That's not true. No government can assistance can legally be denied to you on the basis of the color of your skin.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why did race relations deteriorate so much in the last decade? And how do we fix it?
- Thread starter pramod
- Start date
That's not true. No government can assistance can legally be denied to you on the basis of the color of your skin.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
This is so scary to read. And I doubt you are older than 35 years old too. Post like this clearly shows me that racism will always stay around in this country in a huge way. I love having this type of converstations, because through this thread I honestly learned alot. And this post perfectly crystallizes it.
Nightstick10
Neo Member
I think this is the most wrong post in this entire thread.
Vicetrailia
Banned
I need more info. Your politicians aren't advocating for children. Lowering it to 16 in exceptional circumstances is not likely to happen, let alone anything concerning. And Germans crack down on these things with exception to out of country child marriages as you say (maybe?), which isn't black and white as you pointed out. People doing it under the table isn't that worrying because it's illegal.
Vicetrailia
Banned
Last edited by a moderator:
BANGS
Banned
And this is why I can't take you seriously. You've made the short list, congratulations lmfao
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
More police has helped over the years, but it's not "THE" reason for lower violent crime. Sorry criminologist have looked over the stats in all states and countries. More police was not the constant that brought crime rates down.
BANGS
Banned
I never said it was the only factor nor a constant, I said it was the most important factor. That opinion of mine is certainly up for debate and statistics across the board don't always correlate, but it seems to be true...
What do you think has caused to significant drops in crime rates during the times where police got the most tough on crime?
Alright, so here is what I am reading from being in this thread.
We have a number of false correlations which are are being perpetuated.
The first is what racism is, what it does, and what historical effects it has had.
First I will start there.
Racism has a long standing ugly history which is tied to statistical outcomes and economics so we need to separate the fact from the myth.
1) Racism is the root of many of the issues facing black people today. Half truth.
Slavery and discrimination disproportionately affected black slaves brought into this country involuntarily through long standing socio-economics.
The destruction of the family unit, the denial of education, and wealth have served to set back the black community but not so far as to they will never catch up.
2) These issues are "black" issues because other minorities do not have the same statistics. False
This is yet again a false narrative, We can see even in Native American communities that they have statistics similar to black Americans in certain measures.
Further we see as ethnic groups have less wealth and education their statistics trend closer to black americans, indicating a economic issue.
Further African immigrants are some of the most successful immigrants into the US, further dispelling the racial cause.
In truth, the erosion of black education, wealth, and family through slavery, and then further legal discrimination resolved only in the past 50 years has resulted in a socio economic gap.
3) Distilling issues down to solely racism makes people uncomfortable. - True.
Much of the legal racism has been removed, however racism is not rectified overnight and the effects of hundreds of years of discrimination will not be solved in 54 years. There needs to be an acknowledgement of both current status and past status to gain full clarity on issues.
4) Calling people racists actually turns them into racists - False.
This is a narrative that needs to be dropped. Being called a racist is never an excuse to become one. Further there should be acknowledgement that people are unfairly accused of racism.
5) The gap between black and white is closing/widening. Depends on the statistic.
On all meaningful measures with peers the black/white gap is closing. However wealth inequality is rising. This disproportionately excludes those who have not acquired previous wealth regardless of race.
Statistical equality is coming closer to being achieved. But wealth inequality will help to prolong this gap.
6) So what is actually causing race relations to deteriorate?
The oversimplifying of complex issues being reduced to Facebook posts and tweets. Statistics, the means to measure progress and determine trends are being reduced to single point blurbs while ignoring the context of the studies.
This further gives each side "proof positive" of the truth of their beliefs. Hyper-partisanship has ironically be feed by more information streams. Currently there are more streams of information that individual humans can consume. This causes us to prioritize our information streams with confirmation biased opinions. By every statistical measure race issues are actually declining and gaps are closing, however media and information streams are presenting these issues as ongoing, and unable to be resolved, when the true is we are closer than we have every been to racial equality and harmony.
*This is not a claim that racism does not exist, nor is it a claim that it is the primary issue facing our country. By rather that as we move closer to parity, out information streams seem more intent of convincing us all of a widening gap.
We have a number of false correlations which are are being perpetuated.
The first is what racism is, what it does, and what historical effects it has had.
First I will start there.
Racism has a long standing ugly history which is tied to statistical outcomes and economics so we need to separate the fact from the myth.
1) Racism is the root of many of the issues facing black people today. Half truth.
Slavery and discrimination disproportionately affected black slaves brought into this country involuntarily through long standing socio-economics.
The destruction of the family unit, the denial of education, and wealth have served to set back the black community but not so far as to they will never catch up.
