U.S. Riots of May 2020 over George Floyd and others - ITT: a bunch of faggots butthurt about worthless internet stickers

[Escaped Abortion]

If we lived in a actual properly balanced country where Right people aren't literally beaten to death, jailed, and blacklisted from every chance they have life, then yea I'd defiently use my real name, cause I wouldn't fear of those very things.

But as it stands, free thinking is just a myth, we follow mob thinking and purely left rules, not even central rules are around anymore. Cause Central is labeled Alt right, and the right are the alt right, and everyone not them is alt right, and this a nazi who deserves to die.

Also, even if you are left, but you think maybe completely pissing over the ideal of freedom of speech and religion while also destroying our entire history for the immutable sins of the past while overlooking the ongoing crimes in current times is ridiculous, they will also brand youa nazi and come for your head. It's a complete binary with them. You either share every view they do to the same extreme, or you're subhuman and must be culled. Only their lives matter.

At this point, I kind of think we should just sacrifice a few states, we can give one to all the different races that want to live apart (if you want to stay you can stay), and all the liberal crazies can get one to make Insanostan and the sane people who actually valued this nation's ideals can just go on with our lives. Cut out the cancer.

 

[Jarolleon]

This is mostly happening in Dem states and cities. Its happened in a few GOP strongholds, but most of the time people have stood up for themselves and chased the mob out. All this black pill and doomer pill shit is just becoming noise to me. I will agree that Tim has a point. But the reason most people aren't standing up is because they don't want to lose their jobs. They don't have name recognition like tim does to just up and quit if the Boss is pushing IDpol. Unless you get all the sane mofos to just up and quit their jobs and not come back unless their demands are made, nothing's gonna happen. And I don't think it matters in the end. The lines in the sand have been drawn and no one is going to move from their side. Its just getting the moderates on one side or the other at this point.

All this shit doesn't matter. Normies will still work their 9-5 and as long as they have TV, Beer, and Porn (and other distractions), they don't care.

Is there a provable "If everyone is saying it it must be true" bias among the undecided in cases like this?

 

[Meat Target]

At this point, I kind of think we should just sacrifice a few states, we can give one to all the different races that want to live apart (if you want to stay you can stay), and all the liberal crazies can get one to make Insanostan and the sane people who actually valued this nation's ideals can just go on with our lives. Cut out the cancer.

I've been thinking this as well. The only to avoid an American Troubles is to dissolve the union and peacefully go our separate ways.

Of course, then they'll cry that that's Apartheid or some shit.

 

[pylosurf]

View attachment 1403691

Battered Senator Syndrome.

 

[Crystal Golem]

When I said Bread Tube, I meant that the Young Turks did not seem to even be a part of it.

Why would a YT news network become a part of Breadtube? You do understand that the entirely of leftism on YT ins't encapsulated by breadtube right?

Biden is an establishment democrat who seems more in for gun control, Obama health care, environment policies

Bernie is equally for gun control I mean he co-sponsored ERPOA and introduced the Background Check Expansion Act. He's been busy lately trying to get illegals eligibility for government loans. As for Obamacare well part of Bernie's platform was providing free transition surgery including top surgery and HRT so I don't know how that is less extreme than Obamacare. Let's also not forget Bernie has been a major proponent of the Green New Deal whereas Biden only came around to it recently which was in all honesty prob an attempt to scoop up bernie voters. Bernie's neatest trick is being intentionally vague on his policies that are crazy and hyping his most likeable ones. If you think he is closer to the centre than Biden you're nuts.

 

[DJ Grelle]

Any chance you could expand on that? Sounds interesting and I'd like to be a brahmin. They're the educated ones, right?

Spoiler: Historical off topic

So the "theory" almost everyone accepts this as fact is that Sanskrit and proto-hinduism (sanathama dharma) was introduced by an indo-european steppe people. These indo-european invaders came from central asia and persia, crossed the Indus and conquered the native indians/dravidians. Furthermore, these 'aryan' invaders introduced a racial caste system in which the upper castes (brahmin (clergy) and kshatriya (warriors)) were aryan, while the lower castes were native dravidians forced to work for their foreign masters. A telling quote is and remains the rig veda 9 73 5, in which Indra (equivalent to thor/zeus/rod in other european paganisms) slaughters the swarthy people because he hates them. In other parts Indra is describe as fair of skin with blonde hair and beard.

