A few days ago an event happened in Kansas City that has caught the interest of people across the country. Before I dig deeper, I feel compelled to note that the Kansas City, MO area (including Jackson and Clay counties) has historically been a stronghold of the DFL, and has a significant % of POC in leadership roles.
Tragically, a teenage boy was shot and wounded by an elderly man for mistakenly knocking at the wrong door trying to pick up his siblings. Now we (the general public) actually know very few actual facts about what happened prior to the shooting. What we know for certain is that the old guy shot the teenager with a small caliber pistol (most likely a 6 shot revolver), the teenager survived, was given first aid by a neighbor, and has been released from the hospital to continue recovering at home.
What I find interesting is that based on these scanty facts, there is a groundswell of people who are publicly advocating for the shooter to be "locked up". We've also seen a significant outcry complaining that the prosecutor hasn't rushed to judgement and charged the shooter with all sorts of crimes, withing 24 hours of the shooting.
As an aside, I feel confident that if any one of us was accused of a crime, that we would expect that the prosecution would carefully and deliberately examine the evidence before deciding what is an appropriate charge. Just my two cents.
As of yesterday, the shooter has been charged with two charges, and will possibly face additional charges. Yet, the outcry to "lock him up" continues.
Now, at this point, I firmly believe that the shooter has likely been charged appropriately, should be apprehended, arraigned, and be heard on the appropriateness of bail. Following that, he should be given a fair and speedy trial, with appropriate defense representation, and his punishment should be decided by a jury of 12 citizens from Clay County.
I suspect that if the shooter is released on bail, that the "lock him up" folks will complain. Yet I suspect many of those folks also support the recent push to eliminate cash bail and allow those who've been charged be freed without any pledge of performance.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the country, we had a middle aged white woman who was surrounded and beaten severely by a mob of black teenagers. We had a normal weekend in Chicago with something like 13 black people killed, and 30+ wounded. We also had an event that encouraged people to run wild in Chicago. We had (I believe) 4 black children killed in AL or MS, by a POC. We also had a violent mob breaking into and looting a gas station/convenience store in LA, and multiple retailers closing stores in urban areas because they can't afford the large scale theft. We also had a similar case in upstate NY, with much less national publicity. We've also seen the president be very selective in choosing who to reach out to, and who gets invited to the White House.
Let's be honest, every single one of these incidents, is a tragedy. Every single one of these incidents has innocent victims, and guilty perpetrators who are still walking free (as far as I'm aware). It's likely that some of these folks who were part of mobs will never be charged or tried. For some reason, the one of these stories that gets the most play in the media, just happens to be the one where we have some of the least factual knowledge of the events, but it's fits a narrative.
I look forward to learning as much about the facts of this case a possible before I form a conclusion, and I acknowledge that that conclusion might change as more facts are available. Unfortunately, I think that the most concerning aspect of this whole thing, is the willingness of some to advocate (or appear to advocate) for certain people to be denied their constitutionally guaranteed right to due process simply because of their skin color and the skin color of their victim.
I suspect that the millions being raised for the victim, will allow him to get the best possible medical care, and will likely far exceed his medical care needs.
68 comments:
Of course, it goes without saying that we want all the data in.
But PART of the data that we must acknowledge is that our nation has a history of white people lynching black people.
We have a history of white people being irrationally afraid of black people, "justifying" the use of force and deadly force against them.
We have a history of white people getting away with shooting black people using/abusing "stand your ground" laws and defenses to get away with their violence.
Yes, yes, yes, we MUST wait for all the data. But we also must NOT ignore the data of our nation's history of white people oppressing and killing black people. That, too, is part of the data and part of the reason for an impatience on the part of black people and their allies when yet another white man kills or shoots yet another person of color, especially a teenager of color.
The response to the incidents in Chicago by the mayor-elect does not in any way surprise anyone who was paying attention to the mayoral race. With slightly less than a third of registered voters in Chicago making the simple effort to vote, the entire city is responsible for allowing this moron to win. I wonder if those punks who rioted in two separate consecutive days acted with the knowledge they will have less reason to worry about consequences with a new mayor who warns against judging them for their criminal acts against the city.
As to the old guy, I wonder how stories like the above, and others by the score impacted his emotional state with regard to young blacks mistakenly knocking on his door. I can relate as I advance in age and am entirely cognizant of my worsening ability to move and respond to anything as a result. Will I be able to ward off danger in this worsening culture? This guy is much older than I and likely more a victim of aging. When the youth of this nation feels they are justified in acting badly, and they suffer little to no negative consequences, who with an IQ over 20 can dare pretend fear is irrational? No one wants to live that way. But no one with an IQ over 20...and the slightest degree of honesty...can pretend the threat potential is higher than it's ever been in this country, and particularly in "progressive" run cities and towns. The claim "nothing like this has ever happened in this town" is becoming a thing of the past.
What in interesting hunch. We "must" take into account things that "white people" did hundreds of years ago, when looking at one specific instance in 2023. Why? Must we place responsibility or blame on the shooter for "lynching" in the past?
If we're going to overlay all of this unrelated "data" onto this one specific incident, then shouldn't we overlay ALL of the relevant data?
Shouldn't we include the data that tells us that a white person is exponentially more likely to be the victim of a black person, than a black person is of a white person?
Should we ignore the data, that we regularly see black people randomly attacking white people, or running wild in Chicago last weekend, or engaging in organized looting?
This is simply an absurd way to look at things, although it's not unusual from Dan. The notions that individuals are responsible for the actions of other people in their "group" is simply applying prejudice as an excuse to distort the facts of an individual situation.
I'm constantly amazed at Dan's ability to say things like, "we should wait for all of the facts", while then drawing conclusions (that the shooter had absolutely sinned), before all the facts are available. Or trying to pile on all sorts of unrelated "facts" that may or may not have any bearing on this case, while pretending that he hasn't already made up his mind.
I'm compelled to point out that Dan chose to ignore the other cases mentioned, chose not to mention the folks trying to strip the shooter of his due process rights, or the fact that the only folks who get public sympathy from Biden are the ones who fit the narrative.
Data.
Approx 3% of serious crimes consist of a white person committing a crime against a black person.
Approx 80+% of serious crime is a black person committing a crime against a white person.
These types of crimes are incredibly rare, yet blown out of proportion to the reality shown by the data by the MSM, and the APL.
Art,
The shooter's state of mind, his previous experiences, his health, and mental state are all things about which we have zero knowledge at this point. Yet, they all seem germane. What if, for example, this guy had been repeatedly been burglarized over the last few years? What if he had dementia? There are all sorts of things we just don't know, and all too many just don't care.
I'm especially amused/sickened by the number of people who refer to the shooter as a murderer, yet no one corrects them. I'm not surprised by how many people choose to overlook the fact that the young man is already out of the hospital and that his injuries were never life threatening.
Approx 3% of serious crimes consist of a white person committing a crime against a black person.
Approx 80+% of serious crime is a black person committing a crime against a white person.
I can find no verification of this "data." Sounds like it comes from the KKK or Team Trump. I'm guessing some far-right source?
What if, for example, this guy had been repeatedly been burglarized over the last few years? What if he had dementia?
I love that you're trying to give room for the circumstances to explain things, truly. But the reality is that we already give white people HUGE benefits of the doubt that are not extended to people of color. I just hope you do this kind of benefit of the doubt when it's a young black man charged with crime.
re: Your "data..." I wonder if you're looking at disinformation?
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-data-racial-murder/fact-check-false-data-on-u-s-racial-murder-rates-idUSKCN24I2A9
If so, I hope you will admit that you've added yet ANOTHER drop in the bucket telling white people they need to fear black people which is the type of fearmongering and deception of useful idiots that leads to people shooting and killing black people. And after you admit it and retract it, I would hope you'd apologize to black people and double down your efforts to begin to become anti-racist.