2) These issues are "black" issues because other minorities do not have the same statistics. False
This is yet again a false narrative, We can see even in Native American communities that they have statistics similar to black Americans in certain measures.
Further we see as ethnic groups have less wealth and education their statistics trend closer to black americans, indicating a economic issue.
Further African immigrants are some of the most successful immigrants into the US, further dispelling the racial cause.
In truth, the erosion of black education, wealth, and family through slavery, and then further legal discrimination resolved only in the past 50 years has resulted in a socio economic gap.
3) Distilling issues down to solely racism makes people uncomfortable. - True.
Much of the legal racism has been removed, however racism is not rectified overnight and the effects of hundreds of years of discrimination will not be solved in 54 years. There needs to be an acknowledgement of both current status and past status to gain full clarity on issues.
4) Calling people racists actually turns them into racists - False.
This is a narrative that needs to be dropped. Being called a racist is never an excuse to become one. Further there should be acknowledgement that people are unfairly accused of racism.
5) The gap between black and white is closing/widening. Depends on the statistic.
On all meaningful measures with peers the black/white gap is closing. However wealth inequality is rising. This disproportionately excludes those who have not acquired previous wealth regardless of race.
Statistical equality is coming closer to being achieved. But wealth inequality will help to prolong this gap.
6) So what is actually causing race relations to deteriorate?
The oversimplifying of complex issues being reduced to Facebook posts and tweets. Statistics, the means to measure progress and determine trends are being reduced to single point blurbs while ignoring the context of the studies.
This further gives each side "proof positive" of the truth of their beliefs. Hyper-partisanship has ironically be feed by more information streams. Currently there are more streams of information that individual humans can consume. This causes us to prioritize our information streams with confirmation biased opinions. By every statistical measure race issues are actually declining and gaps are closing, however media and information streams are presenting these issues as ongoing, and unable to be resolved, when the true is we are closer than we have every been to racial equality and harmony.
*This is not a claim that racism does not exist, nor is it a claim that it is the primary issue facing our country. By rather that as we move closer to parity, out information streams seem more intent of convincing us all of a widening gap.
Here is a study on it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/05/28/whats-behind-the-decline-in-crime/#6b0797336f61
Last edited:
well you would be wrong. The post is what I have seen. I am half black and live in a small town in the south. Most of the people I know feel this way. I wouldn't call any of them racist, and haven't seen anything racist from them. They don't take kindly to being called racist or white supremacists because they disagreed with Obamacare or Obama's foreign policy, or because they voted for Trump.
ok lets go...
https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/verfassungsschutz-137.html
Bascially: right now we have 10.800 Salafists and its rising. Salafists are the ones who are recruting and teaching Muslims dangerous radical believes. Most of them are acting on a political level edvocating A Sharia law like state etc.
Jew as slur in Berlin
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutsch...aeufiger-Schimpfwort-in-Berliner-Schulen.html
In Bremen
https://www.weser-kurier.de/bremen/...n-ist-jude-ein-schimpfwort-_arid,1675317.html
in Dortmund
https://www.ruhrnachrichten.de/Stae...Schimpfwort-an-Dortmunder-Schulen-956421.html
Just to show a few examples. We have schools with 80%+ migration (Muslims) backgrounds and here Islam is a huge topic as well. Other schoolkids tell girls how to dress and act etc. It is just not an exception in many schools.
BKA warns of radicalisation within Refugees. IF you are a refugee and Christian believes or even gay you better not tell them in these "camps"
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutsch...dikalisierungsrisiko-unter-Fluechtlingen.html
Then we have the huge influence of Turkey within our Turkish communities as well. You know the ones who just abolished evolution theory in schools and also abolished any LGBT+ parades or protests in Turkey
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutsch...z-aus-Imamen-Trollen-und-Schlaegerbanden.html
Cologne NEw Years:
Final police report of these events
Warning these are 1300 Pages all in German but maybe you can understand the statistics: How many, which origin etc. Also it seems that this was planed. It was stated like a Taharrush which did happen to some american journalist in Egypt ago. Only difference it did not go as far as what she had to endure.
https://www.landtag.nrw.de/portal/WWW/dokumentenarchiv/Dokument/MMD16-14450.pdf
Also I have to apologize but right now I can not find the articles and reports about mosques and radical believes right now. But If you want I can look a bit longer.
And for the Germany has become far more dangerous: It certainly feels like it. Especially for women at night. But here you need actual reports from women living here to understand it. You also hear about more attacks by groups, you hear more rape crimes at least this is my experience. Back then I was way more open to strangers these days I am not on the streets. My parents who live in a small town feel the same you can even see drug dealing in front of elementary schools
Also I need to make clear these people who cause trouble beside the religion stuff are not real refugees. These people are economic refugees from most north Africa we can not get rid of. Hell we even pay these people to leave the countries just so they will be back a few months later.
