The War on Whiteness

[WEATHER DOT COM]

 

[Capco]

On 7/12/2020 at 3:54 PM, Rob's House said:

 

Of course. I don't know how any rational person could claim otherwise without using some impossibly broad interpretation of the term.

 

We ended segregation and even instituted unconstitutional affirmative action measures to give minorities preferential treatment. 

 

If you've got an argument for the proposition that blacks were subject to systemic racial discrimination in the year 2000 I'd love to hear it.

 

But now you're changing your words.  You didn't say systemic racial discrimination.  You said:

 

On 7/10/2020 at 1:00 AM, Rob's House said:

In the interim we will regress to a form of racial discrimination similar to that which we emerged from in the 20th century.

 

Tell me, since you seem to believe that racial discrimination ended in the 20th century:  do you know when blacks were no longer attacked simply for being black during the 20th century?  Because being attacked based on the color of ones skin is a form of racial discrimination.  

 

As you can see from the above Tweet, blacks are still being attacked just for being black.  

[LB3]

17 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

But now you're changing your words.  You didn't say systemic racial discrimination.  You said:

 

 

Tell me, since you seem to believe that racial discrimination ended in the 20th century:  do you know when blacks were no longer attacked simply for being black during the 20th century?  Because being attacked based on the color of ones skin is a form of racial discrimination.  

 

As you can see from the above Tweet, blacks are still being attacked just for being black.  

I didn't see that it was just for being black. I read that there was a confrontation where a slur was used. He said/she said aside, the attack didn't look justified by any means. The dude looks a loser. I'm sincerely confused by one thing though. This woman is white?

[billsfan1959]

13 minutes ago, Capco said:

As you can see from the above Tweet, blacks are still being attacked just for being black. 

 

I have no idea whether the incident in the video was racially motivated or not, as very few facts have been disclosed. Regardless, posting an isolated incident of a white man (the woman looks hispanic?) attacking a black woman is no more proof of widespread racisim among whites than showing a video of a black person attacking a white person and claiming widespread racism among blacks.

 

Why does every individual act have to be turned into some sweeping generalization of a group. There are bad people of all races who do bad things - you just watched a couple of them in that video. Why can we just not hold them accountable for what they did and not attribute their qualities to everyone else?

[Capco]

2 minutes ago, LB3 said:

I didn't see that it was just for being black. I read that there was a confrontation where a slur was used. He said/she said aside, the attack didn't look justified by any means. The dude looks a loser. I'm sincerely confused by one thing though. This woman is white?

 

So then, this situation aside (since the motives are debatable), do you also believe that racial discrimination (such as attacking people for the color of their skin) ended at some point during the 20th century?  

[LB3]

2 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

So then, this situation aside (since the motives are debatable), do you also believe that racial discrimination (such as attacking people for the color of their skin) ended at some point during the 20th century?  

Not at all. There will always be racist #######s. Racism just isn't always the ultimate factor in altercations or results.

[Capco]

Just now, LB3 said:

Not at all. There will always be racist #######s. Racism just isn't always the ultimate factor in altercations or results.

 

I agree. 

 

Now I'd like Rob to correct himself and say the same thing.  

[billsfan1959]

Just now, Capco said:

 

So then, this situation aside (since the motives are debatable), do you also believe that racial discrimination (such as attacking people for the color of their skin) ended at some point during the 20th century?  

 

My stance is racism exists, just as do so many other forms of biases and prejudices. Human beings are human beings. However, the racism of today is not the racism of 2000, or the racism of 1960, or the racism of 1920, etc.

 

I do not believe there is "systemic racism" running through all agencies and aspects of our society.

[LB3]

3 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

I agree. 

 

Now I'd like Rob to correct himself and say the same thing.  

I will addend by saying that I agree with Rob that racial discrimination as a major issue in need of political remedy ended in the 20th century.

 

I think that the perception of systemic racism is still there, despite most evidence to the contrary.

[Capco]

Just now, billsfan1959 said:

 

My stance is racism exists, just as do so many other forms of biases and prejudices. Human beings are human beings. However, the racism of today is not the racism of 2000, or the racism of 1960, or the racism of 1920, etc.

 

I do not believe there is "systemic racism" running through all agencies and aspects of our society.

 

A completely reasonable take even if we disagree about systemic racism.  

 

For the record, I don't believe it is running through ALL agencies and aspects of our societies.  But it's certainly prevalent at various points in specific institutions (imo).  