My data comes from a Black sociology professor, but he's probably a secret Klan member, because that's your go to for anyone who has data that disputes your narrative.
"I love that you're trying to give room for the circumstances to explain things, truly. But the reality is that we already give white people HUGE benefits of the doubt that are not extended to people of color. I just hope you do this kind of benefit of the doubt when it's a young black man charged with crime."
I'm not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. I'm suggesting that there might be circumstances that we are unaware of that might have affected the shooters response. Unlike you, I haven't branded him a "sinner" for this one action, unlike many people I haven't labeled him a "murderer". I'm simply pointing out the possibility that we don't know enough to draw hard and fast conclusions. I tend to treat all of these incidents in the same way. I don't jump to conclusions, I wait until more information is available, and I don't prejudge.
"If so, I hope you will admit that you've added yet ANOTHER drop in the bucket telling white people they need to fear black people which is the type of fearmongering and deception of useful idiots that leads to people shooting and killing black people. And after you admit it and retract it, I would hope you'd apologize to black people and double down your efforts to begin to become anti-racist."
I've added no drops to no buckets, and your constant attempts to portray anyone who has the temerity to offer data that doesn't fit with your narrative as racist, is simply pathetic.
For example, since 1968 (for interracial murders alone) there were 193,500 interracial murders. 75.3% of those were White victims if Black murderers. 24.7% were white murders/Black victims. Per 2021 FBI data.
Now the data the African American college professor cited, was for "serious index crime", which presumably would include other crimes but murder. But according to the 2021 FBI data, whites face a much higher risk of being murdered by a black, than vice versa.
I'm sorry that when the data doesn't support your narrative, that you have to resort to charges of racism.
Unlike you, I haven't branded him a "sinner" for this one action, unlike many people I haven't labeled him a "murderer".
I haven't branded him a sinner. Unlike you, I read for understanding. Is there some point where I'll have said, "I didn't say that, I don't believe that..." at which you'll humble yourself and realize your reading comprehension is simply not that great, at least when it comes to people who are more liberal/progressive/justice oriented than you (Jesus, perhaps??)?
My data comes from a Black sociology professor,
Mm-hm. And yet, you provide NO source, no name, no data. We should just take you at your word.
On the other hand, I've provided a source that appears to debunk your disinformation. Now, at this point, you can have two options as a rational, moral person: PROVIDE DATA that supports your claim OR Admit that you don't have the data and maybe you misspoke and should apologize for spreading potential disinformation.
Or, you can respond in a way that isn't rational or moral and leave your disinformation in the middle of the road like a big pile of shit.
"If you’re a white person in 2013, Nuzzo explained, your chances of being murdered by another white person are approximately 11 in a million, and your chances of being murdered by a black person are two in a million. Meanwhile, if you’re a black person in 2013, your chances of being murdered by another black person are 56 in a million, and your chances of being murdered by a white person are five in a million...
VERDICT
Misleading. The numbers presented in this graph are misleading and do not accurately represent the FBI data from which they originated."
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-bar-graph-black-white-homi/fact-check-misleading-bar-graph-presents-distorted-interpretation-of-black-and-white-murder-rates-idUSKBN23M2SX
Data is an interesting thing, perception of what the data shows is even more interesting.
It's well documented that a significant number of people surveyed were convinced that between 100 and 10,000 unarmed black people were killed by police yearly. Strangely enough, the (racist) data tells us that the number is less than 25. Yet, I don't hear Dan criticizing the folks who exaggerate thee number of unarmed black people killed by police in order to instill an unrealistic level of fear in people.
Fear is an interesting thing, sometimes it's irrational, sometimes it's not. But that doesn't mean that it isn't real.
Hypothetically. Let's say that the shooter in KC had been assaulted or robbed by a black teenager, or that he's had a black teenager try to break into his house when he was home. Would it be correct to say that he might be more fearful after having those experiences? Would it be reasonable to say that his fear was the result of those specific incidents, not some general "racism"? Obviously this sort of speculation can go too far, and be unhelpful. Also obviously, this guy could be a racist. The point is that we don't know and for the media social and MSM) to fuel speculation, does nothing to make things better.
Likewise, Dan throwing out the racism charges when anyone doesn't respond according to his narrative doesn't help make things better, it just makes things worse.
Craig...
" Per 2021 FBI data."
So you say. Without a link to support it. I've googled your results in various ways, including "FBI murders interracial 1968 total," etc and come up with nothing like that so far.
Dan throwing out the racism charges when anyone doesn't respond according to his narrative doesn't help make things better, it just makes things worse.
Except, of course, ONCE AGAIN, I didn't "throw out any racism charges." Read my words. Read for understanding, not to prepare another attack. I didn't call anyone racist. I made no racism charges.
Once again, be a better man and admit you misspoke.
"I haven't branded him a sinner."
I'll find the quote tomorrow.
I just gave you the 2021 FBI data, and the best you have is data that's from 2013. Having to rely on 10 year old data doesn't really bode well for you.
2018 Buereau of Justice statistics.
Black on white violent crime 547,948
White on black 59,778
I just gave you the 2021 FBI data
No. What you've done is SAID you were giving me data. But no source, no link, nothing to support it, just an empty claim.
No offense, but given your demonstrated problem with reading comprehension, I simply can't trust you that this is real data or that you've understood it correctly.
Craig...
I'll find the quote tomorrow.
I'll save you some effort. What I ACTUALLY said was:
" The white man who tried to kill a black teenager for knocking on his door (if those are the details, as they appear to be) IS sinning and hopefully you'd agree."
IF the details are correct:
It's sin because it's unjustified harm and
against a teenager and
a teenager who is black, which racial minority has been historically (and NOT just from "100 years ago" - Good Lord!) oppressed, harassed, harmed and killed by white people.
It would be sin for THOSE reasons, not because there is a line in the Bible that says, "thou shalt not murder..."
Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath. Read for understanding.
Interestingly, I tried quoting - using quotes - your "black on white violent crime" then added Bureau of Justice 2018 and the first thing I got was this:
"White supremacists frequently like to manipulate crime statistics in order to claim that nonwhite minorities, particularly African-Americans, are far more crime-prone and the source of most violent crime against whites."
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/10/23/white-supremacists-favorite-myths-about-black-crime-rates-take-another-hit-bjs-study
What I didn't get was any data to support your still-unsupported claim. It still SOUNDS like you're quoting questionable figures in a way that racists have historically done. WHICH, understand, is not me calling you a racist. I'm noting the reality that racists have a long and ugly history of making false claims about how dangerous black people are. I am, however, asking you the question: Is that the group you want to be associated with?
Spectacular. Dan can't find something and therefore the information absolutely must be false, and racist.
But hey, you do you.
RE your quote, I apologize for misremembering you including the escape clause in your comment. My bad.
Dan can't find something and therefore the information absolutely must be false, and racist
Let's be clear: it's a false claim to say that I couldn't find information about your unsupported claim.
And the information that I DID find indicates that your apparent claim is a false claim of the sort often used by racists.
So, given your lack of support on the one hand and other experts saying that your apparent claim is false or misleading, why would I take you at your unsupported word?
You are aware, I suppose, that in our history, there is a real practice by racists to demonize black people by painting them as a dangerous and a threat, especially to white people?
https://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2023/04/20/the-lefts-favorite-lie-widespread-white-on-black-violence-n2622168
From the shooter's own grandson:
“But in the last five or six years or so, I feel like we’ve lost touch,” he said. “I’ve gotten older and gained my own political views, and he’s become staunchly right-wing, further down the right-wing rabbit hole as far as doing the election-denying conspiracy stuff and COVID conspiracies and disinformation, fully buying into the Fox News, OAN kind of line. I feel like it’s really further radicalized him in a lot of ways.”