If you want more I am happy to try to find stuff for you. Also I believe that it is still in the begining and that we need to act including actual real immigration laws like Canada has.
IT is worrying because with our current laws you can nto break them up very easily. As I said before when you go on holiday and you come back married with a 14/12 year old our laws can not break them up right now. You are not allowed to marry in Germany if you are under 18 anymore. So this has already changed. But even before there were cases in which a 13 year old was allowed to marry a 19 year old by law. This is an exampe of a 15 year old before the law.
https://www.focus.de/politik/deutsc...-erlaubt-15-jaehriger-die-ehe_id_6852346.html
Also I have to apologize: The leftwing party did not argue to allow child marriages but having multiple wifes because of the culture.
example: https://www.welt.de/kultur/article109307177/Polygamie-sollte-auch-in-Deutschland-erlaubt-sein.html
And no I think this is also ridculous and has nothing to do with our society anymore.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
The question is a question of false choice though. Lots of people are stating that the drop of lead in water and in housing is what lead (hahaha get it) to the drop in crime in America and world wide in the 90s and 00s.
If that's all they did, then it would crazy and wrong to call them racist. But also if you are older than 35, then you should know VERY VERY well what racism looks like. So much so that saying being called a "racist" is no way worse than actually facing racism.
Last edited:
NickFire
Member
I had never heard that theory before. At first glance that seemed out there to me, but it was the late 70's when lead was being banned everywhere I think. That would put the first post-lead generation into the 90's for teen years. Based on the timeline and brain damage lead can cause, the theory is certainly worthy of consideration and analysis.
BANGS
Banned
As a 33 year old, I know what racism looks like, and I see a hell of alot more of it now than I did during the 90s...
Read the above article I posted with the graph, its really insightful.
prag16
Banned
To be fair, you're missing a pretty important time range in that graphic (namely anything after 2008) if we're comparing "the 90s" to "now".I'm not so sure that is a widely supported view.
That's true, but this data is hard to find in the first place. Honestly it looks like they stopped asking these questions at all, but most race related outlooks show a positive trend from the 90s to now.
Those are some good links and while it doesn’t show quite what you were going for it definitely shows the assimilation issues and inherent biases with can travel through immigration. I don’t see it as any indication of mass terrorism or danger caused by it from the articles.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Love this converstation, so this is somethings good to read.
The main challenge in measuring the effect of lead on crime is that lead exposure is highly correlated with a variety of indicators related to poverty: poor schools, poor nutrition, poor health care, exposure to other environmental toxins, and so on. Those other factors could independently affect crime. The challenge for economists has been to separate the effect of lead exposure from the effects of all those other things that are correlated with lead exposure. A true experiment — where some kids are randomized to grow up with high lead exposure and others not — is out of the question. So economists have gone hunting for natural experiments — events or policies that divide otherwise-similar kids into comparable treatment and control groups.
And they’ve found them. Three recent papers consider the effects of lead exposure on juvenile delinquency and crime rates, using three very different empirical approaches and social contexts. All have plausible (but very different) control groups, and all point to the same conclusion: lead exposure leads to big increases in criminal behavior.
The results were dramatic. In 1996, the New York Times reported that crime had plunged for the third straight year, the sharpest drop since the end of Prohibition. Since 1993, rape rates had dropped 17 percent, assault 27 percent, robbery 42 percent, and murder an astonishing 49 percent. Giuliani was on his way to becoming America’s Mayor and Bratton was on the cover of Time. It was a remarkable public policy victory.
But even more remarkable is what happened next. Shortly after Bratton’s star turn, political scientist John DiIulio warned that the echo of the baby boom would soon produce a demographic bulge of millions of young males that he famously dubbed “juvenile super-predators.” Other criminologists nodded along. But even though the demographic bulge came right on schedule, crime continued to drop. And drop. And drop. By 2010, violent crime rates in New York City had plunged 75 percent from their peak in the early ’90s.
All in all, it seemed to be a story with a happy ending, a triumph for Wilson and Kelling’s theory and Giuliani and Bratton’s practice. And yet, doubts remained. For one thing, violent crime actually peaked in New York City in 1990, four years before the Giuliani-Bratton era. By the time they took office, it had already dropped 12 percent.
