- Joined
- Aug 14, 2019
My heart is so wounded for this common criminal. I knew him so well. I will miss him at my family barbecues that he never went to because I don't fucking know him.
U.S. Riots of May 2020 over George Floyd and others - ITT: a bunch of faggots butthurt about worthless internet stickers
- Thread starter snailslime
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2020
I do wonder why. Why is George Floyd being made into a new god? Is it to motivate the dumb masses? An intentional tactic of BLM to make their martyr sacrosanct and immune from criticism, and thus insulate any action they perform? Is it the natural result of cognitive dissonance as masses of protesters try to legitimize their violence and censorship? Maybe all of the above?
Regardless, we now live in an america where a violent drug addicted felon is considered a national hero because he died while being arrested.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
Important detail missing from the article (great job as always, journalists): is this paid or unpaid leave?
Because if it's paid leave, expect a lot of "mourning" even among the people who still say "nigger" regularly.
Because if it's paid leave, expect a lot of "mourning" even among the people who still say "nigger" regularly.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2019
If you're going to recruit people to communism, you have to start young. I'll admit, on paper, communism sounds pretty great. Everyone gets treated equally. We all share the wealth. In theory, it doesn't sound that bad. Unfortunately, it is impossible because of human nature. Animal Farm spells out exactly what really happens when you try to build that kind of society. Young people, because they have no real life experience and don't fully understand the absolute degeneracy that can exist in the world, easily fall for it.
That's really a big part of what's wrong with the world today -- we put too much emphasis on the youth. And I'm not just saying that because I'm old as dirt. Intelligence is one thing, but wisdom only comes from experience. And if you aren't willing to learn from your elders and build from that, you end up with the crap we have today. It's like working on building the perfect machine and you get so close to completing it, but you die. Then your heirs throw all of it out and start from scratch because they think they can build it a better way, but they never finish it either and the cycle repeats.
Just look at how we have young kids pushing the idea of gender fluidity. Or Greta whatever her name is pushing climate change. Adults are actually listening and taking the advice of children. That is pure madness. When I was a kid, the adults always said, "children should be seen and not heard". Now I get exactly what they mean.
- Joined
- May 21, 2019
The basic and to the point answer is that it's an election year.
2012: Trayvon Martin
2016: Freddie Gray
2020: George Floyd
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
I love how all the people who are springing for bail money don't seem to realize it's not a get out of jail free card, it's simply a temporary release based on the proviso they will show up in court or get hit with more penalties.
I look forward to most of these idiots dodging their court appearances and becoming even worse criminals in the process. That bail money will have gone down the drain then.
Also, all the people paying bail are handing it over to the very legal system they despise, and if the mass majority of the people they sprung defy going to court, that system keeps that money.
And it's likely most of them with certainly try.
I look forward to most of these idiots dodging their court appearances and becoming even worse criminals in the process. That bail money will have gone down the drain then.
Also, all the people paying bail are handing it over to the very legal system they despise, and if the mass majority of the people they sprung defy going to court, that system keeps that money.
And it's likely most of them with certainly try.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2020
It's a pretty good tactic of BLM, you deify the dead man before anyone can research their history so when it's eventually revealed that they are a piece of shit violent criminal, this is always the case, talking about their crimes is efectivley heresy.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2020
This is honestly why I don't have any social media. No facebook, no twitter, no instagram, nothing. Because they've become the new permanent record by which the Social Credit police try to judge you. Oh you didn't cry for the death of the new god hard enough? Looks like its the fucking Gulag for you.
- Joined
- May 30, 2019
I have a pet theory that those Very Special Episodes and the like worked a little too well and the woke powers that be are just having a meltdown over the fact that their version of Satan was effectively dead. They want actual racism and white supremacy to come back, so they can be relavant again.
Oh pop culture is an especially apt example of this. Just look at how much of modern pop culture is "reimaginings" of previous things, that people just gobble right up because the original was "dated" and "didn't hold up". God forbid anything be enjoyed in the context of when/where it was created. And it's not uncommon for people who openly prefer the original to get regarded as some kind of filthy hipster.
FaramirG
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2020
The actual people making the decisions are very old. The presidential race is between two dudes in their 70s, the average age in Congress is like 60, and the vast majority of billionaires are old too. Greta is just a puppet, a kid doesn't just wake up one day and sail across the Atlantic as part of a carefully planned campaign on her own.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2019
I think a big cause of this is a lack of professionalism among many teachers that is only getting further encouraged. I've had professors/teachers that might make side comments about orange man but it never got in the way of their actual teaching because it isn't the place for that. When you chat with them outside of a class setting typically they're a bit more open about their own thoughts because dragging that stuff into the classroom is unprofessional. All of those professors were also ones that encouraged you to disagree with them if you had a solid factual backing for it and could express that well in a paper.