[Chef Jim]

6 hours ago, Tiberius said:

No, they just have the law enforced on them more. Rural America is awash in drugs and crime. Blacks are not the ones ODing like crazy on opioids. 

 

So by this logic the black communities are getting more help by the police trying to get the drugs off the street while Billy Bob Redneck is allowed to get and ingest his opioids  until he dies?  

6 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Good intentions to punish one group more than another? Wow. 

 

 

 

Where you see "punish" the reasonable person sees "help".

[Capco]

3 minutes ago, LB3 said:

I will addend by saying that I agree with Rob that racial discrimination as a major issue in need of political remedy ended in the 20th century.

 

I think that the perception of systemic racism is still there, despite most evidence to the contrary.

 

I think most of us here have heard of redlining by now.  

 

Redlining, despite being outlawed for decades, still has lingering effects within the black community.  Those effects could be curtailed with new legislation. 

 

Why do you think that situation isn't in need of a political remedy?  

[bilzfancy]

anti-Semitism is on the rise (again) , a form of racism, that few are talking about, and is very dangerous to those of the Jewish faith. Why is there no one in the streets protesting this?

[Chef Jim]

19 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

So then, this situation aside (since the motives are debatable), do you also believe that racial discrimination (such as attacking people for the color of their skin) ended at some point during the 20th century?  

 

Yes racism exits.  Always has, always will.  What does the linked video have to do with it?  

[Capco]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Yes racism exits.  Always has, always will.  What does the linked video have to do with it?  

 

We're already past the video Jim.  But thank you for your contribution.  

[Teddy KGB]

7 minutes ago, bilzfancy said:

anti-Semitism is on the rise (again) , a form of racism, that few are talking about, and is very dangerous to those of the Jewish faith. Why is there no one in the streets protesting this?

we are busy working.    

[LB3]

10 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

I think most of us here have heard of redlining by now.  

 

Redlining, despite being outlawed for decades, still has lingering effects within the black community.  Those effects could be curtailed with new legislation. 

 

Why do you think that situation isn't in need of a political remedy?  

I'll honestly have to look into it. I've seen contradictory things about the prevalence now.

[Tiberius]

5 hours ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

I didn't say those things and you know it, so quit being a d**k and engage in honest dialogue, like an adult.

 

If you were the Police Chief and 75% of all of the violent crime in your jurisdiction existed in a 10 block area, and most of that violent crime revolved around control of drugs:

 

1) How would you allocate your resources?

2) Would steps would you take to reduce the problem?

 

 

I am engaging in honest conversation and you are making excuses for obviously racist laws. They didn’t throw blacks in jail with tougher sentences for them to help them, that’s ridiculous. 

 

Should the drug squads descend on Appalachia to punish, I mean help, the poor there deal with opioids? Through them all in jail. 

[Chef Jim]

5 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

We're already past the video Jim.  But thank you for your contribution.  

 

They why did you feel it necessary to quote a post of their mug shots and then proceed to ask if racism still exists?  What does the story have to do with your question? 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

And here in my 60 + years of experience, I have seen these virtues in men and women of ALL cultures, if they are truly are capable and self-respecting individuals.

 

Telling me it is a sign of White Culture sounds pretty racist

 

 

 

 

.

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

I am engaging in honest conversation and you are making excuses for obviously racist laws. They didn’t throw blacks in jail with tougher sentences for them to help them, that’s ridiculous. 

 

Should the drug squads descend on Appalachia to punish, I mean help, the poor there deal with opioids? Through them all in jail. 

 

I know you never answer me but what do you think is the best way to reduce drug use in a community? 

[Rob's House]

49 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

But now you're changing your words.  You didn't say systemic racial discrimination.  You said:

 

That's because your choice of words was impossibly broad. But racial discrimination was outlawed during the 20th century.

 

I'm sure you'll claim it continued beyond that, but supporting evidence would be nice.

 

49 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Tell me, since you seem to believe that racial discrimination ended in the 20th century:  do you know when blacks were no longer attacked simply for being black during the 20th century?  Because being attacked based on the color of ones skin is a form of racial discrimination.  

 

As you can see from the above Tweet, blacks are still being attacked just for being black.  

 

By that definition whites are the primary victims of discrimination. Whites are many times more likely to be attacked by blacks than vice versa. For some reason we're supposed to accept it and pretend that our attackers are the victims.

 

 

[BuffaloHokie13]

32 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Why does every individual act have to be turned into some sweeping generalization of a group. There are bad people of all races who do bad things - you just watched a couple of them in that video. Why can we just not hold them accountable for what they did and not attribute their qualities to everyone else?