Ludwig said his grandfather had been immersed in “a 24-hour news cycle of fear and paranoia.”
“And then the NRA pushing the ‘stand your ground’ stuff and that you have to defend your home,” he said. “When I heard what happened, I was appalled and shocked that it transpired, but I didn’t disbelieve that it was true. The second I heard it, I was like, ‘Yeah, I could see him doing that...’”
“I believe that there have been some positions that he’s held that have been bigoted or sort of disparaging,” Ludwig said. “But it’s stock Fox News, conservative American stuff. It’s ‘anybody who gets an abortion is a murderer.’ And ‘fatherless Black families are the reason why crime exists in this country.’ It’s stuff everybody’s heard at the Thanksgiving table every year.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fear-paranoia-grandson-says-andrew-020050633.html
THIS is why any words, any claims or gossip that touch on "being afraid of black people" or fearing "them others" or "those who are taking our country from us and stealing our elections" are literally dangerous to the poor and marginalized, to people of color, to the free press, to liberals. You can't keep warning about the "dangers of those taking our country from us" without some fearful old white men eventually shooting someone.
This is why FoxNews is dangerous and the ones worse than FoxNews even MORE dangerous. Our words matter. Honesty matters.
https://townhall.com/columnists/joshgoldstein/2017/07/26/splc-hate-group-n2360208
https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/southern-poverty-law-center-is-racist-employees-say/
https://www.dailywire.com/news/7-things-you-need-know-about-southern-poverty-law-aaron-bandler
https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/07/5-reasons-southern-poverty-law-center-hate-mongering-scam/
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/04/19/opposing-porn-school-makes-part-new-uptown-klan-splc-researcher-says/
Imagine my surprise to find Dan citing the SPLC in his desperate attempt to disparage your well-known stats regarding racial crimes and disparities. So badly does Dan desire that white oppression of black people is a thing in today's America, that he'll cite a known racist, race-hustling organization who regards those like Dan as the perfect chumps from whom they can draw donations. But then, Dan is such a useful idiot, isn't he? Bill Fields has those like Dan in mind when opining about suckers being born every minute.
As to your data, it is echoed by known Klansmen like Thomas Sowell and the late Walter Williams. There's no manipulation which can distort the reality of percentages, both of blacks as part of our population and as part of the population of those in prison and as part of the population of perpetrators of violent crime. For most of us, race doesn't matter about such things, as we'd prefer no one engage in criminal activity of any kind, and specifically the violent kind. Yet, those like Dan keep the flames of racism alive and we'd be foolish not to take into account that which is now derided as "profiling", as if it's a bad thing.
Thus, in the case of the old guy shooting a stranger of color at his door, it is not difficult to imagine he has some fear, actually justified to a great extent by reality regardless of his own personal experiences, which are justified by that reality. And while we know there must be white criminals committing violent crimes, we can't forget the late, great Colin Flaherty's standing offer of big bucks for anyone who can provide evidence of the types of violent behavior he documented for years. No one took him up on his offer.
I don't like the reality as it stands. I don't want to see "equity" in criminal behaviors such that the same percentage of the white population is perpetuating violent behavior as the black population. I want true brotherhood to flourish. But those like Dan need racism for some perverse reason and have no problem stoking that aforementioned flame. Case in point:
"The white man who tried to kill a black teenager for knocking on his door..."
Two major assumptions Dan easily and effortlessly (due to his own racism) put forth in this comment:
1. The man tried to kill the kid, as opposed to simply defending against a perceived threat by shooting at him. This is important. How could Dan know that his intention was murderous, rather than defensive in nature? "Tried to kill a black teenager". Sounds like a truth claim. Did the old guy say that? I have no idea. Does Dan?
2. "...for knocking on his door..." Who does this? "How dare you knock on my door!!! I don't allow ANYONE to knock on my door!!!" Dan purposely formed his sentence to imply racist behavior on the part of the old dude, in much the same way race-hustlers speak of "arrested for driving while black" and other such bullshit platitudes.
The two Chicago incidents, as well as the 29 shootings with 8 deaths the same weekend, are all too common in our inner cities, most of which are Dem run and rationalized by Dem politicians and leftist "social justice warriors". Tucker Carlson ran a clip from a gas station being looted by, surprisingly, hispanic looking kids in LA. The same crap about thievery provoked by hunger and poverty we here to defend the organized looting by blacks was promoted, yet the video shows them stealing...not food...but cigarettes, condoms and beer.
These are thugs, plainly and simply, and their being enabled by race-hustlers and white-guilt morons results in, not only more such behaviors, but the perceptions that people of color are indeed a threat to society.
"Let's be clear: it's a false claim to say that I couldn't find information about your unsupported claim."
If you insist. Although the reality is that you couldn't fins any, and you chose to characterize that situation as if it indicated that I didn't use the information in good faith, and that I was using that information based on your hunches about by racism.
"And the information that I DID find indicates that your apparent claim is a false claim of the sort often used by racists."
Ignoring, of course, the additional data I provided, which supports the claim I quoted.
"So, given your lack of support on the one hand and other experts saying that your apparent claim is false or misleading, why would I take you at your unsupported word?"
You shouldn't. You are the only one who expects others to take you at your unsupported word.
"You are aware, I suppose, that in our history, there is a real practice by racists to demonize black people by painting them as a dangerous and a threat, especially to white people?"
And yet I'm not "demonizing" anyone, especially based on their skin color. You, however, seem to have no problem making assumptions/accusations about me based on your assumptions baout my ethnic background.
Interesting way to dismiss that data you don't like. Simply announce that any data that doesn't support your narrative, is racist.
Interesting that you're willing to accept second hand information from someone who acknowledges that they've "grown apart", as if it is absolutely 100% True.
Unfortunately, the "quote" you provided is not actually evidence of anything related to the specific incident in question.
I'll note that your insistence in claiming that the data related to the drastic decline in intact black families, must now be dismissed as racist.
"Tried to kill a black teenager". Sounds like a truth claim. Did the old guy say that? I have no idea. Does Dan?
You're right, of course, Marshal. Shooting a teenager twice, ONCE IN THE HEAD does not indicate that he was trying to kill him. Perhaps it was a warning shot to the head.
Good Lord. Do you know how shooting a gun towards a person's head works?
I asked...
"You are aware, I suppose, that in our history, there is a real practice by racists to demonize black people by painting them as a dangerous and a threat, especially to white people?"
Craig responded, but did not answer, saying...
And yet I'm not "demonizing" anyone, especially based on their skin color. You, however, seem to have no problem making assumptions/accusations about me based on your assumptions baout my ethnic background.
1. And yet, I did not say ONE SINGLE THING ABOUT YOU, unless you're presuming that YOU are one of the racists who demonize black people. But the question I asked (which again, you did not answer) was not about you at all. Do you realize that this is NOT an answer to the question I asked?
2. I've made no assumptions about your ethnic background. I have no idea what your ethnic background is so what assumption is it you think I've made by ASKING this question which, again, you did not answer.
3. In our real world, we have a real history of white people talking about the "threat" black people pose. Especially, big black men and especially if they're not dressed in "nice" clothes (according to those making these assumptions). Now, it may well be that these generally white people ARE genuinely afraid of black people and so, they pass on these "reports" (true or not) out of fear and not an intent to demonize. But the result is that black people are demonized. They're thus at an increased risk to be considered as a threat which results, sometimes, in people like perhaps this white guy feeling threatened by the mere presence of a black man at his door.
Intent to demonize is not necessary to pass on gossip and slander that can have the result of demonizing.
Refusing to provide data to support these sorts of dubious claims IS a way of demonizing black people with no support other than your say so that the FBI says what you say.