It's part of an ongoing issue in the history field around Presentism that has increasingly taken root. Back in 2002 the then president of the American Historical Association put out an entire article against it and I think the issue has only gotten worse since.
An interesting read if anyone has the time for it.
Against Presentism
Lynn Hunt | May 1, 2002
Who isn't, you say? Hardly any "ism" these days has much of a scholarly following. Yet presentism besets us in two different ways: (1) the tendency to interpret the past in presentist terms; and (2) the shift of general historical interest toward the contemporary period and away from the more distant past. Although the first propensity was implicit in Western historical writing from its beginnings, it took a more problematic turn when the notion of "the modern" began to take root in the 17th century. Over time, modernity became the standard of judgment against which most of the past, even the Western past, could be found wanting. The second trend, the shift of interest toward the contemporary period, clearly has a connection to the invention of modernity, but it did not follow as much in lockstep as might be expected. As late as the end of the 19th century, and in some places even after that, students in history expected to study mainly ancient history and to find therein exemplars for politics in the present. Ten or fifteen years ago, survey courses routinely stopped at World War II. French historians still refer to history in the 16th–18th centuries as histoire moderne; for them "contemporary history" began in 1789, and until recently, it stopped about the time of World War I, the rest of the 20th century being consigned to the province of journalism rather than historical scholarship. I believe that the 20th century should be part of historical scholarship and teaching, of course, but it should not crowd out everything else.
There is a certain irony in the presentism of our current historical understanding: it threatens to put us out of business as historians. If the undergraduates flock to 20th-century courses and even PhD students take degrees mostly in 20th-century topics, then history risks turning into a kind of general social studies subject (as it is in K–12). It becomes the short-term history of various kinds of identity politics defined by present concerns and might therefore be better approached via sociology, political science, or ethnic studies. I'm not arguing that identity politics have no place in historical study; women's history, African American history, Latino history, gay and lesbian history, and the like have all made fundamentally important contributions to our understanding of history. It is hard to imagine American history in this country without some element of national identity in it. And present-day concerns have helped revivify topics, such as imperialism, that needed reconsideration. But history should not just be the study of sameness, based on the search for our individual or collective roots of identity. It should also be about difference. World history, for example, should be significant not only because so many Americans have come from places other than European countries but also because as participants in the world we need to understand people who are hardly like us at all.
This curiosity about difference should apply to the past in general. The "Middle Ages" or "Ancient World" (themselves presentist designations when they appeared) are not just stepping stones to the "modern" present we know. As historians of those periods know all too well, we must constantly remind students that the Greeks and Romans did not think of themselves as "ancient" and 12th-century people did not imagine themselves to be living in an in-between period of time (except perhaps in relationship to the Second Coming of Christ in Christian Europe). Some of the interest of these "early" periods—but only some—comes from the ways in which people then thought and acted like us now. Much of it comes from the ways in which they differed from us, indeed, lived in ways that are almost unimaginable to us.
Presentism, at its worst, encourages a kind of moral complacency and self-congratulation. Interpreting the past in terms of present concerns usually leads us to find ourselves morally superior; the Greeks had slavery, even David Hume was a racist, and European women endorsed imperial ventures. Our forbears constantly fail to measure up to our present-day standards. This is not to say that any of these findings are irrelevant or that we should endorse an entirely relativist point of view. It is to say that we must question the stance of temporal superiority that is implicit in the Western (and now probably worldwide) historical discipline. In some ways, now that we have become very sensitive about Western interpretations of the non-Western past, this temporal feeling of superiority applies more to the Western past than it does to the non-Western one. We more easily accept the existence and tolerate the moral ambiguities of eunuchs and harems, for example, than of witches. Because they found a place in a non-Western society, eunuchs and harems seem strange to us but they do not reflect badly on our own past. Witches, in contrast, seem to challenge the very basis of modern historical understanding and have therefore provoked immense controversy as well as many fine historical studies.