Second, and far more puzzling, it’s not just New York that has seen a big drop in crime. In city after city, violent crime peaked in the early ’90s and then began a steady and spectacular decline. Washington, DC, didn’t have either Giuliani or Bratton, but its violent crime rate has dropped 58 percent since its peak. Dallas’ has fallen 70 percent. Newark: 74 percent. Los Angeles: 78 percent.
There must be more going on here than just a change in policing tactics in one city. But what?
That tip took Nevin in a different direction. The biggest source of lead in the postwar era, it turns out, wasn’t paint. It was leaded gasoline. And if you chart the rise and fall of atmospheric lead caused by the rise and fall of leaded gasoline consumption, you get a pretty simple upside-down U: Lead emissions from tailpipes rose steadily from the early ’40s through the early ’70s, nearly quadrupling over that period. Then, as unleaded gasoline began to replace leaded gasoline, emissions plummeted.
Intriguingly, violent crime rates followed the same upside-down U pattern. The only thing different was the time period: Crime rates rose dramatically in the ’60s through the ’80s, and then began dropping steadily starting in the early ’90s. The two curves looked eerily identical, but were offset by about 20 years.
So Nevin dove in further, digging up detailed data on lead emissions and crime rates to see if the similarity of the curves was as good as it seemed. It turned out to be even better: In a 2000 paper (PDF) he concluded that if you add a lag time of 23 years, lead emissions from automobiles explain 90 percent of the variation in violent crime in America. Toddlers who ingested high levels of lead in the ’40s and ’50s really were more likely to become violent criminals in the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s.
NickFire
Member
Thanks. Being honest, the notion of leaded gasoline being the cause seems weird to me. But I am not qualified to say that wouldn't fill the air with lead, and the timeline does make sense to me. I am not dismissing the possibility at all and find it very interesting. I also hope lead was a contributing factor because that gives reason to hope those days will remain in the past.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
According to the research and science it makes more sense than blaming unwed births. And the more you read those two articles and others, the more leaded gasoline makes sense on a scientific level than anything else. There's literally no narratives to create or defend. Just plain molecules that are known to hurt the brain.
Last edited:
NickFire
Member
I meant I would assume lead paint and lead in the water would be more likely than gas fumes.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Think about how much more lead it is if it's coming from automobiles, than just a few rivers or in a couple hundred homes in a city. Like it's orders of magnitude more lead if it's in every car in America. At least that's how I imagined it when I read that information.
It mostly seems due to closeted racists who feel emboldened by republican/conservative/alt right bad behavior in the media. Forces on the right have been whipping up their base with necessary anger since losing in 2008 and that base usually looks for easy answers/scapegoats right now instead of doing the good hard work as a society that smart policies require.
The best way to change things is to be more inclusive of diversity and improve the American workers position. People hate/fear what they don't understand, more education will help that (through media, classrooms, asking parents to actually do their job at home). Better socialist policies/strengthened labour laws that benefit workers/start exploratory UBI policies to help the nation, much of which could easily be paid for by high taxes and less military spending. People with money/TV/food/toys are generally more calm.
The best way to change things is to be more inclusive of diversity and improve the American workers position. People hate/fear what they don't understand, more education will help that (through media, classrooms, asking parents to actually do their job at home). Better socialist policies/strengthened labour laws that benefit workers/start exploratory UBI policies to help the nation, much of which could easily be paid for by high taxes and less military spending. People with money/TV/food/toys are generally more calm.
Last edited:
The problem here is that we take on aprox. 200k new people in each year which when they are "aproved" of staying they can take their families as well. The rest often can not deportedeven if they have not given Asylum. So if you take in a new city each year these problems will grow more and more. We already have HUGE housing troubles, we have huge troubles for social institutes, like schools, or Kindergarten places etc. it will no get any better. Quite the opposite. And do not forget we do not get role models here. Many are fucking trash people we can not get rid of.
That is why I want a system like in Canada which takes way less people but also can take a guardian function for the first months/years which can be supported etc. At the end of the documentary I posted you can see how Canada is handling this. And what I want is better and stricter deporting laws which make it possible to get rid of these trash people. Everyone deserves a chance for sure but if you willingly break our laws I honestly do not care anymore what would happen in your home country with you. Same goes for the religion part. If you want to flee from bombs but still want to maintain your oppressing Religious role and live by Sharia Law you should have no place in my country.
Nightstick10
Neo Member
After participating in and reading the differing viewpoints on the thread, here are my thoughts and observations.
1. In my slightly revised opinion, the main reason why race relations have deteriorated in the last decade is because of the widespread opinion that racial inequity is a problem that has already been solved to the extent it reasonably can be solved so why keep flogging a dead horse. This opinion seems to be most widespread among whites and least widespread among blacks with other ethnicities at varying points in the gradient in-between. As de jure equality of opportunity has conclusively been established, there doesn't appear to be much more, if anything, that can be done short of enforced equality of outcome.