That ain't how adult or decent conversations happen, Sparky.
Marshal...
Dan purposely formed his sentence to imply racist behavior on the part of the old dude
THE POLICE, not "Dan," are the ones who inserted the "racial component" in this conversation, which the media then reported on which I then read. Now, should more data emerge that shows the police misspoke, then I can readjust my understanding, but I'm operating with the data at hand, NOT your collective wishes you may have to whitewash the event.
Interesting way to dismiss that data you don't like. Simply announce that any data that doesn't support your narrative, is racist.
Again, this is literally a false claim, literally not what happened. YOU have provided NO DATA. ZILCH. NADA. Not one damn thing other than YOUR CLAIM that YOU BELIEVE that IN YOUR HEAD such data exists. And I've never announced that "data that doesn't support my narrative is racist. Look at my words. It's not there.
This is a lie, a damned lie and a stupidly false damned lie. It is the vulgar, obscene, Trumpian-sort of idiotic lie betrayed by a simple reading of the facts and my words. YOU are the one inserting false claims ("data that doesn't fit my narrative is racist") and slander into the conversation.
First of all, what in the name of all that is holy and good and not second-grade-reasoning do you believe in your fevered brain that my "narrative" is?
From my point of view, I have no narrative. I'm noting the reality that this is another innocent black young man/teenager shot by a white man who, according to the white man's narrative, he feared was there to do him harm, simply by being on his porch. This "stand your ground" assault on black people narrative that too many white people embrace has become a get out of jail free card for white people shooting a black person. Afraid you'll go to jail? JUST SAY YOU FEARED FOR YOUR LIFE and poof! You're free!
Why is it you so rarely take the stance of what a majority of black people are telling you? Because you don't trust them? You think they are dangerously lying?
Ha! You don't even see it.
Wow! Dan's comment on April 20, 2023 at 9:42 AM is hilarious!!! I'm guessing that old man's name is Trabue and Dan's the grandson!!! That dude is clearly a lefty moron like Dan. And no, I don't apologize for disparaging your visitor, as he continues to push his racist agenda here, thus disparaging those of us who deal in truth, facts, statistics and data. There are no Klansmen here or among our sources of info which seek to disparage black people on the basis of their being black people. I've stated numerous times of white populations who are awash in the same low class crap as too many inner city American black people. Those would be whites in Appalachia and whites in the East End of London. Same behaviors and attitudes with the same consequences and bullshit lamentations about them.
Dan dares speak of honesty. What a freakin' liar he is!!! Dan defends and enables immoral and criminal behavior. The sad part is innocent people like this black kid get hurt as a result of the the actions of their own, and Dan wants to pretend it's the result of FoxNews???? There are no words to describe the degree of Satanic influence so alive in Dan Trabue to dare suggest such absolute crap as if true!! And who does he cite to back up that crap? The freaking Southern Poverty Law Center!!! He might as well just shout out "I'm a lying moron!!!"
Why do we bother??
""And the information that I DID find indicates that your apparent claim is a false claim of the sort often used by racists.""
The information Dan DID find came from a racist organization known for lying and race-hustling. The claims Dan pretends he finds objectionable are thus not proven false at all. The only racists are those like Dan and his sources. Racial tension is an essential element of the progressives' attempts to regard themselves as moral people. Ironic.
"You're right, of course, Marshal. Shooting a teenager twice, ONCE IN THE HEAD does not indicate that he was trying to kill him. Perhaps it was a warning shot to the head."
"trying to kill" requires specific intent. If you've proven this specific intent, I must have missed it.
"Good Lord. Do you know how shooting a gun towards a person's head works?"
Not specifically. But I OD know quite a bit about shooting a gun with the intent to hit a specific target. Again, you are ASSUMING with no factual basis to do so, that the INTENT was to shoot the young man in the head. You have no information about his eyesight, his gross or fine motor skills, or any health conditions that would impact his ability to hit a target.
(In order to preempt your likely way to dodge the reality I've pointed out I'll simply say that if the shooter was unable to do the basics of shooting such as seeing and being able to hit the target he was aiming at, then he should NOT have had unrestricted access to a firearm. However, we don't have any factual information to even begin to make those sorts of judgements.)
The appropriate way to deal with shooting at someone you believe is a threat is to aim for what the experts call "center mass", and the experts tell you to shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. IF (the word "If" indicates that I am speculating because we don't have any information yet), he aimed at the head, then he wasn't following the expert training that is readily available. If, (again hypothetical) he was aiming at "center mass" and missed that badly, then that's a problem. But, it's NOT an indication of intent to shoot him in the head.
This seems like a good time to note that the young man was literally never in a situation where his life was threatened from his wounds, again per the medical experts and his family.
Finally, the choice of a .32 (ACP or H&R) indicates the possibility that the shooter really wasn't actually trying to kill. There is no .32 cartridge that is considered to be an adequate self defense round (.32 magnum is marginally appropriate, but rare). There is a school of thought that says that certain shooters should choose an "inadequate" self defense round IF they have physical limitations that make it difficult to accurately use a more effective round. The theory is that accurate low powered rounds are more effective than inaccurate higher powered rounds. In this case, it seems safe to surmise that accuracy was not something the shooter possessed.
Again, these indicate a completely different set of problems.
1. My answer was, in fact, an answer.
2. To claim that the only group that would possibly distort data to make a point is "racists" is simply foolish.
3. Data is data.
"1. And yet, I did not say ONE SINGLE THING ABOUT YOU, unless you're presuming that YOU are one of the racists who demonize black people."
Np, you just repeatedly tried to insinuate that my providing accurate data from the FBI was equivalent to the alleged actions of "racists".
"But the question I asked (which again, you did not answer) was not about you at all. Do you realize that this is NOT an answer to the question I asked?"
1. I don't know the actions or motivations of any racists, I have no possible way to accurately answer a questions about other people I have no direct knowledge of.
2. "Because I said so" is not proof.
3. Because you don't like an answer, doesn't mean it isn't an answer.
"2. I've made no assumptions about your ethnic background. I have no idea what your ethnic background is so what assumption is it you think I've made by ASKING this question which, again, you did not answer."
If you say so.
"3. In our real world, we have a real history of white people talking about the "threat" black people pose. Especially, big black men and especially if they're not dressed in "nice" clothes (according to those making these assumptions). Now, it may well be that these generally white people ARE genuinely afraid of black people and so, they pass on these "reports" (true or not) out of fear and not an intent to demonize. But the result is that black people are demonized. They're thus at an increased risk to be considered as a threat which results, sometimes, in people like perhaps this white guy feeling threatened by the mere presence of a black man at his door."
Unfortunately, in the real world, the statistics and data tell us that black men engage in violent crimes in numbers out of proportion to the % of society they represent. If your goal is to suppress data and statistics by trying to associate everyone who mentions the data and stats with these "racists", how does that help the conversation? When we hear black academics, in relevant fields (experts) dealing with the data and stats, are they "racist"? Or are they (as many leftists call them) "Coons", "House n3gg#rs", "uncle Toms" and the like?
The problem is that you are so obsessed with broad brushing everyone who notes data and stats that you don't like with "racists", instead of dealing with the data.
FYI, why has this case gotten so much more publicity than the recent case in AL which saw 4 dead and 32 with gunshot wounds? Why aren't your going after those shooters with as much gusto as you are the KC shooter? Why aren't you making up all sorts of motives for them like for the KC shooter.
The problem with the direction you insist on taking this conversation is that it is based on your assumptions about the shooter, and those assumptions are based on his "race".
I suspect that we're going to find out that the shooter grossly overreacted and will probably be convicted of some sort of assault charge, and will likely die in prison.
"Intent to demonize is not necessary to pass on gossip and slander that can have the result of demonizing."