The implications of this are massive. It would mean that most of the indian culture is copied from foreign invaders. Things like languages (sanskrit > hindi) and culture (Mahabharata) and religion (veda's, indo european spiritualism) would be foreign. The gods they revere would hate their guts. Indian nationalists would rather espouse the "aryans are natives" theory, which would imply that the aryans came from india and from there took over the world, even tho this doesnt fit at all with archeological evidence etc. It's a bitter pill to swallow and I dont fault them to want this myth to be true. It would make India the centre of the world, make britain not foreign but actually descendant from indians etc etc.

Spoiler: or I can explain it with funny maymay vid

I can keep going on and on about this shit but this isnt the "Ancient Indian History" thread. If you want more info about smth in particular you can always DM me.

 

[ErrForceOnez]

View attachment 1403691

This is really something, the guy gets attacked and you can see the wheels spinning in his head, he realizes the "protesters" are violent, he realizes their violence isnt directed at any valid target, he realizes that the streets are more dangerous than he has ever seen them, and he accepts that something must be done... and then he blames Trump.

 

[Crystal Golem]

Spoiler: Historical off topic

So the "theory" almost everyone accepts this as fact is that Sanskrit and proto-hinduism (sanathama dharma) was introduced by an indo-european steppe people. These indo-european invaders came from central asia and persia, crossed the Indus and conquered the native indians/dravidians. Furthermore, these 'aryan' invaders introduced a racial caste system in which the upper castes (brahmin (clergy) and kshatriya (warriors)) were aryan, while the lower castes were native dravidians forced to work for their foreign masters. A telling quote is and remains the rig veda 9 73 5, in which Indra (equivalent to thor/zeus/rod in other european paganisms) slaughters the swarthy people because he hates them. In other parts Indra is describe as fair of skin with blonde hair and beard.

The implications of this are massive. It would mean that most of the indian culture is copied from foreign invaders. Things like languages (sanskrit > hindi) and culture (Mahabharata) and religion (veda's, indo european spiritualism) would be foreign. The gods they revere would hate their guts. Indian nationalists would rather espouse the "aryans are natives" theory, which would imply that the aryans came from india and from there took over the world, even tho this doesnt fit at all with archeological evidence etc. It's a bitter pill to swallow and I dont fault them to want this myth to be true. It would make India the centre of the world, make britain not foreign but actually descendant from indians etc etc.

Spoiler: or I can explain it with funny maymay vid

View attachment 1403803

I can keep going on and on about this shit but this isnt the "Ancient Indian History" thread. If you want more info about smth in particular you can always DM me.

Sorry to continue the OT but I may never get another chance to post this.

 

[anionfarflung]

Any chance you could expand on that? Sounds interesting and I'd like to be a brahmin. They're the educated ones, right?

Spoiler: More out-of-the-ass speculation on Indian history

Honestly, I can probably agree that "invasion" isn't quite right. What did assuredly happen is that Indo-Europeans did, over time, migrate into the Subcontinent and grow to dominate the darker-skinned population that was already there. The caste system is obviously mapped to the average amount of purity of each caste level to the original Indo-European "invaders." You'll find exceptions (e.g. very dark Brahmins) that prove the rule, but overall it seems pretty observable. Scratch the surface of a Hindu who comes to university in the States from India and you'll often find a Brahmin.

Yes, Brahmins are the priestly caste (going back to the Vedas), which is synonymous with being the educated caste. Right under are the Kshatriya, or warriors. I'm sure that scholars would say that this is an inexact analogy, but I compare it to the Pope and Church in the Middle Ages vs the kings, lords, knights, etc.

Then you have the farmers, merchants, craftsmen, etc - the Vaishya. Then the lowest caste, the Sudra, who are servants and laborers.

If you accept that the caste system roughly maps to how "purely Aryan" someone is and if lightness of skin maps (albeit even more roughly) to that purity, then it follows, in my opinion, that Europeans are hyper-Brahmins, even though technically they are outsiders who aren't part of the system or at the very bottom of it.

My assertion is that Indians and scholars of Indian history try to discount this way of looking at the situation out of resentment, especially in light of how Britain dominated India.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

I don’t know if any you guys like Tim Pool, but he goes off in this video.

original podcast

Tim isn't really the sharpest knife in the shed. But he does have crazy glue all over the handle, such that when you want to see what's goin' on, you're stuck there for a good six-to-thirty-minutes for a point that could be made in six-to-thirty seconds.