Students readily absorb these attitudes of temporal superiority, but they also stand in some ways as our best bulwark against it. When I teach Hegel's lectures on the philosophy of history to students in UCLA's history of history class, they at first seize upon his Eurocentric, indeed racist, comments about Africa's place in world history, but they quite readily see that their condescension toward Hegel derives from Hegel's own worldview. Hegel was the great codifier of Western temporal superiority; for Hegel, all truth is revealed through the progression of history, which means that those in the present always have a better shot at grasping truth than do people in the past. Students understand quite quickly that those who follow them will have the same retrospective advantage over them that they enjoy vis à vis Hegel. Moreover, despite the great upsurge of interest in 20th-century and even post–World War II topics, students still take courses in ancient and medieval history. Whether motivated by escapism, nostalgia, a wish to study "elite" subjects, or just a desire for something "different," they readily throw themselves into another era. In this, they reflect the interests of the general public, which often resents the scholarly insistence on revealing all the foibles of past men and women. They don't always want history to teach them the inadequacies of people in the past or even to reassure them about their own identities in the present. It's the difference of the past that renders it a proper subject for epic, romance, or tragedy-genres preferred by many readers and students of history. The "ironic" mode of much professional history writing just leaves them cold.
Presentism admits of no ready solution; it turns out to be very difficult to exit from modernity or our modern Western historical consciousness. But it is possible to remind ourselves of the virtues of maintaining a fruitful tension between present concerns and respect for the past. Both are essential ingredients in good history. The emergence of new concerns in the present invariably reveals aspects of historical experience that have been occluded or forgotten. Respect for the past, with its concomitant humility, curiosity, and even wonder (as Caroline Bynum reminded us in a memorable presidential address), enables us to see beyond our present-day concerns backward and forward at the same time. We are all caught up in the ripples of time, and we have no idea of where they are headed.
Lynn Hunt | May 1, 2002
Who isn't, you say? Hardly any "ism" these days has much of a scholarly following. Yet presentism besets us in two different ways: (1) the tendency to interpret the past in presentist terms; and (2) the shift of general historical interest toward the contemporary period and away from the more distant past. Although the first propensity was implicit in Western historical writing from its beginnings, it took a more problematic turn when the notion of "the modern" began to take root in the 17th century. Over time, modernity became the standard of judgment against which most of the past, even the Western past, could be found wanting. The second trend, the shift of interest toward the contemporary period, clearly has a connection to the invention of modernity, but it did not follow as much in lockstep as might be expected. As late as the end of the 19th century, and in some places even after that, students in history expected to study mainly ancient history and to find therein exemplars for politics in the present. Ten or fifteen years ago, survey courses routinely stopped at World War II. French historians still refer to history in the 16th–18th centuries as histoire moderne; for them "contemporary history" began in 1789, and until recently, it stopped about the time of World War I, the rest of the 20th century being consigned to the province of journalism rather than historical scholarship. I believe that the 20th century should be part of historical scholarship and teaching, of course, but it should not crowd out everything else.
There is a certain irony in the presentism of our current historical understanding: it threatens to put us out of business as historians. If the undergraduates flock to 20th-century courses and even PhD students take degrees mostly in 20th-century topics, then history risks turning into a kind of general social studies subject (as it is in K–12). It becomes the short-term history of various kinds of identity politics defined by present concerns and might therefore be better approached via sociology, political science, or ethnic studies. I'm not arguing that identity politics have no place in historical study; women's history, African American history, Latino history, gay and lesbian history, and the like have all made fundamentally important contributions to our understanding of history. It is hard to imagine American history in this country without some element of national identity in it. And present-day concerns have helped revivify topics, such as imperialism, that needed reconsideration. But history should not just be the study of sameness, based on the search for our individual or collective roots of identity. It should also be about difference. World history, for example, should be significant not only because so many Americans have come from places other than European countries but also because as participants in the world we need to understand people who are hardly like us at all.
This curiosity about difference should apply to the past in general. The "Middle Ages" or "Ancient World" (themselves presentist designations when they appeared) are not just stepping stones to the "modern" present we know. As historians of those periods know all too well, we must constantly remind students that the Greeks and Romans did not think of themselves as "ancient" and 12th-century people did not imagine themselves to be living in an in-between period of time (except perhaps in relationship to the Second Coming of Christ in Christian Europe). Some of the interest of these "early" periods—but only some—comes from the ways in which people then thought and acted like us now. Much of it comes from the ways in which they differed from us, indeed, lived in ways that are almost unimaginable to us.