Passing on FBI crime data (the FBI crime data is considered to be one of the best sources of data by experts in the field), is NOT gossip/slander/ or demonetization. It's data. Now, claiming that you know exactly what the shooter's intent/motivation was with absolutely zero data IS gossip/slander.
"Refusing to provide data to support these sorts of dubious claims IS a way of demonizing black people with no support other than your say so that the FBI says what you say."
Why listen to the experts in collecting crime data at the FBI, what the hell do they know.
"That ain't how adult or decent conversations happen, Sparky."
But you clearly believe that making up motives, motivations, intent, and the like is your idea of "adult or decent conversation".
What world do you inhabit, where wanting to wait for more information from the people best qualified to gather that information is NOT "adult or decent", while jumping to conclusions about intent, motivations, etc IS "adult or decent".
Especially when it's wrapped in your normal condescending, superior attitude. Skippy.
I'm curious. Is it racist to point out that poor Asians how lower crime rates than high income blacks or whites? If this is racist, who is the victim of this racism?
"You're right, of course, Marshal. Shooting a teenager twice, ONCE IN THE HEAD does not indicate that he was trying to kill him. Perhaps it was a warning shot to the head."
Have you ever fired a gun, Dan? Have you ever fired one under stress? Is there any indication other than your hatred for your own race that the old dude sought to kill the kid simply because of where the bullets struck the dude? Do you have any understanding of autonomic response of a person to trauma of any kind?
"In our real world, we have a real history of white people talking about the "threat" black people pose."
Regardless of what your bullshit SPLC link falsely tries to allege, actual law enforcement stats are just one legit reason people regard black people as a threat. While people of all races are victimized by enough black people to justify fears, liars pretend such fears are the result of white racists who not influential as you so desperately need them to be. It's an incredibly cheap ploy to continually cite some unknown faction of the white population as if they're equal in number to those like yourself so obsessed with superficial characteristics. In effect, we've got white racists like you whining about other white racists. When you can show videos of dozens (if not more) of white kids looting, beating people up...stories of white kids playing "the knockout game" or pushing Asians in front of trains or down stairs, your white-guilt bullshit might have some gravitas. Until then, your reference to "a real history of white people" is just you hating on white people.
"Intent to demonize is not necessary to pass on gossip and slander that can have the result of demonizing."
Says the putz who has no problem trashing white people, people of REAL faith (unlike the putz), conservatives....
"That ain't how adult or decent conversations happen, Sparky."
You have no room to condescend to anyone, Sally. You don't engage in adult conversation and you ain't decent.
"THE POLICE, not "Dan," are the ones who inserted the "racial component" in this conversation, which the media then reported on which I then read."
Maybe I missed it, but scrolling up I find no link by you to any police report or statement to the press. But even so, you're not obliged to parrot any statement by anyone and then try to pretend you're not coloring the situation in a way no evidence suggests is accurate. You're just being your typical racist self in wording your comment purposely to push your white-guilt narrative. Shameful, but typical.
"Now, should more data emerge that shows the police misspoke, then I can readjust my understanding, but I'm operating with the data at hand, NOT your collective wishes you may have to whitewash the event."
Again, no link to what the police said and how they said it. Your "understanding" is colored by your racism. I don't whitewash anything, nor could you possibly prove I have here. I deal in actual facts alone, none of which suggests the intent of the old dude to kill a black kid as opposed to simply defending himself. Clearly, I'm assuming nothing, while you're presuming tons without basis
Actually, showing Dan's cavalier attitude towards accuracy, it was the prosecutor who alleged that there was a "racial component" to the incident. Of course, the fact that the two individuals were of "different races" IS a "racial component", although It's not one that necessarily speaks to motive or intent.
I notice Danny Girl never commented about the link I posted on 4/20 at 0819 giving statistics he was looking for. Interesting.
Glenn,
Why would that surprise you. At best he'd simply dismiss it as the sort of thing a "racist" would say of do, as a way to dismiss the findings without actually interacting with the actual data.
Glenn cited a disreputable right-wing opinion piece that gave NOT ONE SINGLE LINK to support their partisan claims and wonders why I paid zero attto his unsupported claims.
I don't know if you all get this, but the modern conservative movement has NO credibility. Your party has become the party of false claims, corruption and stupidly false claims.
Any time you make claims with NO links to support your claims... all that means is that you should not be trusted.
You want to be taken seriously and not as a deviant laughingstock? Provide links to data.
The modern conservative movement is not to be trusted.
Dan
At best he'd simply dismiss it as the sort of thing a "racist" would say of do, as a way to dismiss the findings without actually interacting with the actual data.
Read carefully and understand the words with their English meanings and all:
YOU. ALL. HAVE. NOT. PROVIDED. ANY. DATA. TO. RESPOND. TO.
You all CLAIMING that the FBI has said something MEANS NOTHING.
You all citing a far right-wing website where some author CLAIMS that the FBI has said something means nothing.
Your claims - as modern conservatives - are meaningless. The modern Trump-style GOP has shown itself as a party wholly given over to corruption and stupidly false claims. And you should understand the difference. When I say, "Stupidly false claims," I'm not saying that they are merely false claims. They are STUPIDLY false, as in, ANYONE can look at the claims and see there is no weight to them. They are unsupported by data, by expert opinion, by reality, by what is happening in the real world. They're childishly inept false claims, like the 3 year old with his mouth full of cookies saying, "I didn't eat a cookie!" These are ineptly false claims and no rational person has any reason to take them as anything but something to be considered likely false.
You want to be taken seriously? LINK to some non-partisan authority.
https://adfontesmedia.com/ben-shapiro-show-bias-and-reliability/
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-shapiro/
"Glenn cited a disreputable right-wing opinion piece that gave NOT ONE SINGLE LINK to support their partisan claims and wonders why I paid zero attto his unsupported claims."
Again, the fact that you find the source of news or data to be problematic does not in any way undermine the Truth of the data that they shared. For example we know that the SCLC has a horrible track record, and is hardly trustworthy. Yet, that doesn't mean that every thing they present is false just because they were the source.
"I don't know if you all get this, but the modern conservative movement has NO credibility. Your party has become the party of false claims, corruption and stupidly false claims."
"Because I say so." isn't actually proof of anything. Unfortunately you have squandered whatever credibility you might have once had, and rendered these sorts of claims meaningless.
"Any time you make claims with NO links to support your claims... all that means is that you should not be trusted."
Yet you do so on a regular basis. I guess that means that you can't be trusted. I'm sorry that you can't find the FBI data without a link, that must mean that you are incompetent or lazy.
"You want to be taken seriously and not as a deviant laughingstock? Provide links to data."
Again, you literally just claimed (with no link) that the KC shooter was intentionally trying to shoot the victim in the head, because he was a racist, with no links.
"The modern conservative movement is not to be trusted."
This is one of your greatest hits. Instead of dealing with people as individuals, you assign them to a group based on your prejudices and preconceptions, then treat that individual as if they are responsible for everything everyone in this group has ever said or done. Of course, you never actually define this group either.
"Read carefully and understand the words with their English meanings and all:"
I'm confused. In the other thread you got pissed because I didn't know all of the things to add to your actual words and didn't make assumptions about what you actually meant, but now I'm supposed to take these words at their face value.
"YOU. ALL. HAVE. NOT. PROVIDED. ANY. DATA. TO. RESPOND. TO."
1. You literally just posted a list of one word sentences that individually have no meaning according to standard English grammar rules.
2. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with standard English grammar rules.
3. A sentence needs at least a noun and a verb to be a complete sentence.
4. If i ignore the non standard punctuation, and ALL CAPS, the resulting claim is false and unproven.
"You all CLAIMING that the FBI has said something MEANS NOTHING."