Spoiler: let me condense this

His point about the revolutionary war could also be made about most wars and most political movements in all of history, in all societies. Most people do not actively get involved in any politics, which is why it's very often seen as a sport and pasttime of the rich. There's very few conflicts, barring maybe all-consuming civil wars, where you can actively say that the bulk of the population participates. This even goes back to the civil rights era, the counterculture, the iraq war protests, OWS, so-on, so-forth; he misses that the entire point of a 'silent majority' is that it it is a political body that doesn't make itself apparent. (Of course, in this case, I think that faith in the silent majority is somewhat misplaced - because the silent majority can't funnel itself through facebook/twitter, which seems to be what the entire corporate sphere lives and dies off of, but that's irrelevant.)

His banging on about people quitting their jobs is rich. Is everyone in the world some loner early-20s guy without debt? Even in Tim's case, he quickly traded in doing actual reporting (like his OWS shit, which got him attention in the first place) to essentially play the clickbait algorithm all day every day. Now he repeats some stuff he reads in an article or watches a video and gets mad at people, offering virtually nothing in the way of historical or political insight to any of it - I guess he does also repeat conspiracies and go WHAT IF THIS WAS TRUE? COULD YOU IMAGINE

The working class isn't going to push back, because the working class needs labor. That need for access is what has ensured that the working class never has any real representation in politics, and is forced to stay silent in cases like this. Maybe earlier it was the Unions that were deciding what the working class would believe; then it was the self-appointed socialist champions; now it's the corporations and businesses kowtowing to the mob. In any case, you can't throw a hissyfit at the people who need income to house and feed and provide for their families... for not sticking their heads up.

If we move below the working class, we have the poor. What the fuck do the poor care about any of this? America has done everything in its power to ensure that the poor are a useless, helpless underclass that will never recover and forever sit on their tugboats. The poor have been sitting on twitter and facebook all day and just absorbing the propaganda. The poor haven't had access to the kind of education you would need to see through any of this shit. The poor are the easiest people in the world to shut up if they step out of line.

And if we move up from the working class, we behold America's prosperous, lazy, sheltered bourgeois. That is, the class from which most of this pressure is coming. A class with so much free time that they can spend every waking hour on social media, protesting, clamoring about how they're going to truly make the world a better place because what if we just all worked together for the greater good? Fat chance on any pushback from this fucking class - anything that they feel can help them to avoid labor of any form (because working is colonialism), they're going to gel towards. Maybe the older generations aren't as labor-adverse, but chances are they've still got mortgages and debt that would explode on them if they were short of income from their employer going headhunting.

And when we move up from there, to the aristocracy and the business class? These people want power, and exclusive access to power. They recognize that these lazy sacks down below them causing a ruckus just want to avoid doing work - and that's OK, we've shipped off the work to somewhere in SEA or Africa to pay out some slave wages, so the precious children of privilege don't need to work. They just need to not get in the way of the uber-elite further and further insulating themselves from any scrutiny or competition. Why in the world would they ever speak out against a bunch of people screaming at phantom racism when it might lead them to instead notice the real oligarchy again?

And so that leaves us with... what, a handful of outcasts and fuck-you-money people who can safely speak out against the zeitgeist, which is often all the more that has been able to throughout history? There's a reason that the 70s silent majority was silent. There's a reason that the counterculture explodes in 1968 and the Days of Rage drag on through the early 70s, by which everyone is sick of their shit, but they all burned out into pathetic losers and X-studies professors. There's a reason this current moment has been building since 2013 in tandem with those colleges growing absurdly expensive, absurdly wealthy, and doing all they could to convince entire generations to bankrupt themselves WHILE everyone was expecting a recession for years and years despite low inflation AND why it's exploding now with Corona and a Depression on the horizon. This is the big hurrah, the big putsch, and they've managed to be completely absorbed by capital and fling some rocks.

Tim doesn't really connect the dots on his own and has too much romanticism about politics

 

[GenericReviewerDraco]

Welp, I found this lovely garbage by looking through the Twitter feed of an obese bird from Weeb Wars.

https://twitter.com/suchnerve/status/1275664923696250880

http://archive.md/GGllY

 

[teriyakiburns]

I can keep going on and on about this shit but this isnt the "Ancient Indian History" thread. If you want more info about smth in particular you can always DM me.

Goodness Gracious Me had a whole series of skits based on that belief. I didn't get it at the time. It's even funnier now.

Spoiler: Indian!