Presentism, at its worst, encourages a kind of moral complacency and self-congratulation. Interpreting the past in terms of present concerns usually leads us to find ourselves morally superior; the Greeks had slavery, even David Hume was a racist, and European women endorsed imperial ventures. Our forbears constantly fail to measure up to our present-day standards. This is not to say that any of these findings are irrelevant or that we should endorse an entirely relativist point of view. It is to say that we must question the stance of temporal superiority that is implicit in the Western (and now probably worldwide) historical discipline. In some ways, now that we have become very sensitive about Western interpretations of the non-Western past, this temporal feeling of superiority applies more to the Western past than it does to the non-Western one. We more easily accept the existence and tolerate the moral ambiguities of eunuchs and harems, for example, than of witches. Because they found a place in a non-Western society, eunuchs and harems seem strange to us but they do not reflect badly on our own past. Witches, in contrast, seem to challenge the very basis of modern historical understanding and have therefore provoked immense controversy as well as many fine historical studies.
Students readily absorb these attitudes of temporal superiority, but they also stand in some ways as our best bulwark against it. When I teach Hegel's lectures on the philosophy of history to students in UCLA's history of history class, they at first seize upon his Eurocentric, indeed racist, comments about Africa's place in world history, but they quite readily see that their condescension toward Hegel derives from Hegel's own worldview. Hegel was the great codifier of Western temporal superiority; for Hegel, all truth is revealed through the progression of history, which means that those in the present always have a better shot at grasping truth than do people in the past. Students understand quite quickly that those who follow them will have the same retrospective advantage over them that they enjoy vis à vis Hegel. Moreover, despite the great upsurge of interest in 20th-century and even post–World War II topics, students still take courses in ancient and medieval history. Whether motivated by escapism, nostalgia, a wish to study "elite" subjects, or just a desire for something "different," they readily throw themselves into another era. In this, they reflect the interests of the general public, which often resents the scholarly insistence on revealing all the foibles of past men and women. They don't always want history to teach them the inadequacies of people in the past or even to reassure them about their own identities in the present. It's the difference of the past that renders it a proper subject for epic, romance, or tragedy-genres preferred by many readers and students of history. The "ironic" mode of much professional history writing just leaves them cold.
Presentism admits of no ready solution; it turns out to be very difficult to exit from modernity or our modern Western historical consciousness. But it is possible to remind ourselves of the virtues of maintaining a fruitful tension between present concerns and respect for the past. Both are essential ingredients in good history. The emergence of new concerns in the present invariably reveals aspects of historical experience that have been occluded or forgotten. Respect for the past, with its concomitant humility, curiosity, and even wonder (as Caroline Bynum reminded us in a memorable presidential address), enables us to see beyond our present-day concerns backward and forward at the same time. We are all caught up in the ripples of time, and we have no idea of where they are headed.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2019
EVERY. TIME.
Noticed a new demoralization tactic on 4chan. AWAN - All Whites Are Nazis
Sorry Mrs. Peretti, we've been informed by concerned citizens that the colour of your skin is problematic. Yes, we are aware that you've got a funny little hat, but Jerome here has one too, and he says you didn't give him a $40 tip for opening the door for him last week. You'll be coming with us now.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
If it's unpaid, well then, be prepared for an Union strike.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2014
'member when this was LGBBQXYZ month? Now this means people are being homophobic.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2018
Just like a lowlife pimp was held up as a symbol by Adolph and the boys. Even made a song about it, their unofficial anthem. History repeats. Especially when you have Nazis posing as anti-Nazis, using every trick in the book.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2020
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2020
Imagine letting joggers burn down your city, getting rid of cops and considering reperations only to have them tell you it's not good enough. Anyone with taste hate's peel for what he did to the twilight zone but honestly how cucked are you that you give these people so much and still let them shit talk you.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2020
On the current thread sub-topic: education today is marred with corruption and unprofessionalism, it doesn't take a genius to notice just how blatantly biased most teachers ( even ones in grade and high school, go figure ) towards hard-leftist ideology. I myself am still in college, and I have many relatives who are younger, and it legitimately sickens me to see just how much, for lack of a better word, propaganda is pushed at every level of education. Maybe you or I can resist it, and shitpost about it on basket weaving forums, but not everyone can. I'm legit starting to think that the only real solution to how disgustingly corrupt the de-facto global / western education system has become is a massive purge of teaching staff; blank slate, from the bottom up. Yeah it might fuck up a few years of education, but then again, even no education might be better than the dogshit they offer today.
Ihavenohands
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2019
It's the same in Poland, it's the same all over Europe. They organize these silly protests *in solidarity* but actually *because everywhere is racist*. Guess that's what BLM means when they claim they are a global movement - everywhere but Africa.
r/IAmA - I am Kailee Scales, Managing Director for Black Lives Matter. Ask me anything.
22,697 votes and 2,569 comments so far on Reddit
www.reddit.com
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2020
I'm glad I went to a small Baptist private school in my last 2 years. Mostly conservative teaching.
- Status