2. Following on the same note, the widespread opinion that equality of outcome is a horrific system to implement makes race relations in the United States an issue that resonates predominantly with only blacks. Other non-white ethnicities have noticeably less interest in legislating equality-of-outcome measures. As such, it is unclear what exactly the point of harping on about race does except to try and enforce equality of outcome.
3. To put it charitably, police brutality too is seen as exclusively a black problem that doesn't affect anyone else. Police brutality, to the extent it exists, is treated, in varying degrees by different ethnicities, as a natural reaction to disproportionate violent crime rates by one particular demographic. From my observation, people do not really care on the historical or socio-economic reasons why black people are committing so many violent crimes, the default response is a variation of "stop committing so many crimes, problem solved."
4. Arguments centered around slavery and the history of slavery fall on deaf ears especially when presented as a point in arguments to white people. Slavery is too remote and far away to be shored up as a credible proximate cause for any problems today. Me, personally, I think it more credible that CIA and the crack epidemic had a far more direct and noticeable impact in shattering the black community than slavery.
5. The predictable reaction to a hyper-focus on identity is an alarming number of whites banding together due to their whiteness. This is not something that is desirable to see as an ethnic minority and this is counted as a further reason why politicizing identities needs to stop yesterday.
6. People are far, far, far more sympathetic if issues are framed in economic and not racial terms.
1. In my slightly revised opinion, the main reason why race relations have deteriorated in the last decade is because of the widespread opinion that racial inequity is a problem that has already been solved to the extent it reasonably can be solved so why keep flogging a dead horse. This opinion seems to be most widespread among whites and least widespread among blacks with other ethnicities at varying points in the gradient in-between. As de jure equality of opportunity has conclusively been established, there doesn't appear to be much more, if anything, that can be done short of enforced equality of outcome.
2. Following on the same note, the widespread opinion that equality of outcome is a horrific system to implement makes race relations in the United States an issue that resonates predominantly with only blacks. Other non-white ethnicities have noticeably less interest in legislating equality-of-outcome measures. As such, it is unclear what exactly the point of harping on about race does except to try and enforce equality of outcome.
3. To put it charitably, police brutality too is seen as exclusively a black problem that doesn't affect anyone else. Police brutality, to the extent it exists, is treated, in varying degrees by different ethnicities, as a natural reaction to disproportionate violent crime rates by one particular demographic. From my observation, people do not really care on the historical or socio-economic reasons why black people are committing so many violent crimes, the default response is a variation of "stop committing so many crimes, problem solved."
4. Arguments centered around slavery and the history of slavery fall on deaf ears especially when presented as a point in arguments to white people. Slavery is too remote and far away to be shored up as a credible proximate cause for any problems today. Me, personally, I think it more credible that CIA and the crack epidemic had a far more direct and noticeable impact in shattering the black community than slavery.
5. The predictable reaction to a hyper-focus on identity is an alarming number of whites banding together due to their whiteness. This is not something that is desirable to see as an ethnic minority and this is counted as a further reason why politicizing identities needs to stop yesterday.
6. People are far, far, far more sympathetic if issues are framed in economic and not racial terms.
undrtakr900
Member
There was NEVER a "harmonious period of race relations", you're looking back on the 90s with rose colored glasses. Did you forget....
1) The 1992 Los Angeles Riots, that erupted after 4 officers who brutally beat Rodney King were acquitted.
2) The late-90's LAPD Rampart Police Scandal / Corruption:
"offenses including unprovoked shootings, unprovoked beatings, planting of false evidence, stealing and dealing narcotics, bank robbery, perjury, and the covering up of evidence of these activities."
(key word is "unprovoked")>>> Racial tensions/injustice has always existed, just because the "media wasn't talking about race" as much in the 90's, doesn't mean we were living in a "post-racial society".
Last edited:
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
Did I even mention Ben Shapiro anywhere?
I don't believe I said there was zero racism.
It's by no means as bad as some would claim it, yes.
Of course you would need shoelaces to agree with you.
BANGS
Banned
Not only is that missing all the data after 2008 when Obama became president and started fueling racial fires, but this is only the white people's perspective...I'm not so sure that is a widely supported view.
I absolutely agree that the data is incomplete, but unfortunately it appears that data is hard to come by.
BANGS
Banned
Yeah I can imagine, especially since good data would rely on honesty of a taboo subject... it's like when they poll for how many high school students smoke pot...