 

[anionfarflung]

Spoiler: Historical off topic

So the "theory" almost everyone accepts this as fact is that Sanskrit and proto-hinduism (sanathama dharma) was introduced by an indo-european steppe people. These indo-european invaders came from central asia and persia, crossed the Indus and conquered the native indians/dravidians. Furthermore, these 'aryan' invaders introduced a racial caste system in which the upper castes (brahmin (clergy) and kshatriya (warriors)) were aryan, while the lower castes were native dravidians forced to work for their foreign masters. A telling quote is and remains the rig veda 9 73 5, in which Indra (equivalent to thor/zeus/rod in other european paganisms) slaughters the swarthy people because he hates them. In other parts Indra is describe as fair of skin with blonde hair and beard.

The implications of this are massive. It would mean that most of the indian culture is copied from foreign invaders. Things like languages (sanskrit > hindi) and culture (Mahabharata) and religion (veda's, indo european spiritualism) would be foreign. The gods they revere would hate their guts. Indian nationalists would rather espouse the "aryans are natives" theory, which would imply that the aryans came from india and from there took over the world, even tho this doesnt fit at all with archeological evidence etc. It's a bitter pill to swallow and I dont fault them to want this myth to be true. It would make India the centre of the world, make britain not foreign but actually descendant from indians etc etc.

Spoiler: or I can explain it with funny maymay vid

View attachment 1403803

I can keep going on and on about this shit but this isnt the "Ancient Indian History" thread. If you want more info about smth in particular you can always DM me.

Thanks for stepping in with a better presentation than mine.

 

[and 127 others]

I saw this being spread around.

You know what Ben Shapiro is right about something, they never talk about the solution. They use a lot of buzzwords, but never talk about what needs to be done, like police reform. But then again if you believe the whole system is bad then no surprise everything must go.

View attachment 1402795

Oh this is a good find.

First and most fatally, the author discredits themselves at the fourth word, "racist". There is truly no reason to read the rest. It is guaranteed to be dismissive of data points that do not promote its explicit agenda. It's impossible that these are inherently racist points; they are philosophical and statistical counter arguments that can’t determine or even insinuate a state of mind. None of the points are incompatible with being against racism.

But ignoring that...

Spoiler: 1. "Cops kill more white people than Black people"

...But cops don’t kill white people because they are white”

Insinuates that cops do kill black people because they are black - an unsubstantiated claim with no possible evidence or data. But this argument necessarily would include black officers too so it fails to be racist at all times. Actually, more black people are killed by black officers, and white officers are statistically less likely to shoot black people. Also short of an explicit admission, it is impossible to demonstrate an individual’s state of mind, such as being racist; this is called qualia, the author needs to look it up. You can point to discrimination, which is ostensible, but not racism.

"Black people are killed by cops at a rate of 3X HIGHER than white people, often when unarmed."

The author concedes that more white people are killed by police than blacks, so I'm not sure what the rest of this "counter-argument" is here for. It's essentially rambling... looks like about how police brutality should be condemned. No shit, Sherlock. That's derails the attempt at a counter-argument, and we'll get to that term "derails" again in a sec.
But...
According to the Washington Post, 11 unarmed black people were killed by police in 2019, 8 of whom were shot. 235 black people were shot and killed by police in 2019. This number is pretty steady across documented years. So 8/235 is 3.4%. This percentage falls entirely short of the word "often". But of those 8, Tucker Carlson 101 will tell you more details as to why they were shot when unarmed, and you quickly get the idea that "unarmed" is not necessarily "not life-threateningly dangerous", not even to the cops but to innocent civilians -- all of this damning information and more is available by searching the names in Google. The "often when unarmed" is entirely false and disingenuous.

The author uses this source here. The "About the Data" page is overtly anti-cop and counts kills made by police officers who are off duty. On the home page it says that blacks are 3x more likely to be shot by police than whites, but doesn't include any contextualizing data, probably intentionally. This is astoundingly relevant data, like that blacks as 13% of the population commit >50% of murders, and often outpace whites in areas like gambling, robbery, and property crime index (the trends continue into 2018). In nearly every category of arrests and crime (except for alcohol-related offenses like drunkenness and driving under the influence), blacks over-represent relative to their percentage of the population. Why would someone want to leave this data out? The answer is also the answer to the question of whether or not this is good research.

