Charleston Church Massacre

[blah the Prussian]

I think the problem facing America that led to this massacre has a great example in the second blurb.

[eclipse]

Props to Cruz for refunding the donation.

Now, about that second link (reference). . .time to rip it a new one.

However, the Council emphasizes the danger of denying the extent of black-on-white crime.

According to the Department of Justice, every year there are about 500,000 violent, interracial crimes (completed or attempted/threatened). Of these, about 83 percent are committed by blacks against whites.

How many of the perpetrators were poor, and how many of the victims were more well-off? The "poor black person" stereotype is one that I don't like (because telling someone they should be poor because of their race is setting them up for failure), but there's some truth to it.

Every year, there are some 20,000 rapes or sexual assaults (including threats) of white women by blacks, but crimes of this sort by white men against black women are so unusual, they scarcely appear in crime statistics.

I don't like rape statistics, because a lot of them go unreported. I could attempt to explain this in a number of different ways, but I'd sound just as bad as these guys.

This is not surprising: The CofCC is one of perhaps three websites in the world that accurately and honestly report black-on-white violent crime, and in particular, the seemingly endless incidents involving black-on-white murder.

As long as there's an economical class difference, people will be killed for their stuff. Or for other reasons rooted in white-on-black racism.

Now where the hell are the crime rates for Hispanic/Asian/other-on-white?

The CofCC website exists because media either “spike” such stories, or intentionally obscure the race of black offenders. Indeed, at its national convention some years ago, the Society of Professional Journalists adopted this tactic as a formal policy.

Hey, the media is doing something right~! Race shouldn't matter, unless the crime itself was motivated by it OR you need to find a fugitive.

The CofCC is hardly responsible for the actions of this deranged individual merely because he gleaned accurate information from our website.

"We gladly supported his views, but we want to wash our hands of responsibility". The issue isn't what's being reported, the issue is the lack of remorse.

We are no more responsible for the actions of this sad young man, than the Olin Corporation was for manufacturing the ammo misused by Colin Ferguson to murder six whites on the Long Island Railroad in 1993.

Oh. My. Gosh.

Did the Olin Corporation's philosophy and products validate Colin Ferguson's views regarding whites?

The CofCC does not advocate illegal activities of any kind, and never has. I would gladly compare the honesty and law-abiding nature of our membership against that of any other group.

Y'know, simply releasing the first sentence of this, along with "our thoughts and prayers to those affected by the tragedy" would've been sufficient.

---

As long as there's no acknowledgement of the fact that there IS a divide, and one that needs to be addressed, people will be needlessly caught up in hostilities that may not be directly their fault. That means both sides need to stop playing the victim, and addressing the root causes of the issues. However, it looks like this incident will simply be another footnote in history.

[blah the Prussian]

I'm quite surprised that Santorum and Paul haven't refunded the donations. If they don't, it's even more of a propaganda victory for Cruz. In any case, I don't think anyone needs convincing that the CoCC is full of horse shit.

[Soapbar]

So, apperently Apple has removed games featuring the Confederate flag, and retaliers such as Amazon, Wallmart, etc. have stopped selling it as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33280133/apple-removes-games-featuring-the-confederate-flag-from-app-store

Don't think this was brought up yet.

I can't really agree with this, at best, it's a ham-fisted way to recognize the tragedy, at worst, it's piggybacking off of a tragedy while screwing developers and manufacturers over for some cheap PR

[blah the Prussian]

Heard of it before. It's idiotic. The removals of the flag extend to historical depictions. Even Germany allows the Swastika if it's in historical context.

[I.M. Gei]

So, apperently Apple has removed games featuring the Confederate flag, and retaliers such as Amazon, Wallmart, etc. have stopped selling it as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33280133/apple-removes-games-featuring-the-confederate-flag-from-app-store

Don't think this was brought up yet.

I can't really agree with this, at best, it's a ham-fisted way to recognize the tragedy, at worst, it's piggybacking off of a tragedy while screwing developers and manufacturers over for some cheap PR

as it turns out, corporate suits can and often react clumsily to trends and public opinion

[-Cynthia-]

So, apperently Apple has removed games featuring the Confederate flag, and retaliers such as Amazon, Wallmart, etc. have stopped selling it as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33280133/apple-removes-games-featuring-the-confederate-flag-from-app-store

Don't think this was brought up yet.

I can't really agree with this, at best, it's a ham-fisted way to recognize the tragedy, at worst, it's piggybacking off of a tragedy while screwing developers and manufacturers over for some cheap PR

Apparently the games are being resubmitted with earlier versions of the Confederate flag and the flag is still allowed in historical/educational contexts, so it's not as bad as one might think after reading the article.

Edited June 29, 2015 by -Cynthia-

[Klokinator]

I'm quite surprised that Santorum and Paul haven't refunded the donations.

I dunno about Santorum, but to be fair, Rand is busy trying to change the system pretty fundamentally. Every day he's on Facebook jetting from one place or another to fight the patriot act, tpp, the NSA, etc. He might not have seen it yet, because he's generally the kind of guy to refund something like that.

[I.M. Gei]

i for one would not be surprised to learn that the son of ron paul, who had a campaign staffer calling himself the "southern avenger", gets support from white supremacists

p.s. fuck him and his lich of a father, if they had their way i would not be a u.s. citizen right now because neither of my parents were citizens at the time of my birth

Edited June 29, 2015 by I.M. Gei

[Klokinator]

It's funny how other countries are A-OK for limiting immigrants and praised for their economy (See: Pretty much all Nordic countries) but the USA says "Just because someone hops the border and spits out a kid on our side doesn't make them a citizen" and suddenly we're the bad guys. Does that really make any sense though? If I live in the USA my whole life, should I be able to take a wife with me, head down to Mexico and have her give birth there and have our baby magically be a Mexican citizen? And what if we return to the United States? Is our baby now magically American again, or Mexican?

And let's not forget that America already has a law for citizens born abroad. So yes, apparently you can be American and Mexican, gaining the benefits of both. It's not fair to people who don't get that opportunity. The kids should have to apply, just the same as their parents.

His proposal makes perfect sense.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Klokinator

[Defeatist Elitist]

It's funny how other countries are A-OK for limiting immigrants and praised for their economy (See: Pretty much all Nordic countries) but the USA says "Just because someone hops the border and spits out a kid on our side doesn't make them a citizen" and suddenly we're the bad guys. Does that really make any sense though? If I live in the USA my whole life, should I be able to take a wife with me, head down to Mexico and have her give birth there and have our baby magically be a Mexican citizen? And what if we return to the United States? Is our baby now magically American again, or Mexican?

And let's not forget that America already has a law for citizens born abroad. So yes, apparently you can be American and Mexican, gaining the benefits of both. It's not fair to people who don't get that opportunity. The kids should have to apply, just the same as their parents.

His proposal makes perfect sense.

Other countries are not "A-OK" for limiting immigrants. Xenophobes are xenophobes, no matter if they're in Germany, Scandinavia, Japan or the United States. If you wanted to go to Mexico, have a kid and become a Mexican citizen it would actually be very easy for you, and it would be incredibly simple for your kid to gain American citizenship if you went back to the US (or even if you didn't).

But I suppose I should be forthright and say that I can't even begin to understand the horrific sentiment of "yeah I slid through a birth canal in this particular geographic location so I deserve all the rights and privileges and opportunities it gives me, but those same things shouldn't be extended to some poor fucker who risked life and limb to cross a lifeless desert and enter this country only to work sub minimum wage jobs in exploitative conditions".

Border imperialism is wrong pretty much no matter who does it.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Defeatist Elitist

[I.M. Gei]

i don't care for your hypotheticals, why should i support someone who, if he had his way, would make me not a citizen, and who also was on record as opposing the civil rights act of 1964

this is exactly why your preferred candidate will never have a base outside of white libertarians, plus fundies he courts by being stridently anti-abortion and homophobic and whatnot; those of us darker than a slice of wonder bread or with a sexual orientation less straight than an x-axis see the freedom and liberty he's talking about and we can see very clearly that it's not meant for us, but for those who would oppress us were there not laws to stymie them

Edited June 29, 2015 by I.M. Gei

[Balcerzak]

p.s. fuck him and his lich of a father, if they had their way i would not be a u.s. citizen right now because neither of my parents were citizens at the time of my birth

All it would have taken is for one of your parents to have a green card. They didn't have to be citizens.

[Topazd]

lmao what was I thinking

Edited November 23, 2015 by Topazd

[Rapier]

i for one would not be surprised to learn that the son of ron paul, who had a campaign staffer calling himself the "southern avenger", gets support from white supremacists

p.s. fuck him and his lich of a father, if they had their way i would not be a u.s. citizen right now because neither of my parents were citizens at the time of my birth

First, this criteria is called jus sanguinis, and it is quite common in first world countries. It is widely applied in Europe, although they vary in flexibility. Most countries that work with a jus soli system, that is, a system where you attain citizenship rights merely from being born in a country's soil, are poor countries. Only a minority of first world countries adopt the jus sanguinis method.

Second, controlling citizenship and legality is actually important for wellfare states, or states where the government controls some portion of the economy. Having too many immigrants may be bad for an economy and may break social programs. I've also heard the US economy was going through a hard time at the date they thought about making the proposal, so it is understandable why they'd do so. It is not xenophobia when it is not done simply because said person is a stranger, but for reasons more complex than this.

So, it's not as uncommon and terrible as it seems.

Of course, if I were in your place, I'd prefer having my rights for nationality, but that demanding attitude as if everything should be given to you in a silver plate with desserts as a Constitutional right sucks. The US government would be overloaded with immigrants if they were so lax with it. It could be very bad for the country, despite being good for you and your parents.

Ideally, I wish border "imperialism" simply did not exist, but that doesn't seem aplicable.

"yes he wholeheartedly digested our rhetoric and followed it to its logical conclusion but SO WHAT"

From what that person said, they have read data about crimes on white people and, in basis of this, they became revolted with black on white crimes. This is not digesting racist rethoric, lol. It's just statistics and probability, data can't be racist by itself, it's a state-of-fact.

Now, I don't know about this white supremacist website. If they promote discourses like "black people are x and y and deserve to die", then I agree, they are racist and potentially dangerous to be left alone. If they say things like "data shows there's been an increasing in black on white crimes", then it is not racism, but a state-of-fact. And I agree that the media is very biased regarding white people when crimes are made by minorities (like the "gentle giant" who wasn't as "gentle" as the media covered him to be, as evidence collected from the police officer's car suggests, nor Trayvon Martin, who certainly wasn't "just an average student going back to their homes in a quiet, warm day of Sunday"). Pointing this media bias is not racism.

this is exactly why your preferred candidate will never have a base outside of white libertarians, plus fundies he courts by being stridently anti-abortion and homophobic and whatnot; those of us darker than a slice of wonder bread or with a sexual orientation less straight than an x-axis see the freedom and liberty he's talking about and we can see very clearly that it's not meant for us, but for those who would oppress us were there not laws to stymie them

This is a common misconception about classical liberalism. Their freedom encompases everyone, not only white majorities, as it is an universal principle within the classical liberalism theory. As an example, Rand made a speech that he supports separating marriage from the State, leaving it for people to do as they will with their own lives. How would that not be beneficial for homossexuals and minorities?

Regarding abortion, some libertarians extend the Non-Aggression Pact to embryos, which is also another principle within their theory.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Rapier

[Defeatist Elitist]

Unregulated immigration is a sure way to cripple a welfare state. Groups with ~13% employment rates are effectively leeching off a social safety net, no matter how you cut it. The US doesn't have anything as robust as the Nordic countries when it comes to safety nets though, so they're not quite comparable.

I really don't see the xenophobia in (somewhat) strict regulations and treating citizenship as a prize to be achieved - unless you have a magic solution to integrate all immigrants.

You say that, but there are very few (I would argue effectively no) examples of "unregulated" immigration crippling a welfare state. In general, I think having a higher immigration rate is very very good for a country. There are many states that are far more easily classified as welfare states that have a much higher rate of immigration than the United States that have avoided collapse (or indeed thrived). The idea that immigration will cripple a state, or that immigrants are more likely to be lazy/unemployable is one that is often repeated but rarely borne out.

Treating citizenship as a prize to be achieved is inherently xenophobia because that's not what you're actually doing. You're saying citizenship is a prize that has to be achieved for those foreigners who aren't from the United States. Somebody born to American citizens never has to "achieve" citizenship as a prize, they just get it. As I pointed out in my post, the average undocumented immigrant has done a great deal more to "earn" citizenship than the vast majority of actual citizens have.

The magic solution to integrate immigrants is to treat them like human beings and not harass and marginalize them to the point that they don't feel welcome or part of your country. It is to not use the legal and immigration system to restrict their movement and hamstring their employment opportunities, forcing them into illegal, under the table work for insufficient money and in poor conditions, or unemployment.

[Balcerzak]

Okay, my apologies, but if we want to discuss immigration, let's make an immigration topic.

[blah the Prussian]

This all seems strangely familiar...