "chicken or the egg" conundrum. Which should come first: children having better education earlier on, or the minorities having easier access to higher education so that they can use that to better teach the children?

Oh come on it's obviously the egg. If it didn't hatch from an egg was it a chicken? No it was not. At best it was some mythological likeness, but not a true chicken. If it wasn't laid by a chicken could it still be an egg? Why yes it could. Egg came first.

GonzoTheGreat
09-04-2015, 03:30 AM
Oh come on it's obviously the egg. If it didn't hatch from an egg was it a chicken? No it was not. At best it was some mythological likeness, but not a true chicken. If it wasn't laid by a chicken could it still be an egg? Why yes it could. Egg came first.
You seem to be an evilutionist.
If one uses the Creation Science assumption that God made all the birds before Man (Genesis|1: (21 and 27) and made them all after He made Man (Genesis|2: (8 and 19), then it is obvious that the chicken came earlier than the egg, even though now it is now not quite clear whether the chicken came before or after humans appeared. But I'm confident that this new question has no true theological significance, so no worries.

Ozymandias
09-04-2015, 10:01 AM
It's almost a "chicken or the egg" conundrum. Which should come first: children having better education earlier on, or the minorities having easier access to higher education so that they can use that to better teach the children?

I do not think this is the discussion at all. There is no chicken or egg here, the answer is that children should have access to better education from Day 1, no question.

Kimon addressed it well: minorities are vastly more likely to grow up in poor communities. Poor communities have worse schools and fewer options to escape those schools. That makes receiving an good education nearly impossible, the kind of education one needs to do well on standardized testing and impressing college admissions officers, who are used to seeing academic excellence, and often as not, academic mediocrity coached up by paid tutors to seem like academic excellence. It has nothing to do with who can go back and teach the kids in their community; I'm sure most of the beneficiaries of AA did not go back to become teachers in the small town or poor community they grew up in.

I can see both sides of the argument here and its a tough one. It would obviously be preferable that schools set some sort of internal goal for diversity, and extend that both across an ethnic and economic spectrum. At the end of the day, Affirmative Action IS unfair. But I would rather have unfairness in the cause of fostering equality and diversity than in the name of continued economic and intellectual segregation, even a merit based form of it (though anyone who has been to college knows there are a ton of rich twits who had their diploma bought long before they applied to their school of choice).

Nazbaque
09-04-2015, 11:06 AM
You seem to be an evilutionist.
If one uses the Creation Science assumption that God made all the birds before Man (Genesis|1: (21 and 27) and made them all after He made Man (Genesis|2: (8 and 19), then it is obvious that the chicken came earlier than the egg, even though now it is now not quite clear whether the chicken came before or after humans appeared. But I'm confident that this new question has no true theological significance, so no worries.

You missed the point Gonzo. If it didn't hatch from an egg, it isn't a real chicken. In order to create a real chicken god has to start by creating the egg for it to hatch from and thus we are back at the egg coming first.

But back to the education argument. I think that people are ignoring some pretty fundamental parts in the whole thing. Even if the whole thing is unfair in the sense of minorities not having a good basic education, how are they going to graduate from the higher ones if they can't pass the entrance exam? In a lot of ways it's unfair and the blame goes to society for not offering them better basic education, but looking at it only as some sort of right or path to better life already shows a lack of understanding in how much work goes into getting a higher education. Of course it isn't quite that simple either since the exams themselves aren't perfect, but if they were so deeply flawed that ignoring them is justified, then the college in question isn't capable of providing anyone with a higher education and there's no point in fighting to get in.

GonzoTheGreat
09-04-2015, 11:26 AM
Naz, if God could make a real man from clay, then He could also make a real chicken from clay. You can't doubt that without doubting the whole Bible, can you?

The education problem is basically one of financing. Specifically: one of local financing versus national financing.
If schools get their money from the state rather than from local taxes, then there wouldn't be a need for this kind of problem at all. Children could then simply learn as much as they are capable of, and as a result the whole country would benefit.
Alternatively, one could argue that poor people shouldn't have children, since they obviously can't pay for proper education. I'm sure there are plenty of right wingers who are willing to support such an approach, even though (if followed) it would harm their own country immensely.

Nazbaque
09-04-2015, 11:37 AM
Of course I doubt the bible. I just pointed out that the logic isn't based on the theory of evolution. More like the other way around in fact.

Davian93
09-04-2015, 07:57 PM
Chicken or the Egg? Which came first? Well, the correct answer is obviously Dinosaurs...as chickens are their direct descendants. And anyone who has ever owned a chicken or chickens would realize how "raptor" like they are in all their behavioral patterns. Hell, they even look like raptors with feathers...and the latest science tells us that dinosaurs likely had feathers...at least many of them did.

Nazbaque
09-04-2015, 08:20 PM
Chicken or the Egg? Which came first? Well, the correct answer is obviously Dinosaurs...as chickens are their direct descendants. And anyone who has ever owned a chicken or chickens would realize how "raptor" like they are in all their behavioral patterns. Hell, they even look like raptors with feathers...and the latest science tells us that dinosaurs likely had feathers...at least many of them did.

Eggs were there before dinosaurs it just wasn't chickens that hatched from them.

Khoram
09-04-2015, 08:55 PM
Chicken or the Egg? Which came first? Well, the correct answer is obviously Dinosaurs...as chickens are their direct descendants. And anyone who has ever owned a chicken or chickens would realize how "raptor" like they are in all their behavioral patterns. Hell, they even look like raptors with feathers...and the latest science tells us that dinosaurs likely had feathers...at least many of them did.

Isn't Jack Horner trying to reverse engineer a chicken in order to get a "dinosaur"?

Southpaw2012
09-10-2015, 02:18 PM
http://www.ibtimes.com/black-lives-matter-911-anniversary-threat-police-officers-warn-potential-attacks-2090885

Disgusting fools

GonzoTheGreat
09-11-2015, 04:05 AM
If cops stopped being racist fools they would be less disgusting.

Nazbaque
09-11-2015, 10:29 AM
If cops stopped being racist fools they would be less disgusting.

Wouldn't it be simpler if people didn't hire racist fools to be cops. That might actually be an effective solution. If you're a racist you can't get a job. Then even people who are racist can't act like it.

GonzoTheGreat
09-11-2015, 12:32 PM
I'm sure there's an Amendment against that kind of hiring practice. Otherwise people would've been doing that all along already, since it is such an obvious solution.