There are a load of such cherry-picked and skewed statistics on this page, like the one that claims "8 of the 100 largest city police departments kill black men at higher rates than the US murder rate". Reno is listed as the highest, with a murder rate of 12.1 (the US murder rate is # per 100k people). This data is said to be complied from the years 2013-2019. Down the page some, you can click on a particular police department to see how many people they have killed in so many years. Their data on Reno says they've killed 14 people in the years 2013-2019... not all black either. So how can killing 14 people in 6 years equal an annual black murder rate of 12.1 per 100k? No clue.

Assuming that the "murder rates" are not self-contradictory and are accurate though, for fun, there are several isolated data points that are going to be higher than the US murder rate because the US murder rate is an average. For example, New Orleans' is 52 per 100,000; 10 times the national average.

Also, nationally, 93% of black homicide victims were by other blacks, so if police are joy killing at this rate, chances are the ones pulling the triggers are also black.

The statistic ignores that police officers are more likely to be involved in fatal shootouts, particularly in areas with high crime, or what percentage of these are justified killings.

But ultimately, police killings are only "murder" when they are unjustified. No one is going to charge a police officer murder for shooting a Dylann Roof. The site, neither in its statistics or repository of data, makes any indication of the circumstances of police killings. It is not defined on its page of methodological definitions. Instead they treat them all like straight up murders. One of its sources it cites for data collection collects all deaths in police presence, regardless of who did the killing or if it was a suicide. (The other source this page uses for its data is another version of itself.)

Worst of all, at the bottom of the page, the site boasts all the articles that have quoted its statistics! This is why you can't just look at an intentionally-eye catchy graphic and count yourself educated.

The other source used here is simply US population data from the CIA.

So, all in all, this person admits the "racist talking point" is true and then ignores that.

Spoiler: 2. "The problem is Black people commit more crime."

Correction: crimes committed by black people are more reported, and/or over-attributed in a corrupt system that values arrest quotas.

First, let's look at the sole source used for this section: "The Criminalization of Gentrifying Neighborhoods" (http://archive.md/NME7f) It's the Atlantic! LOL! This article's points are exclusive to neighborhoods in the process of gentrifying, so the absolute best that could come from citing this is that blacks are over-reported in gentrifying neighborhoods. That is assuredly a minority of all reported crime. So this is a useless source to build this argument on. But the article doesn't even state that blacks are reported more frequently, or that it is necessarily due to new residents calling the cops (here), or whether those who do call are actually white or not. One would think that in majority black areas, where most crime is committed and reported, those reporting are probably black too.

Also this part suggests that the policing in gentrifying neighborhoods isn't really quantifiably any different from that neighborhood before. The article is just about the myriad of social problems of gentrification. Not sure where this person is getting their info from that article.

But it doesn't matter anyway because the argument that blacks are killed by police at percentages disproportionate to their population percentage is based on their relative rate of violent crimes; not misdemeanors the kind the author is talking about in gentrifying neighborhoods. Whites are categorically more represented in percentage of all crimes except violent ones, and like I said earlier, maybe gambling. So this person doesn't even know the argument they are trying to discredit.

Another thing: how would you know that black crimes are over-reported, when you by definition can't know about the number of crimes that aren't reported, much less the ethnicities involved? That is an impossible claim, not surprisingly unsupported in any fashion. Same for the bit about a corrupt system of cops just raking in black crimes for quota purposes; the assumption that ACAB is necessary to get to the conclusion. Very poor thinking on display. Also, there is no quote for black crimes, so why would they focus on them? Plus, whites are more likely than blacks to encounter police when all crimes are considered, and police are equally likely to initiate contact with whites as blacks.

Lastly, putting the word "correction" followed by a colon doesn't grant this sentence any validity. Just a pretense of it.

Spoiler: 3. "Well, what about Black-on-Black crime?"

Haha this is the first to have the "Derailing" stamp of disapproval on it. So you get to decide what points are permissible to bring up and not huh? I don't suppose that has anything to do with the points doing a good job of working against your position, huh?

We're talking about RACISM...

The whole point of these talking points are to deconstruct the assumption that cops are killing blacks due to racism and to try to slap the myth of omnipresent auto-racism out of your thick skull. So when these are brought up to invalidate the assumption of racism, saying "BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RACISM HERE!" is avoiding the point of the discussion. You are assuming racism and then when the assumption breaks down, you just re-assume racism in favor of seeing any other facts. See?

The reason why someone would want to bring up that the history of crime in this country is overwhelmingly the history of black-on-black violence is to inject some context and accuracy into the lie that black people are being genocided by white cops. They aren't. If anything, they are being genocided by other black people.