Last edited:
This part is one of the issues of contention. It is statistically shown that higher poverty levels lead to higher substance abuse, black Americans were still disadvantaged as land owners, literacy and education rates, as well as legal discriminatory practices kept them in relative poverty for another 100 years. Again, true opportunity equality has only been achieved in the past 54 years. I think the lack of understanding of the post slavery-pre civil rights era goes along way into a lack of understanding in general. Education really seems to fail to show that this. Slavery cannot be attributed directly to present day issues, however destruction of family units, education, and poverty can be traced to its origins of slavery and 100 years as second class citizens.
This is a good chart to express the differences in opinions although this is on partisan lines rather than racial lines..
"As de jure equality of opportunity has conclusively been established, there doesn't appear to be much more, if anything, that can be done short of enforced equality of outcome."
1) I agree with this assessment. There should be an understanding of the relative short period of time since enforcement of equality was established and then compare it to the growing equality of outcomes.
Instead we have individuals on both sides minimizing the progress toward equality.
TheGraykid
Member
I think it is difficult to reach any form of racial equality without politicizing identities. I also think the politicization of identities isn't solely a leftist thing, it becomes a right-wing thing the moment people try to push for any kind of financial equality, not explicitly, but I think it's difficult to ignore the long history of dogwhistling. I also think that there's always been a hyper-focus on identity in politics ( in inexplicit terms "rural, working-class voters are so important" et al, and in more explicit terms), the identity attempting to dictate has always just been white identity, I just think that now minorities are at the forefront of this conversation in a way that they haven't been before.
We also had polls that said Hillary was going to win in a landslide and that Brexit would never happen.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Exactly right. And when American identity has always meant "white identity", then of course if minorities start to push their identities into the American way of life it may feel like white identity is being washed away. And I can understand why that makes some white people in America fearful and want to push back. It's only natural.
It's why the label SJW is being used and why being a SJW is supposed to be a bad thing. Funny because back in the 1950s and 1960s people like MLK Jr., Muhammad Ali, Rosa Parks, etc were literally SJWs and the country views them as icons.
No polls said Hillary was going to win in a landslide.
Last edited:
a SJW is someone who takes social justice too far and who thinks of it as a war. Therefore the warriror part. They are extremists. Best example would be the cultural appropriation bullshit. A SJW only things in black and white. And everyone does not agree with them is a Nazi. Intersectional Feminism does this pretty much IMO. Examlple Rosa Parks was never even near a SJW.
Last edited:
https://www.socialstudies.com/c/article.html?article@rosaparks
Actually Rosa Parks was a social Justice warrior, this is yet again a case of re-envisioning history. The entire incident was purposely staged and the incident that prompted it was ironically this:
Rosa Parks was not the first woman in Montgomery to refuse to get out of her seat so a white man could be comfortable.
"Rosa was aware...that in the last twelve months alone three African-American females had been arrested for the same offense. One incident made the newspapers in March; it even happened on the same bus line. Of four black passengers asked to surrender their seats in no-man's land, two refused--an elderly woman and fifteen-year-old Claudette Colvin. 'I done paid my dime,' Colvin had said. 'I ain't got no reason to move.' The elderly woman got off the bus before police arrived. Colvin refused to move, so police dragged her, fighting and crying, to the squad car, where she was rudely handcuffed..."
"Colvin was charged with violating the city segregation law, disorderly conduct, and assault. With the NAACP defending her, she was convicted but fined only for assault, the most absurd of the three trumped-up charges. It was a shrewd ruling; it sent a tough message to blacks while avoiding an NAACP appeal of a clearly unconstitutional law. Afterward, E.D. Nixon, former Pullman porter and [now] president of the local NAACP chapter, met with the indignant young Colvin to determine if she might make a strong plaintiff in a test case. But she had recently become pregnant, which spelled trouble; Nixon knew that Montgomery's church-going blacks would not rally behind an immature, unwed, teenaged mother who was also prone to using profanity."
--From Black Profiles in Courage by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Alan Steinberg, pp.233-234.
"Colvin was charged with violating the city segregation law, disorderly conduct, and assault. With the NAACP defending her, she was convicted but fined only for assault, the most absurd of the three trumped-up charges. It was a shrewd ruling; it sent a tough message to blacks while avoiding an NAACP appeal of a clearly unconstitutional law. Afterward, E.D. Nixon, former Pullman porter and [now] president of the local NAACP chapter, met with the indignant young Colvin to determine if she might make a strong plaintiff in a test case. But she had recently become pregnant, which spelled trouble; Nixon knew that Montgomery's church-going blacks would not rally behind an immature, unwed, teenaged mother who was also prone to using profanity."
--From Black Profiles in Courage by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Alan Steinberg, pp.233-234.