Because rugged individualism is a white culture thing, or something. 

[Capco]

8 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

By that definition whites are the primary victims of discrimination. Whites are many times more likely to be attacked by blacks than vice versa. For some reason we're supposed to accept it and pretend that our attackers are the victims.

 

 

 

Just to be clear, are you saying that you agree or disagree with the notion that attacking someone based on the color of their skin is NOT a form of racial discrimination?  

Edited July 15, 2020 by Capco
Edited for clarity

[billsfan1959]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I am engaging in honest conversation and you are making excuses for obviously racist laws. They didn’t throw blacks in jail with tougher sentences for them to help them, that’s ridiculous. 

 

Should the drug squads descend on Appalachia to punish, I mean help, the poor there deal with opioids? Through them all in jail. 

 

No, you are not engaing in honest conversation. The sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine were implemented precisely to help black communities. They were being destroyed by the addictions and violence associated with the use and sale of crack cocaine. It was believed, as is often the case, stricter punishment would be a deterrent. It wasn't and it sent a lot of young black men to prison for ridiculously long sentences. Fortunately, they repealed those guidelines. The end result doesn't make the initial intent racist, no matter how much you want it to.

 

Try reading a little history instead of looking for bogeymen lurking around every corner to justify your irrational fears and beliefs.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

That's because your choice of words was impossibly broad. But racial discrimination was outlawed during the 20th century.

 

I'm sure you'll claim it continued beyond that, but supporting evidence would be nice.

 

 

By that definition whites are the primary victims of discrimination. Whites are many times more likely to be attacked by blacks than vice versa. For some reason we're supposed to accept it and pretend that our attackers are the victims.

 

 

 

Don't you know stats are only relevant when they support accusations of racism against blacks?

[Capco]

2 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

Don't you know stats are only relevant when they support accusations of racism against blacks?

 

None of that data says anything about motive for those crimes.  On its own it's meaningless.  But you already knew that I'm sure.  

[BuffaloHokie13]

9 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Just to be clear, are you saying that you agree or disagree with the notion that attacking someone based on the color of their skin is NOT a form of racial discrimination?  

This seems to be the part that is lacking. There are plenty of examples of interracial violence, but providing facts that the base motive is racial is nearly non-existent. The truth is that every number on the chart Rob used has individual circumstances. Some are willing to look at them to determine what happened, others see interracial and stop looking. 

[Unforgiven]

Black privilege? Tibs should get a chuckle here...white AND pregnant yowsah

[billsfan1959]

6 hours ago, billsfan1959 said:

If you were the Police Chief and 75% of all of the violent crime in your jurisdiction existed in a 10 block area, and most of that violent crime revolved around control of drugs:

 

1) How would you allocate your resources?

2) Would steps would you take to reduce the problem?

 

 

@Tiberius I see you conveniently neglected to answer this question. Please, this is your chance to tell us what you would do and how things should be done.

 

4 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

None of that data says anything about motive for those crimes.  On its own it's meaningless.  But you already knew that I'm sure.  

 

Well, a few posts back you attributed motives to a video you saw without knowing the facts - simply because the victim was black and an assailant was white.

 

And stats about blacks killed by police say nothing about motivations - and have no context to them. Yet, they are used to support claims of systemic racism in law enforcement.

 

What does that say?

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by billsfan1959

[Capco]

1 minute ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

This seems to be the part that is lacking. There are plenty of examples of interracial violence, but providing facts that the base motive is racial is nearly non-existent. The truth is that every number on the chart Rob used has individual circumstances. Some are willing to look at them to determine what happened, others see interracial and stop looking. 

 

Haha we both just posted about motives.  

 

But if motive can't be proven in a court of law to a jury of our peers, then why is that part of our system of law (i.e. hate crimes)?  At some level motive can (but not always) be established, and racially motivated crimes are no different.  

3 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

Well, a few posts back you attributed motives to a video you saw without knowing the facts - simply because the victim was black and an assailant was white.

 

What does that say?

 

I read the article about racial slurs being used during the attack. 

 

If I was on a jury and the prosecution was using that as part of the evidence to establish racially motivated intent, those racial slurs would have spoken volumes to me.  

[SoCal Deek]

I come back to this thread and see the same nonsense hour after hour. You’re all being played!!! Don’t give these Marxist losers one inch.

[billsfan1959]

1 minute ago, Capco said:

 

Haha we both just posted about motives.  

 

But if motive can't be proven in a court of law to a jury of our peers, then why is that part of our system of law (i.e. hate crimes)?  At some level motive can (but not always) be established, and racially motivated crimes are no different.  

 

Motive is not an element to most offenses because we are smart enough to know motives can be incredibly complex, and sometimes impossible to prove. It is my primary objection to hate crimes. There are laws on the books for those crimes, they are called murder, assault, etc. If you think motivation makes the crime worse deal with it in sentencing.

[BuffaloHokie13]

3 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Haha we both just posted about motives.  

 

But if motive can't be proven in a court of law to a jury of our peers, then why is that part of our system of law (i.e. hate crimes)?  At some level motive can (but not always) be established, and racially motivated crimes are no different.  

I do think motive can be established to a reasonable extent, and I absolutely think racial prejudices can be that motive. I also happen to think that many jump to that conclusion far more often than it actually happens, and well before it is anywhere close to established. Often times without any evidence of racial prejudice other than different skin tones.

[billsfan1959]

5 minutes ago, Capco said:

I read the article about racial slurs being used during the attack. 

 

If I was on a jury and the prosecution was using that as part of the evidence to establish racially motivated intent, those racial slurs would have spoken volumes to me.  

 

Right, you read the article and assumed the information was true. We have no idea because we are not privy to actual investigative findings at this point. If, in fact, it did occur, then it could be an aggravating factor in sentencing (rather than charged as a hate crime).

[B-Man]

 

[Capco]

8 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

If, in fact, it did occur, then it could be an aggravating factor in sentencing (rather than charged as a hate crime).

 

I think you're right about this being the better way to approach racially motivated crimes (when provable, of course).  

 

In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights, because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment. 

 

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-was-significance-court-ruling-wisconsin-v-468966

Edited July 15, 2020 by Capco

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

I think you're right about this being the better way to approach racially motivated crimes (when provable, of course).  

According to the chart posted earlier there were almost ONE MILLION crimes committed against WHITE people last year.....and we're going to go on and on for hours about the 60,000 white on black crimes?  Really? You are all being played!!!

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

According to the chart posted earlier there were almost ONE MILLION crimes committed against WHITE people last year.....and we're going to go on and on for hours about the 60,000 white on black crimes?  Really? You are all being played!!!

By the way....I'm guessing the vast majority of those crimes are domestic violence. 

[billsfan1959]

20 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

I do think motive can be established to a reasonable extent, and I absolutely think racial prejudices can be that motive. I also happen to think that many jump to that conclusion far more often than it actually happens, and well before it is anywhere close to established. Often times without any evidence of racial prejudice other than different skin tones.

 

When we started creating hate crimes, we moved motive to the center of the crime, rather than the act itself. To me, motive is a sentencing issue. If a jury or a judge believes a certain motivation is worse than another motivation, then have sentencing enhancements and sentence the defendant appropriately. Creating hate crimes inherently draws distinctions between victims that shouldn't be there.

 

14 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

I think you're right about this being the better way to approach racially motivated crimes (when provable, of course).  

 

In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights, because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment. 

 

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-was-significance-court-ruling-wisconsin-v-468966

 

Agree. I just posted something to this effect above. Aggravating factors already exist in certain crimes, I don't know why motive couldn't constitute an aggravating factor as well.

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by billsfan1959

[Tiberius]

37 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

No, you are not engaing in honest conversation. The sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine were implemented precisely to help black communities. They were being destroyed by the addictions and violence associated with the use and sale of crack cocaine. It was believed, as is often the case, stricter punishment would be a deterrent. It wasn't and it sent a lot of young black men to prison for ridiculously long sentences. Fortunately, they repealed those guidelines. The end result doesn't make the initial intent racist, no matter how much you want it to.

 

Try reading a little history instead of looking for bogeymen lurking around every corner to justify your irrational fears and beliefs.

 

 

 

Don't you know stats are only relevant when they support accusations of racism against blacks?

So we should send the police in to raid and punish the white communities being ravaged by opioids? 

 

I love how drug laws to punish blacks was there to help them, lol!of course you probably also think Trump didn’t do anything wrong with Ukraine, either. Punish blacks, it’s good for them, but let Trump try and shake down another country to win an election, that’s ok. 

 

 

[billsfan1959]

Just now, Tiberius said:

So we should send the police in to raid and punish the white communities being ravaged by opioids? 

 

I love how drug laws to punish blacks was there to help them, lol!of course you probably also think Trump didn’t do anything wrong with Ukraine, either. Punish blacks, it’s good for them, but let Trump try and shake down another country to win an election, that’s ok. 

 

You're an idiot and delusional.