..Black people don't kill each other because they are Black,

But white people and all cops do? Again, the racism is already assumed in this author's writing, and perspectives that implicate the white man participating in racist genocide are they only ones this author is interested in.

Secondly, if you compare white and Black neighborhoods with similar income levels, you see similar rates of crime.

This would insinuate that black-on-black crime is solely a function of income, when it isn't - black ethnicity predicts homicide rates independent of poverty. Being black predicts more strongly for homicide than poverty rate, median household income, racial segregation, income segregation, education rates, and more. The second strongest predictor of homicide concentration is fatherless homes, or single-motherhood rate. Illegitimacy rates are at an all-time high of over 70% for blacks, who lead all subdivisions of that category too.

Besides all that, homicide rate being equal among two neighborhoods of different ethnic composition and similar income doesn't change the fact that most murder is blacks killing blacks. The cowering argument here is that all of the black-on-black murders are a result of systemic racism, but again, that is assuming racism to prove racism. And it isn't even supported if you allow that assumption.

I would like to check the sources of this author's data and see the comparisons they are talking about, but these aren't provided. I'm simply told that "if you look", kind of like saying "well if you'll think about it hard enough...". This is a cop-out and the author has no idea what they are talking about.

The next sentence talks about how if you only count upper-class white neighborhood and lower-class black ones, you are going to get skewed data. No shit. Good thing the data that is relied on for the fact that most blacks kill blacks corrects for socioeconomic status and other data come from all reported crimes, instead of some senseless sample size like this one the author pulls out of their ass.

We are finally treated to the fundamental flaw idiots who try to argue this side of it make over and over again, like refusing to look into a mirror when you know you are hideously fat:

Poor people commit more crimes because economic insecurity leads to those crimes; it just so happens that Black people are still at an economic disadvantage because of the enduring consequences of America's racism throughout history.

It's the recognition that there are no such things as walking, thinking, oppress-able groups of people. There are only individuals. At the level of actionable reality, there are people who are making personal decisions and choices, including to murder other people. Our criminal justice system doesn't (yet) excuse a black person for murder by blaming it on low socioeconomic status or being systemically discriminated against, because that argument is bullshit. No one but that individual got that gun and pulled that trigger. The entire lib+BLM argument is designed around ignoring this fact as it pertains to all choices in every black individual's life. From committing crimes to how they act when confronted by police. It is too complex of a picture to make their emotional agenda out of, hence why it is easy to just avoid thinking about it by blaming a non-existent genocide and the claim of ubiquitous racism that can't be properly demonstrated or even argued for.

Spoiler: 4. "What about gun violence in Black neighborhoods like Chicago?"

Yeah what about it exactly? Derailing" stamp #2 here, so official. I actually agree with the author though; this isn't really relevant to the conversation here. I have no idea why this question is brought up and typed out and included in the graphic. It's the illusion and benefit of designing the other side's questions for them. Just pure dumb here.

Spoiler: 5. "If people just followed the law, they'd be fine."

Yeah that's pretty much true, can we move on? No? Okay.

A) Whether or not someone committed a crime does not mean they deserve to be killed.

So stunning, so brave. Actually, try to tell that to states with the death penalty. But again, this point really doesn't follow from the header statement.

And rarely is justice served.

No one is saying that some bad cops get off free when they shouldn't. But to think that now, in this current climate, police officers can get away with anything is insanity. Cops are now fired for expressing disagreement with BLM, and certainly in cases of actual self defense that are instantly construed as "murder" by salivating activists. The unilateral national response to George Chauvin should be good inidication that there is no need to argue over whether or not corrupt cops should be convicted. We all agree on this point.

But again, this really has nothing to do with the "racist" talking point this sentence is under. As it stands, the initial talking point is the most accurate thing here and here in another instance, there really isn't any actual argument against it. "If you don't commit crimes then you will not be killed by police" is a good rule to live by and will be accurate 99.999999% of the time.

Spoiler: 6. "White Privilege isn't real."

There are black scholars and thinkers who believe white privilege isn't real, so again, this statement isn't necessarily one from the racist mouth of a dirty white man. I have my own thoughts about white privilege, and I don't necessarily disagree that it is real, but to quote an opinion piece from tolerance.org magazine is not definitive proof that it exists.

Look, there's not enough space here.

lol c'mon. You're designing the graphic. You have as much space as you'd like.