!. Which means that your multiple claims about the shooters motives, intent, state of mind, racial views, and the like also MEAN NOTHING.
2. The FBI crime data is what it is. The fact the you're too lazy or incompetent to do your own research doesn't mean that the provided data is false. It just means that you can't independently verify things even though you know where to find the information.
3. I understand that ad hom attacks are easier than dealing with the data.
"You all citing a far right-wing website where some author CLAIMS that the FBI has said something means nothing."
Again, none of your presumptions about the website, have any bearing on the Truth of their claims or the accuracy of the statistics they cited. Again, if you ever cite the SCLC, you realize that you've just rendered your citation meaningless. You know, applying the same standards to yourself that you do to others.
'Your claims - as modern conservatives - are meaningless. The modern Trump-style GOP has shown itself as a party wholly given over to corruption and stupidly false claims. And you should understand the difference. When I say, "Stupidly false claims," I'm not saying that they are merely false claims. They are STUPIDLY false, as in, ANYONE can look at the claims and see there is no weight to them. They are unsupported by data, by expert opinion, by reality, by what is happening in the real world. They're childishly inept false claims, like the 3 year old with his mouth full of cookies saying, "I didn't eat a cookie!" These are ineptly false claims and no rational person has any reason to take them as anything but something to be considered likely false."
We're back to Dan thinking that "Because I say so." is actually a valid counter to anything.
Russia/Steele dossier-False claim from the left.
Hunter's laptop didn't show anything illegal-False claim from the left.
Masks stop COVID-False claim from the left.
The US didn't leave billions of dollars of functioning military equipment in Afghanistan-False claim from the left.
I could go on, but don't need to. This tactic of trying to demonstrate guilt by association instead of dealing with us as individuals is simply a steaming pile of bullshit that you cover yourself in as a way to dismiss data that doesn't support your narrative.
You want to be taken seriously? LINK to some non-partisan authority.
https://adfontesmedia.com/ben-shapiro-show-bias-and-reliability/
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-shapiro/
On a somewhat related note. For all your whining about Fox News, they just fired their most conservative, highest rated show host. Clearly it's all a big right wing conspiracy.
FYI, my comments about the SCLC also apply to the SPLC.
Interesting, you suggest that SCLC and the SPLC are not trustworthy. Two groups renowned for their fight for justice against racists and operating in the spirit of Dr King, YOU personally don't trust. But you have no such complaints about Fox News or the worse examples of white, right-wing extremists.
Do you think that your distrust of these two great (if imperfect) fighters for justice says more about them or more about you?
For all your whining about Fox News, they just fired their most conservative, highest rated show host.
? Do you REALLY think it takes some sort of courage or intellectual wherewithal to fire one of the more stupid and obtuse purveyors of false claims and fake news? Where is the APOLOGY for giving so much room for the purveyors of hate and anti-liberty speech? Where is your condemnation of the betrayal of responsibility for Fox News and their attacks on our free republic by willingly, KNOWINGLY passing on false claims undermining our free republic?
People can see who you align with and who you align against, and it doesn't speak well of you.
And we can STILL see that you all are citing "sources" and making claims yourselves with no support from links to the actual data.
THIS is why modern conservatives can't be trusted. You've lost your collective way. You've become the party of perverts and stupid con artists and the people stupid/gullible enough to make room for them and cowardly enough to remain silent in the face of their assaults on decency and truth.
What a shame.
No, I'm not suggesting it so much, as I'm acknowledging the reality. I guess it makes a difference whose personal opinion about the trustworthiness of various affinity groups and news orgs. When you personally don't like a group, they're bad, when you like a group they're good. I get it.
No.
No. I have no idea, I always thought that free speech was pretty universal and included offensive speech. Probably in the same place as CNN's, and the rest of the MSM.
The problem isn't who I align with, it's more about who you align me with.
Because I believe in you and your ability to work the Google machine, and I believe that it's better for you to find things for yourself instead of having things spoon fed to you.
Of course, you proving yourself untrustworthy seems to negate your personal hunches about who you personally find untrustworthy. This still ignores the reality that your opinion on the source of any information, doesn't disprove the Truth of the information. This also ignores your obsession with trying to put people in groups of your own making, instead of dealing with people as individuals.
Dan,
I will say this about finding statistics on certain things. As I've searched through Google results, I'm finding that a lot of the first results to come up are links to advocacy groups that are trying to pursue an agenda (not that this is automatically wrong), and that they tend not to do an unbiased analysis of the data. It is difficult to find the raw data or more unbiased analysis of the data without going deep.
The fact that you rely so heavily of information from groups with a specific agenda makes it difficult to look at anything you provide without skepticism.
The fact that you rely so heavily of information from groups with a specific agenda makes it difficult to look at anything you provide without skepticism.
The irony and presumption are amazing.
You will NOT trust the AMA or the APA to give you advice on matters of sexual orientation or gender, will you? EVEN THOUGH, they are literally not JUST the experts, but the premiere collection of experts on these issues. Also, you won't trust the best experts - the people themselves who will tell you their orientation or gender, but think YOU are in a better place to speak authoritatively on these topics. Nor will you trust the majority of what black people will tell you about race nor the experts who study racial matters, but prefer to get it from... Who? Tucker Carlson? RC Sproul?
As it happens, I study and read what experts are saying. That I might occasionally cite an SPLC article who is citing what experts say doesn't mean I don't also go to the source material. It's just that oftentimes the source material is not written in an easy-to-understand manner and maybe the NPR or BBC or SPLC source explains it more clearly for those who are not well-read in the field.
Who ARE your "sources" for black studies? For LGBTQ studies? Where IS your source to support your claims about what you think the FBI has said?
And no, YOU made the claim. I'm not going to do your work for you. I did spend some time using YOUR key words to try to find support for your claim but that turned up nothing, other than other sources that debunked what it seemed you were saying and which sources noted that it was often racists and their allies who were making these claims about "dangerous black people." Because of course it is.
No. It's YOUR claim. YOU can support it with data or admit you can't. But don't you dare be so intellectually cowardly that I am not finding your data to support your claim for you.
Be a better adult than that.
I'm not even sure what to do with this last comment. It starts with Dan making all sorts of assumptions and claims about me then goes further off the rails from there. Then it's topped off by the king of unsupported claims, demanding that I do his research for him. It's not like the FBI UCR for 2021 is some hard to find document. It's also not like the FBI crime statistics are considered the best and most accurate crime statistics. All of this smoke screen, just seems like a way to divert attention from all of the problems pointed out with Dan's unproven claims.
I'll note that this naive, quaint, notion that the organizations he mentions are somehow not agenda driven advocacy groups is kind of cute.
Hell, by this logic, we should just be looking for information from the murderers, looters, arsonists, and the like who are the real experts.
"Hell, by this logic, we should just be looking for information from the murderers, looters, arsonists, and the like who are the real experts..."
That's right, black people fighting for justice, LGBTQ people working for human rights and basic decency... these are comparable to murderers and looters.
Shame on you. You are part of the problem in the fight for human rights and justice., with that kind of irrational attack.
Be a better human, Craig.
Dan
Really, @20 black kids assaulting a white woman in Chicago is fighting for justice?
What's irrational is that you are insistent on ascribing to every black criminal the mantle of fighting for "justice", and every white who commits a crime against a black is automatically a "racist".
Are you now going to suggest that the wholesale, organized looting we're seeing in blue cities is just a bunch of freedom fighters looking for justice?
But, excellent job in trying to divert this thread away from your baseless speculation and unproven charges of racism, to this steaming pile of bullshit and ad hom attacks.
Every phrase in your response is a false and stupidly false claim orfalse insinuation... unsupported by reality.
Why do you do that?
Dan
"20 black kids assaulting a white woman in Chicago is fighting for justice?"
Really. No. You can tell by the way I've never said ANYTHING to suggest otherwise.
"What's irrational is that you are insistent on ascribing to every black criminal the mantle of fighting for "justice","
But then i never made that suggestion.
"...and every white who commits a crime against a black is automatically a "racist"."
No, but then, I never said that.
"Are you now going to suggest that the wholesale, organized looting we're seeing in blue cities is just a bunch of freedom fighters looking for justice?"
No, but then I never said that.
"your baseless speculation and unproven charges of racism, to this steaming pile of bullshit and ad hom attacks.."
Except I engaged in no baseless speculation - None.
I've not made any unproven charges of speculation and made no ad hom attacks.
You read and completely fail to understand, as a point of demonstrable reality.
Dan
Just to circle back to one of the inane points of Craig's that I passed over...
1. I don't know the actions or motivations of any racists, I have no possible way to accurately answer a questions about other people I have no direct knowledge of.
Then THAT is part of the problem.
I. In the real world, in our nation's history, we've had a serious problem of oppression and harm of black people by white people. That's a demonstrated reality. One would hope you could recognize this.
II. In the real world, this oppression, demonization and attack of and upon black people is not something that's relegated to ancient history. It's in our lifetimes. I personally know racists who were overtly racist right up through the 1970s and 1980s and beyond. I myself received a threatening letter from a Klansman in the 1980s following a letter to the editor I wrote to our local newspaper. In our generation and before and beyond, there are still white men who demonize and denigrate black people.
III. Given the reality of white oppression by our fellow neighbors and family members and citizens, we white people have an especially important role to play in denouncing that which our colleagues have promoted and the harm they've caused. You have an obligation as a white man to educate yourself on what overt and covert racists are saying and doing to cause harm. It is our responsibility and obligation as moral adults in a world where we've benefited from the racist policies of years past.
If you truly "don't know the actions and motivations of racist white people," then you NEED to educate yourself. That self-proclaimed ignorance is a privilege of being a white male that other people don't enjoy. "La di dah! Let them eat cake! I am ignorant of the harm being done and promoted by racists and their allies" is an ugly, un-Christlike position to take.
It DOES take a village to raise a community or, if you want to disparage African proverbs, we ARE our siblings' keepers. We DO have an obligation to step up against the oppressors.
So educate yourself as to what black people think and are telling people. Be an ally and NOT just to the ones in the minority who agree with what you are promoting.
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnicity/2022/08/30/black-americans-have-a-clear-vision-for-reducing-racism-but-little-hope-it-will-happen/
https://www.hrw.org/report/2022/08/08/racial-discrimination-united-states/human-rights-watch/aclu-joint-submission
(Or is Human Rights Watch another pro-justice organization that you all consider evil? If so, do you ever ask yourselves: WHY am I so hostile towards these groups that are working for/pouring out their lives in service to justice? Does it say something about them, or about ME...?)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7441277/
(Or is the National Institutes for Health another one of your most-hated and untrustworthy organizations?)
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2020/09/the-economic-cost-of-racism-losavio
(Or is the IMF another one of your most-hated and untrustworthy organizations?)
https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/racial-inequality-in-the-united-states
(Or is the Treasury Department another one of your most-hated and untrustworthy organizations?)
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/02/07/many-service-members-of-color-are-turning-down-assignments-because-of-concerns-about-racism.html
(Or is the Military.com another one of your most-hated and untrustworthy organizations?)
20 black kids assaulting a white woman in Chicago is fighting for justice?
I have to wonder why you bring this up? It's nothing I've talked about... in what context is this connected to our conversations?
Are you trying to suggest that black teens, specifically, are a danger to white people? What's your point, here?
I ask because, once again, I'm reminded of the white people I knew growing up who, when they talked about racial matters, would often default to, "But what about those black kids who..." "What about that group of black men who attacked the jogger..." etc, etc. In the case of those people I knew growing up, I know enough that for them, it was coming from a place of racism and a fear of black people, even including comments like, "If they hate it here so much, why don't they just go back to Africa..."
Have you never heard white people saying shit like that in your circles? Because it was a reality for me growing up and even as recently as I'd say about 10-12 years ago, I heard that exact phrase from a white man to a black man openly yelled at McDonalds. And that was in a public setting in the 2000s.
So, I know why THOSE white men said things like that. Why do YOU bring it up seemingly entirely out of any context?
"Why do you do that?"
I can't answer that because I'm gobsmacked by your assertion which is completely devoid of even the merest hint of proof. Why do you do that?
"Really. No. You can tell by the way I've never said ANYTHING to suggest otherwise."
The point is that you've never said ANYTHING at all about it, nor about any of the other things wee see on a regular basis.
"But then i never made that suggestion."
Really, then why is "fighting for justice" the only response you have to these instances? Why no calls for justice for the woman who was harmed, or the people who suffer when retail stores are regularly looted?
"No, but then, I never said that."
Probably not, but then you tend to only comment on incidents that fit your narrative.
"No, but then I never said that."
Not specifically, but your silence speaks volumes.
"Except I engaged in no baseless speculation - None."
"Because I say so" isn't proof.
"Then THAT is part of the problem."
If me not knowing the specific motivations of people I've never met is part of your "problem", I think you might be the one with the problem.
"I. In the real world, in our nation's history, we've had a serious problem of oppression and harm of black people by white people. That's a demonstrated reality. One would hope you could recognize this."
Yes, I do realize that in the course of history some people have chosen to oppress others based on "race,religion,national origin, power imbalance" and other reasons. But to extrapolate that reality which crosses all cultures and civilizations throughout history as a way to try to impute motive to a particular individual is absurd. As is arbitrarily ignoring world history in order to focus on one specific period of American history.
"III. Given the reality of white oppression by our fellow neighbors and family members and citizens, we white people have an especially important role to play in denouncing that which our colleagues have promoted and the harm they've caused. You have an obligation as a white man to educate yourself on what overt and covert racists are saying and doing to cause harm. It is our responsibility and obligation as moral adults in a world where we've benefited from the racist policies of years past."
If you are going to blame "white oppression" an every white person who ever lived, than shouldn't you acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of white people bled and died to end slavery? That "white people" laid aside this privilege to march, and suffer for civil rights?
I get that you want the easy generalization, but how about trying reality instead.
"If you truly "don't know the actions and motivations of racist white people," then you NEED to educate yourself. That self-proclaimed ignorance is a privilege of being a white male that other people don't enjoy. "La di dah! Let them eat cake! I am ignorant of the harm being done and promoted by racists and their allies" is an ugly, un-Christlike position to take."
If you do claim to know the actions and motivations of specific individuals who you have never met or interacted with at all, I'd suspect that you might have mental health issues.
Please, use your magic to tell me what my "actions and motivations" are right now. I'll wait.
"I have to wonder why you bring this up? It's nothing I've talked about... in what context is this connected to our conversations?"
then I suspect you are a narcissistic idiot with either serious reading comprehension issues, serious memory issues, or are unable to get past your commitment to your narrative.
"Are you trying to suggest that black teens, specifically, are a danger to white people? What's your point, here?"
Besides noting the obvious, that that group of black teens was imminently dangerous to that specific white woman, no.
The point is. During the same time period when the shooting at KC was plastered all over the MSM and social media, other similar events happened. In NY and AL, innocent people were shot and killed. In Chicago beyond the "normal" weekend carnage of @31 people being shot/killed, we had roving mobs of black young people engaging in all sorts of acts of violence and destruction. Yet none of those victims made millions on what happened, none of those victims got mentioned by Biden, let alone a WH invite. Many of the perpetrators of those incidents will never be arrested, let alone prosecuted or convicted. That's the point, y'all cherry picked one tragic incident because it fit your narrative, hyped it up across the country, while ignoring or minimizing incidents that were worse. I presume that you would consider 4 dead and 32 wounded worse than one wounded, wouldn't you?