In this more complicated version of the story, Rosa Parks is no mere seamstress tuckered out from pressing pants. She has also been for many years a volunteer for the local chapter of the NAACP. She is, in fact, E.D. Nixon's secretary. She knows all about Claudette Colvin and the other women who have been arrested for refusing to give up their seats. She knows when she gets on that bus that E.D. Nixon is looking for a test case, a case he can take all the way to the Supreme Court. What Rosa doesn't know--not until bus driver James Blake, a man Rosa has despised ever since he threw her off the bus in a similar incident ten years earlier, yells, "All right, you niggers, I want those seats"--is that she is not going to be a secretary in the case, but the defendant.
More importantly is the context of not all people agreeing with the protests.
But the most important difference between the myth and the reality of the Rosa Parks story lies in what happened after Rosa said no--the bus boycott. In the myth, it seems to happen as if by magic: Rosa gets off the bus, and all black America gets off the bus with her. The fact that her courage instantly inspires everyone seems at once a miracle and also the most natural thing in the world.
It didn't necessarily work that way. Vernon Johns, the fiery black activist pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, who was succeeded in his ministry by Martin Luther King, Jr., once tried to start a bus boycott:
"Johns, then in his sixties and frail, boarded a Montgomery bus and accidentally dropped the dime fare near the driver's feet. 'Uncle,' the driver threatened, get down and pick up that dime and put it in the box.' Johns snapped back, 'I've surrendered the dime. If you want it, all you have to do is bend down and pick it up.' The driver was surprised. He ordered Johns to pick up the dime or get thrown off the bus. Johns calmly turned to the busful of black passengers and suggested they all get off the bus with him, in protest. But no one moved; they were too afraid. Later, when telling [Ralph] Abernathy this story, Johns concluded disgustedly, 'Even God can't free people who act like that.'"
--From Black Profiles in Courage by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Alan Steinberg, p.238.
--From Black Profiles in Courage by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Alan Steinberg, p.238.
NickFire
Member
I don't see how being aware she might have support proves the incident was staged. I also don't think it matters. Staged or not what she did was courageous in that time period. And just because someone else tried to inspire the same movement doesn't mean the outcome from her resistance was a myth.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
But it is a war if the justice isn't on your side. And cultural appropriation is real. How could you think it's not a real? And man you need to check out what the average people in the American public thought of Martin Luther King Jr. in the 50s and 60s. They literally said that he was an enemy of the state. The FBI were spying on him planting lies on him and others during that time.
I don't think I am saying that at all.
What I am saying is that Civil Rights and the activism wasn't some "accidental" occurrence. It was a coordinated and planned effort. Rosa Parks actions were designed to give a case to challenge the segregation laws on constitutionality. There was always an endgame from the very first play. The myth that she was not a social justice warrior, and just someone who happened to be at the right place at the right time, is what I am challenging.
NickFire
Member
In my opinion, they need to change the moniker to advocate or champion. The warrior label is extremely divisive. It suggests they are at war with their own people, and sure enough that is how many act. I guess from some perspectives that is a good thing. Its not from mine, and to anyone who says they are succeeding I would point to the current occupant of the White House.
The warrior part also gives an undeserved ego / power trip. You are not brave by going to war over the internet and trying to ruin the lives of people who disagree with you using your keyboard, which is essentially the entire practice other than chanting slogans at rallies.
Edit: TheMikado - I don't know hot to add a quote to an edit, but going to your point above I have no way to say if you are right or wrong. I just wasn't persuaded by thee information you shared that it proves it was coordinated.
Last edited:
I do not care what the average people thought of King. The thing is. he did not use the same tactics of destroying the other side and then even tried to justify it. You can not despise doxxing only when a right wing does it. It is as disgusting when the left does it., Same for rape and death threats, same for shouting the other party down etc. If you use the same tactics your "enemy" uses you are not one bit better than him. You are not excused because you thing you are on the right side of history. Which by the way is an idotic phrase. Oh and if you think bolcking a highway with 20 people is a good thing and justified I think you are a true dick not even give any thought on the people going to work. White people, black people etc. Ambulances going thrrough and so on.
You want to do it? How about like that? And not with 20 idiots randomly
As for Cultural Appropriation: If you are offended by white people wearing braids which by the way were first discovered in the near of greece than you have ambition for equality you just want to put the other one down. If you think that withe people are not allowed to make sushi then you have no ambition of equality. I rather thing you are racist. If you think white kids are not allowed to wear native clothing because they like them you have no ambition of equality. These people do it not because they want to mock it they do it because they think it looks cool. Same with white people wearing a Kimono. Honestly I do not give a fuck if Asian American think its offensive to stand in front of a Monet Painting in a Kimono. Actual Japanese people rather think its great that people wear their stuff. It makes them proud. And lastly I ask myself: How mentally broken must you be to get offended by anyone wearing something else. Cultural Appropriation is jsut there to talk someone down. To have something you can find offensive and to be an asshole to other people.