Suffice it to say, there is no way to demonstrate that white privilege exists because it is a framework concept through which to view data and everything else. You can't prove it with data and you can't falsify it with data. It exists beyond those things, as a conceptual proposition. Suffice it to say, if everywhere you look there is racism, and everyone you see is racist, then you were the racist all along.

Arguments for the existence of it invariably point to higher average income rates of whites, but this is saying just what it says: that whites make more money on the whole. It says nothing about privilege or how it was utilized to get that money.

Ultimately, it is participating in racism to assume that any and every white person is privileged and capitalizes on it to get more of everything in their life than any and all black people. This is ignoring that whether or not you are privileged is dependent upon the activities that whites are culturally and historically best at. You would never look at a white football player and think he was privileged, because most talented football players are black.

I'd recommend the author go look at the original article introducing the concept of white privilege to the greater academia, contextualize who the author was, and see how many times you can either strike-through examples given (because this isn't 1980 anymore) or replace the concept of privilege with just being part of a majority ethnicity. And here's a newsflash: there will always be a majority. A land of equally-represented ethnicities in the population doesn't, hasn't ever, and will never exist. It doesn't mean the ethnicity that is the majority is oppressive and racist.

That's really the dirty secret of white privilege; it all is reducible to being part of any majority and can be argued for regarding any majority. But as a tool in the proper context here, it is mainly the gearwork by which the engine of white guilt/black power can be motorized. It is a rhetorical, disingenuous, and malicious device intended to prey upon insecure and terrified white people.

I'd recommend this read, it is the gist.

Anyway, again racism is assumed so that it can be concluded here too, so that's enough of that.

lol but facts don't matter to these people, and the false infographic will be retweeted around the social world faster than a thought can pass from one of their neurons to the next. Just goes to show how much effort is required to debunk absolutely unfounded and partially retarded arguments that morons make from emotional points of view instead of honest, factual ones. It is all damaging to black people and any genuine campaign against racism, wherever it may exist.

 

[-4ZURE-]

Why would a YT news network become a part of Breadtube? You do understand that the entirely of leftism on YT ins't encapsulated by breadtube right?

They are just not really talked about in the grand scheme of leftist YT. Plus news networks being part of a political side on YT is nothing new. The right used to have the Rebel Media which tried marketing itself as such. They just lack any discussion around them nowadays, so I thought they just faded into obscurity.

Bernie is equally for gun control I mean he co-sponsored ERPOA and introduced the Background Check Expansion Act. He's been busy lately trying to get illegals eligibility for government loans. As for Obamacare well part of Bernie's platform was providing free transition surgery including top surgery and HRT so I don't know how that is less extreme than Obamacare. Let's also not forget Bernie has been a major proponent of the Green New Deal whereas Biden only came around to it recently which was in all honesty prob an attempt to scoop up bernie voters. Bernie's neatest trick is being intentionally vague on his policies that are crazy and hyping his most likeable ones. If you think he is closer to the centre than Biden you're nuts.

I am going off of his conversation with Joe. In it he was pretty minimalist when discussing gun control. He also did not say much for most other left-wing policies. He seems to have the two big things then sort of lacks interest on all else. I will have to look into your stuff though, so for now call this an end. I will say, you won.

 

[nohull]

It's ok, she's autistic so she can do whatever she wants in her life.

The reason why she gets away with it, it's because she's a woman, not because she's autistic, but I get that the "autism is a get out of jail free card" myth is quite popular around these circles.

I hope that irritating tard gets caught and raped by JF Gariepy.

She doesn't look retarded enough to be of his likenings. JFG eats more potatos than an starving irishman.

 

[The Saltening]

dont panic. but something is happening on reddit. the amount of pro-gun and anti-protest shit is increasing. every meme related to guns is flooded with pro-gun comments. people are being downvoted for wanting the police abolished and people even just cutting police budgets.

wtf is happening

edit: i am going to start archiving it when i see it from now on. this shit wack

 

[anionfarflung]

Called Jesus a bitch in middle school to piss them off once. I've never seen a group of black people so scared in my life.

 

[pwnest injun]

dont panic. but something is happening on reddit. the amount of pro-gun and anti-protest shit is increasing. every meme related to guns is flooded with pro-gun comments. people are being downvoted for wanting the police abolished and people even just cutting police budgets.

wtf is happening

The end goal for powerful entities is to institute authoritarian measures. They do not want anarchy except as an excuse to remove more people's rights and to consolidate their power.

 

[MrJokerRager]

Tim isn't really the sharpest knife in the shed. But he does have crazy glue all over the handle, such that when you want to see what's goin' on, you're stuck there for a good six-to-thirty-minutes for a point that could be made in six-to-thirty seconds.

Spoiler: let me condense this

His point about the revolutionary war could also be made about most wars and most political movements in all of history, in all societies. Most people do not actively get involved in any politics, which is why it's very often seen as a sport and pasttime of the rich. There's very few conflicts, barring maybe all-consuming civil wars, where you can actively say that the bulk of the population participates. This even goes back to the civil rights era, the counterculture, the iraq war protests, OWS, so-on, so-forth; he misses that the entire point of a 'silent majority' is that it it is a political body that doesn't make itself apparent. (Of course, in this case, I think that faith in the silent majority is somewhat misplaced - because the silent majority can't funnel itself through facebook/twitter, which seems to be what the entire corporate sphere lives and dies off of, but that's irrelevant.)

His banging on about people quitting their jobs is rich. Is everyone in the world some loner early-20s guy without debt? Even in Tim's case, he quickly traded in doing actual reporting (like his OWS shit, which got him attention in the first place) to essentially play the clickbait algorithm all day every day. Now he repeats some stuff he reads in an article or watches a video and gets mad at people, offering virtually nothing in the way of historical or political insight to any of it - I guess he does also repeat conspiracies and go WHAT IF THIS WAS TRUE? COULD YOU IMAGINE

The working class isn't going to push back, because the working class needs labor. That need for access is what has ensured that the working class never has any real representation in politics, and is forced to stay silent in cases like this. Maybe earlier it was the Unions that were deciding what the working class would believe; then it was the self-appointed socialist champions; now it's the corporations and businesses kowtowing to the mob. In any case, you can't throw a hissyfit at the people who need income to house and feed and provide for their families... for not sticking their heads up.

If we move below the working class, we have the poor. What the fuck do the poor care about any of this? America has done everything in its power to ensure that the poor are a useless, helpless underclass that will never recover and forever sit on their tugboats. The poor have been sitting on twitter and facebook all day and just absorbing the propaganda. The poor haven't had access to the kind of education you would need to see through any of this shit. The poor are the easiest people in the world to shut up if they step out of line.

And if we move up from the working class, we behold America's prosperous, lazy, sheltered bourgeois. That is, the class from which most of this pressure is coming. A class with so much free time that they can spend every waking hour on social media, protesting, clamoring about how they're going to truly make the world a better place because what if we just all worked together for the greater good? Fat chance on any pushback from this fucking class - anything that they feel can help them to avoid labor of any form (because working is colonialism), they're going to gel towards. Maybe the older generations aren't as labor-adverse, but chances are they've still got mortgages and debt that would explode on them if they were short of income from their employer going headhunting.

And when we move up from there, to the aristocracy and the business class? These people want power, and exclusive access to power. They recognize that these lazy sacks down below them causing a ruckus just want to avoid doing work - and that's OK, we've shipped off the work to somewhere in SEA or Africa to pay out some slave wages, so the precious children of privilege don't need to work. They just need to not get in the way of the uber-elite further and further insulating themselves from any scrutiny or competition. Why in the world would they ever speak out against a bunch of people screaming at phantom racism when it might lead them to instead notice the real oligarchy again?

And so that leaves us with... what, a handful of outcasts and fuck-you-money people who can safely speak out against the zeitgeist, which is often all the more that has been able to throughout history? There's a reason that the 70s silent majority was silent. There's a reason that the counterculture explodes in 1968 and the Days of Rage drag on through the early 70s, by which everyone is sick of their shit, but they all burned out into pathetic losers and X-studies professors. There's a reason this current moment has been building since 2013 in tandem with those colleges growing absurdly expensive, absurdly wealthy, and doing all they could to convince entire generations to bankrupt themselves WHILE everyone was expecting a recession for years and years despite low inflation AND why it's exploding now with Corona and a Depression on the horizon. This is the big hurrah, the big putsch, and they've managed to be completely absorbed by capital and fling some rocks.

Tim doesn't really connect the dots on his own and has too much romanticism about politics

I view his outburst in emotional terms, that he is starting to realize how long term America is fucked. Now we just waiting for that Trump endorsement. He already bought a gun being convinced by Crowder lol.

View attachment 1403735

A 1000 of these lot and the media will be shitting their pants and change the goalposts.