1 1
turtlespeed

Nothing about this is a protest. (NSFW Racial Expletives)

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

Being treated unfairly does not give someone the right to act like thugs and savages.

Yet you applaud American soldiers pissing on corpses. You applaud a president grabbing women by the pussy. You applaud police who kill black people. You have left children fatherless. You have multiple ex-wives. You support a president with 5 children from 3 wives, one with an anchor baby who used chain migration to bring her family into the country.

You heavily oppose all those things when done by non-white people. You indicate how the downfall of the US is caused by exactly the behaviour you exhibit. You just believe yourself to be superior, because you are white.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Yet you applaud American soldiers pissing on corpses. You applaud a president grabbing women by the pussy. You applaud police who kill black people. You have left children fatherless. You have multiple ex-wives. You support a president with 5 children from 3 wives, one with an anchor baby who used chain migration to bring her family into the country.

You heavily oppose all those things when done by non-white people. You indicate how the downfall of the US is caused by exactly the behaviour you exhibit. You just believe yourself to be superior, because you are white.

 

Hi Sky,

BRAVO

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

You heavily oppose all those things when done by non-white people.

 

Right.  They are violent thugs. Here's a great story about cops saying they will kill them, and let gun owners kill them too!  Yay for cops!  Yay for killing!

When they are white, then forgiveness is a virtue!  Walk a mile in their shoes.  You don't understand where they are coming from. They are just misguided patriots.  They are exercising their rights.  They might have gone a  little overboard, but this reason and that reason.  Etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to a protest today, and spent some time talking to my nibling who’s very involved in thus. Defund is a shitty word, and doesn’t mean abolish. But yes, abolish entrenched systems that kinda sorta naturally favor people who are already favored. 
 

Some of you are old enough to remember when cocaine ran around the DZ. Cocaine was illegal, but it’s quicker, cheaper version (crack) was WAY more illegal. Since it was cheaper, it was more favored by minorities. Bingo - another way I win! If I get caught, it’s a minor penalty or slap on the wrist probably. If someone gets caught with crack, it’s major jail time. No, that’s not fair — it definitely makes it easier to be white. 

So not only reduce the breadth of what the police do (it’s chicken to just give them more money because no one wants to fund mental health), but also make sure that all the little favorings are reduced or eliminated. They exist — most of us got away with stupid stuff when we were young. I sure did. But we weren’t suspected in the first place because we didn’t look like thugs. 

Wendy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Miami cops have had recordings of their shootings of protestors released. The recordings ‘Beat it, little f***er.’ Had them discussing whether or not their body cams were on or not first. Then going into candid conversations about the fun and yuck-yucks in shooting protestors with rubber bullets.

“Did you see me f**k up those motherf****rs?” one of the cops said.

“I got the one f***er,” the other laughed.

What wasn't disclosed was their currency of membership in the GOP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Some Miami cops have had recordings of their shootings of protestors released. The recordings ‘Beat it, little f***er.’ Had them discussing whether or not their body cams were on or not first. Then going into candid conversations about the fun and yuck-yucks in shooting protestors with rubber bullets.

And it sounds like so far the PD is covering for them. In addition to blaming the protestors for a situation it sounds very likely that the police in fact instigated and escalated.


Police maintain it was the protesters who started the violence by jumping on an unmarked police vehicle stationed at the mouth of a public parking garage around 6:50 p.m. Officer Stylianee Hayes, who was driving the black 2019 Toyota Camry, felt her “life was in imminent danger,” according to her official incident report. She said she was so worried for her safety that she did not turn on her body camera.

She came over the radio screaming for help. She was being surrounded,” Maglione, the chief, told the Herald a few days after the incident.

A nearby officer on a motorcycle who was present at the moment Hayes called for help did not make an emergency call of his own. None of the hours of body camera footage released by police, nor the more than 100 photos and videos taken by photographers on the scene and reviewed by the Herald, show anyone touching Hayes’ vehicle. Nor was Hayes’ 6:51 p.m. call for backup the emergency distress call of a terrified officer described by Maglione and dozens of officers in sworn incident reports. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RonD1120 said:

Now i understand. Heavily armed Black militias coming to a neighborhood near you. As trump said "Marxist, radical socialist". Then combining with radical right wing ‘Boogaloo’ fascists. Its looking bad Ron.

How is your "constitutional militia" coming along? If you have heavily armed Blacks in camo coming at your peaceful little compound. Then more heavily armed ‘Boogaloo’ militiamen coming from the other?

Better stock up on TP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

So they exercised their right to carry, and they protested. I just saw a similar protest of white people outside the Texas Capitol railing against masks, vaccines, and for Trump. Also heavily armed. Kind of like the “right to carry” protests. 
Ya know, they have the same rights you do. Just different opinions. 
And a monument to the “glorious lost cause”’ is appalling anyway. 
 

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2020 at 9:26 PM, airdvr said:

So growing up in a household that has no father figure isn't a problem?

No.  It is not inherently a problem.  Growing up in a household in which nobody provides guidance to a future adult is a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

Drop in the bucket compared to the number of recent white wingers doing exactly the same thing.

I thought you supported the First and Second Amendments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

SHTF, looks like it is getting closer.

It's the far left and the far right coming together with a lot of guns and anger!  You should love this.  Lots of people celebrating their Second Amendment rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2020 at 9:26 PM, wmw999 said:

I went to a protest today, and spent some time talking to my nibling who’s very involved in thus. Defund is a shitty word, and doesn’t mean abolish. But yes, abolish entrenched systems that kinda sorta naturally favor people who are already favored. 
 

Some of you are old enough to remember when cocaine ran around the DZ. Cocaine was illegal, but it’s quicker, cheaper version (crack) was WAY more illegal. Since it was cheaper, it was more favored by minorities. Bingo - another way I win! If I get caught, it’s a minor penalty or slap on the wrist probably. If someone gets caught with crack, it’s major jail time. No, that’s not fair — it definitely makes it easier to be white. 

So not only reduce the breadth of what the police do (it’s chicken to just give them more money because no one wants to fund mental health), but also make sure that all the little favorings are reduced or eliminated. They exist — most of us got away with stupid stuff when we were young. I sure did. But we weren’t suspected in the first place because we didn’t look like thugs. 

Wendy

I thought Crack was a larger penalty because of the harsher affects it had on the body, mind, and because of how addictive it was.  That isn't even mentioning the affects it has on unborn babies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

So they exercised their right to carry, and they protested. I just saw a similar protest of white people outside the Texas Capitol railing against masks, vaccines, and for Trump. Also heavily armed. Kind of like the “right to carry” protests. 
Ya know, they have the same rights you do. Just different opinions. 

Remember that the NRA only once supported the banning of open carry: when the Black Panthers started to carry openly.

White people with guns is freedom. Black people with guns is scary and oppressive.

But there is no racism.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Nope. Crack was mainly cheaper and faster. In some ways it’s worse, in some ways better. But the people who used it at the time couldn’t fight back as effectively as the people who used cocaine. 
If effects on unborn babies was the issue it would have been more harshly penalized far later, and there would be more penalty for alcohol. 
One can always find what one is looking for, if you just know how to redefine it  

And I’m sure that lawmakers were doing the right thing, and didn’t discuss targeting minorities in session. It’s just that they could see the effects of one (Crack) and consider them as true of everyone, and see the effects of the other (cocaine) and consider them as exceptions. 
 

Wendy P. 
 

Edited by wmw999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

And I’m sure that lawmakers were doing the right thing, and didn’t discuss targeting minorities in session. It’s just that they could see the effects of one (Crack) and consider them as true of everyone, and see the effects of the other (cocaine) and consider them as exceptions. 
 

There is no self-serving argument as strong as the argument "well, I do X and I'm not bad, so X isn't so bad."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I thought Crack was a larger penalty because of the harsher affects it had on the body, mind, and because of how addictive it was.

Probably based off studies with racial bias. Powder cocaine is also extremely addictive and comes with various chronic side effects. Crack will also fuck up your lungs, but that's more down to the physical process of smoking than differences in the chemical.

Quote

That isn't even mentioning the affects it has on unborn babies.

And you think normal cocaine is fine for them? But again, the concern over crack babies was due to flawed, racially biased studies that overlooked many other factors like malnutrition in the poor, black mothers. The following hype over crack babies specifically and not cocaine babies in general was also for sure racially biased. It was also highly sensationalised. From Wiki:

 

Many recall that "crack babies", or babies born to mothers who used crack cocaine while pregnant, were at one time written off by many as a lost generation. They were predicted to suffer from severe, irreversible damage, including reduced intelligence and social skills. It was later found that this was a gross exaggeration. However, the fact that most of these children appear normal should not be over-interpreted as indicating that there is no cause for concern. Using sophisticated technologies, scientists are now finding that exposure to cocaine during fetal development may lead to subtle, yet significant, later deficits in some children, including deficits in some aspects of cognitive performance, information-processing, and attention to tasks—abilities that are important for success in school.

 

The over-criminalisation of crack vs powder was absolutely driven by racism. And it's not just that, the exact same thing is happening all over again with opioid abuse vs heroin use, both in law and in public opinion. From the abstract of The war on drugs that wasn't

"A content analysis of 100 popular press articles from 2001 and 2011 in which half describe heroin users and half describe prescription opioid users revealed a consistent contrast between criminalized urban black and Latino heroin injectors with sympathetic portrayals of suburban white prescription opioid users. Media coverage of the suburban and rural opioid “epidemic” of the 2000s helped draw a symbolic, and then legal, distinction between (urban) heroin addiction and (suburban and rural) prescription opioid addiction that is reminiscent of the legal distinction between crack cocaine and powder cocaine of the 1980s and 90s. This distinction reinforces the racialized deployment of the War on Drugs and is sustained by the lack of explicit discussion of race in the service of “color blind ideology.”...

...Arising in tandem with, rather than in tension with, the official “War on Drugs” and its mass incarceration of blacks and Latinos, white opioid images have helped to carve out a separate space for white opioid use in the popular American imagination, one that leads to racially stratified therapeutic intervention and works to further insulate white communities from black and brown drug threats, leaving intact law enforcement crackdowns on black and brown urban residents in the name of public safety....

...In this sense, the popular press is helping to create a form of narcotic apartheid that is inscribed not only on divergent narratives of the human qualities, family, and community lives of white compared to black or brown addicted people, but that is also inscribed on racially divergent legal codes and local, State and Federal policies. In this way, media coverage of the suburban and rural opioid “epidemic” of the 2000s helped to draw a symbolic, and then a legal, distinction between (urban) heroin addiction and (suburban and rural) prescription opioid addiction (even after its progression to heroin addiction) that is reminiscent of the legal distinction between crack cocaine and powder cocaine of the 1980s-90s"

 

 

I've been trying and failing for a while to find an interview with one of the creators of 'The Wire' who was a longtime Baltimore PD detective where he talks about crime stats, and how far north of 90% of people who were incarcerated for possession charges in Baltimore were black. He was asking are we saying that white Baltimore doesn't have a drug problem? That the suburbs don't have a drug problem? Because that's insane, of course there are a huge number of recreational and hardcore drug users there. The disparity in incarceration is a disparity in enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

My prediction: someone in Q-land (not necessarily north Georgia) will get scared and defensive at a protest and let loose with automatic gunfire. This will be regrettable. 
Wendy P. 

There will be more instances "Q" and right wing radicals, using vehicles to run over peaceful protestors first. Q and other groups like it continue to talk about arming, stockpiling more ammo. Preparing for armed resistance to the exercise of the rights of others. Yet still want to dress in the flag.Because it paints them with a self serving white narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, wmw999 said:

And I’m sure that lawmakers were doing the right thing, and didn’t discuss targeting minorities in session.

Maybe not back in the 80s during the whole war on drugs thing when they enacted the 100-1 rule, but it was certainly a major focal point in the 90s.  The crime bill called for the sentencing commission to study it and determined that it was the primary factor driving the racial disparity and called for it to be scrapped.

However, the republicans just ignored it and sent it through.  Clinton had just given a speech about  how "blacks are right to think something is terribly wrong, when there are more African American men in our correction system than in our colleges; when almost one in three African American men, in their twenties, are either in jail, on parole, or otherwise under the supervision of the criminal system. Nearly one in three.”

. . .and then what does he do?  He signs the bill anyway fully aware of the problem and in direct opposition to the sentencing commissions recommendation and completely ignoring calls from various civil rights organizations demanding he veto the bill because of the 100-1 disparity.

Baltimore Sun:

"Civil rights organizations had led a telephone campaign to pressure the president to veto the bill. At a rally last week in Chicago, the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson said that Mr. Clinton had the chance, "with one stroke of your veto pen, to correct the most grievous racial injustice built into our legal system."

And then Bill, along with Hillary, and now Joe want you all to believe that it was all just some "unintended consequence" - fuck them.

The republicans were right to vote outside the box, it's just too fucking bad it had to be Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1