Even now, you still can't muster up the courage to specifically condemn these other actions and hose who perpetrated them. That's the point. Y'all's hypocrisy.
"Have you never heard white people saying shit like that in your circles?"
Sure, I hear those things very rarely. It's much more common to hear conservative black folks called "coon", "house nigger", and similar epithets on social media. I posted a lengthy Twitter thread detailing how one black man was reviled by liberals for his political beliefs. Fortunately for you, I see no reason to hold you responsible for the actions of folks on "your side".
"So, I know why THOSE white men said things like that. Why do YOU bring it up seemingly entirely out of any context?"
Really, you know with 100% certainty what those specific people were motivated by and what their intent was? Do you not see how absurd, and fanciful that sounds. Or how trumpeting your prejudice based assumptions about others is something to be proud of. Nah, I see no reason why any reasonable human would try to hold one person accountable for the actions of others.
With all of the double comments, I think I parsed everything and answered all the non rhetorical questions.
The point is. During the same time period when the shooting at KC was plastered all over the MSM and social media, other similar events happened. In NY and AL, innocent people were shot and killed.
WHAT?? No way! There was MORE news than this one thing? And the media didn't cover every possible news event!!??? WOW. They must be really partisan! You're right, Craig-o! Thanks for bringing to my attention that there were other news events in the world at large and in the US at large. I would not have known that if you hadn't told me!
======
Is it the case that you think the media should report on every story possible? Do you consider the media biased if they don't report on every story possible? Yes, yes, yes. There were black people who misbehaved and didn't get as much media coverage. JUST like there were more white people who misbehaved and didn't get as much media coverage.
What of it? Are you expecting some sort of impossible omniscience/omnipresent reporting from the media? Because, if so, I have some bad news for you, buttercup.
So, is the point that you would like for the media to cover MORE stories of black people misbehaving to make you feel better? To make you think things are "fair and balanced..."? And what of the century plus where attacks and assaults and oppression of LGBTQ people, women, black people and others not in the mainstream that didn't get reported at the time? Maybe it's past time to cover more of the white malfeasance that has gone under-reported for decades? Does that hurt your feelings? If so, well, maybe it shouldn't. Maybe you should be made of stiffer stuff than that.
you know with 100% certainty what those specific people were motivated by and what their intent was? Do you not see how absurd, and fanciful that sounds.
Yes, I know with amazing reasonable degree of reliability what my cousins, my uncles, my co-workers and schoolmates and church friends meant. Even as a white conservative, I was raised well enough by my parents to recognize racism when I saw it. You know what? It's really not that hard.
Do you NOT see how absurd and fanciful that sounds to suggest we can't recognize it when we see it?
In other news not widely reported, an amazing number of white conservatives involved in attacks against LGBTQ, Jewish, Asian and other people..
https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/news
Maybe the "media" is hiding all of these attacks?
Even now, you still can't muster up the courage to specifically condemn these other actions and hose who perpetrated them. That's the point. Y'all's hypocrisy.
You may find it hard to believe, but I quite often don't make ANY comments about news I haven't heard about. Funny how that works. Almost certainly it's an indication of evil intent.
Same, I'm sure, of your silence on all these instances of violence by likely conservatives.
[rolls eyes...]
Wow.
"Glenn cited a disreputable right-wing opinion piece that gave NOT ONE SINGLE LINK to support their partisan claims and wonders why I paid zero attto his unsupported claims."
Says the guy who cites the SPLC!! Amazing!!
"I don't know if you all get this, but the modern conservative movement has NO credibility. Your party has become the party of false claims, corruption and stupidly false claims."
Says the guy who pretends there are more than two genders, abortion is ever necessary and there's science backing the notion homosexuality is normal. That's not even the tip of the lying leftist iceberg...which is supposedly melting due to the fraud of climate change.
"Any time you make claims with NO links to support your claims... all that means is that you should not be trusted."
Should we expect that Dan will never make a claim without a link in support of it, or should we not hold our breath? He does it just enough to provide himself liberty to say he does it.
"You want to be taken seriously and not as a deviant laughingstock? Provide links to data."
There's no link which could possibly result in anyone taking you seriously, not laughing like crazy. What a clown.
"The modern conservative movement is not to be trusted."
The modern progressive movement is responsible for all which ails this nation. ALL OF IT.
You don't do sarcasm or snark particularly well so maybe you should stay away from it. Especially when you have to mis represent what I actually said in the process.
What I DID do was to ask why specific similar (but much worse) incidents were downplayed in favor of the KC incident. Why did the KC family cash in to the tune of millions, and no one bothered to raise cash for the other victims. Why did Biden choose to invite this one specific victim to the WH. Since this concept isn't hard, I can only conclude that you're deflecting.
======
"Is it the case that you think the media should report on every story possible?"
No.
"Do you consider the media biased if they don't report on every story possible?"
No.
WHAT?? No way! There was MORE news than this one thing? And the media didn't cover every possible news event!!??? WOW. They must be really partisan! You're right, Craig-o! Thanks for bringing to my attention that there were other news events in the world at large and in the US at large. I would not have known that if you hadn't told me!
======
"Is it the case that you think the media should report on every story possible?"
No.
"Do you consider the media biased if they don't report on every story possible?"
No.
"Yes, yes, yes. There were black people who misbehaved and didn't get as much media coverage. JUST like there were more white people who misbehaved and didn't get as much media coverage."
Well done, even if you did have to make shit up. How about you deal with what I actually said, not what you wish I'd said. But it's an impressive way to dodge the reality regarding the specific other cases I mentioned.
"What of it? Are you expecting some sort of impossible omniscience/omnipresent reporting from the media? Because, if so, I have some bad news for you, buttercup."
"So, is the point that you would like for the media to cover MORE stories of black people misbehaving to make you feel better?"
no.
"To make you think things are "fair and balanced..."?"
no.
"And what of the century plus where attacks and assaults and oppression of LGBTQ people, women, black people and others not in the mainstream that didn't get reported at the time?"
Irrelevant to this specific post/thread.
"Maybe it's past time to cover more of the white malfeasance that has gone under-reported for decades?"
Maybe it is. But that is an entirely different conversation. Unless you are arguing that crimes committed by blacks should be intentionally not covered, and crimes committed by whites should be over reported
"Does that hurt your feelings?"
Not at all. You going through all sorts of gyrations to avoid things doesn't hurt my feelings in the least.
Very impressive example of trying to obscure individual trees by focusing on the forest. The amount of creativity it takes to make up all of this bullshit and pretend like it resembles anything I've actually said is extremely large. The fact that you've chosen to ignore the reality that I've been very specific about my point raises questions about so many things.
"Do you NOT see how absurd and fanciful that sounds to suggest we can't recognize it when we see it?"
Yes, I recognize how absurd it is for you to presume that I know the innermost thoughts, motivations, and intent of people I've never met.
"! Do you recognize how vile and evil that makes you appear (or just simply shows that you are) that you would value your human traditions over human rights and causing actual harm to others? WTF is wrong with you?"
Nothing. I know you are narcissistic and full of hubris, but I never thought I'd see you say that failing to be in 100% agreement with one of your hunches is "evil".
"There's only one answer to this: IF my human traditions and personal opinions cause harm to others, then that's a problem with my traditions and opinions! Period."
"Because I say so." is still not proof of anything.
"That you don't even pause or hesitate but plunge straight into affirming your personal human hunches and opinions over causing actual harm to others... well, Damn that to hell."
Wow, you've managed to make up quite the fanciful story and read much more into my answer than I actually said. But thanks for giving me permission to read all sorts of made up shit into your answers.
Post a Comment