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._D._Nixon
Challenging bus segregation[edit]
In the early 1950s, Nixon and Jo Ann Robinson, president of the Women's Political Council, decided to mount a court challenge to the discriminatory seating practices on Montgomery's municipal buses, along with a boycott of the bus company. A Montgomery ordinance reserved the front seats on these buses for white passengers only, forcing African-American riders to sit in the back. The middle section was available to blacks unless the bus became so crowded that white passengers were standing; in that case, blacks were supposed to give up their seats and stand if necessary. Blacks constituted the majority of riders on the city-owned bus system.
Before the activists could mount the court challenge, they needed someone to voluntarily violate the bus seating law and be arrested for it. Nixon carefully searched for a suitable plaintiff. At the same time, some women mounted their own individual challenges. For instance, 15-year-old student Claudette Colvin was arrested for refusing to give up her seat to a white passenger in March, 1955, nine months before Parks' action.
Nixon rejected Colvin because she became an unwed mother, another woman who was arrested because he did not believe she had the fortitude to see the case through, and a third woman, Mary Louise Smith, because her father was allegedly an alcoholic. (In 1956, Colvin and Smith were among five originally included in the successful case, Browder v. Gayle, filed on behalf of them specifically and representing black riders who had been treated unjustly on the city buses.)[3] See below.)
The final choice was Rosa Parks, the elected secretary of the Montgomery NAACP. Nixon had been her boss, although he said, "Women don't need to be nowhere but in the kitchen."[4] When she asked, "Well, what about me?", he replied, "I need a secretary and you are a good one."[4]
On December 1, 1955, Parks entered a Montgomery bus, refused to give up her seat for a white passenger, and was arrested. After being called about Parks' arrest, Nixon went to bail her out of jail. He arranged for Parks' friend, Clifford Durr, a sympathetic white lawyer, to represent her. After years of working with Parks, Nixon was certain that she was the ideal candidate to challenge the discriminatory seating policy. Even so, Nixon had to persuade Parks to lead the fight. After consulting with her mother and husband, Parks accepted the challenge.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
You maybe missing the point. Most people know the story as this, "Rosa Parks was a sweet lady that was tired that day and just didn't want to get up." It was purely premeditated. It wasn't because she was tired. People 30 and 40 years later tend to have empathy for her and the story because they think she was an innocent tired lady.
It's why the story has been sanitized. The same way many if not most MLK Jr stories have been sanitized. To sell a national hero, you have to file the edges down and make the story palatable to people. A simple easy to digest story is easier to sell.
Look at how much hate Colin Kaepernick got! And all he did was take a knee during the national anthem lol. That darn near tore the NFL in half. They call Colin Kaep a SJW now too. Trust us, if Rosa Parks was around today and had the same fire that she did back then, they'd say the same about her too.
I still think there is a huge difference. Rosa Parks did it not to bring shout people down or silence them like a SJW would do.
1) I agree that using agressive tactics is divisive and should not be used. threats, violence, and destruction of property are never "justified"
in my view. That being said, i'm not sure the number of people performing civil disobedience matters so I question why you feel it was an acceptable course then than now.
2) Your view on cultural appropriation is extremely bizarre. I do not see anything stating he was offended by white people wearing braids nor a mention of either braids or being offended at all. I also do not think he said anything about white people making sushi as they would imply a skill. I don't even know how to process the comments about actual Japanese people being proud. I am with you on your first point but you went completely off the rails with comments that he didn't seem to say.
Cultural appropriation has neither an inherently good not bad connotation to it. It describes a system of taking other cultural items and making them your own. The negative connotation typically comes along when the original culture is not credited or some discrepancy exists between the origin of specific appropriated customs and the perception of the culture which the items where appropriated from.
But these kind of things are being brought up when people talk about cultural appropriation. This is what I see on the internet when you see these terms. People being offended by some white people doing they believe if their own which in the times of globalisation is absolutely idiotic. This goes from changing popular recipes to make it more in favor to "white" people this goes for clothing, fashion and so on. And these examples exist. We even had a 14 year old girl getting daththreats for putting up a photo of her with braids. These people who shout this actually believe they speak for everyone. Even if they are for example Asian American they want to speak for Japanese people and so on. And this again I will call a SJW.
Last edited: