Lord Raven
-
Posts
9,206 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Lord Raven
-
-
1 hour ago, killelall said:
No they aren't. You are just pro-drug.
Nope... I'm pro-fact. Drug war is bullshit, and drugs being illegal wouldn't save anyone who was addicted to illegal drugs. It would encourage them to receive help instead of risking jail time for drugs they took, actually. It would save money on incarceration and put it towards rehabilitation.
There's a reason why drugs are both related to racism and a major part of progressive policy -- because the drug war was founded on lies, and racism. To deny such is to deny that oxygen is a part of our respiratory diet.
I am sorry for your unique situation but a war on drugs wouldn't fix that. Equity would, though.
1 hour ago, killelall said:The claim was innocent black men were being killed. Someone committing a crime is not an innocent man. The victims aren't just upstanding black men being unjustly targeted by police like Johann claimed. The victims were criminals. However, in George Floyd's case this doesn't change that their death was disgusting and unjustified.
Unarmed black men is actually the term I hear more often, but do carry on.
Whether or not a "victim" was perfect doesn't really take away their victim hood. They weren't "innocent" in the sense that they may or may not have committed the crime they were pulled over for, but let's not pretend that he wasn't innocent of whatever he did that caused a death penalty response. You're just playing a semantics game.
EDIT: also he's innocent until proven guilty lol
QuoteHowever, innocent black men should not expect to be plucked off the street by blood thirty men with badges.
But they do. Because that's what essentially happens, and that's what the system encourages.
1 hour ago, killelall said:Its not side stepping the issue. Its arguing the importance of accurate analysis so that problems can be solved properly.
Which part of the analysis is inaccurate?
1 hour ago, killelall said:Read what I just quoted to see what false assumptions were being made. For example, "Black people deal with extra hurdles throughout their entire lives. To have a practically identical resume as a white person requires the black person to do more or endure worse at nearly every turn."
Just as a black person can grow up in wealth or poverty, a white person can be as well. Just as a black person may or may not grow up in a broken house, the same applies to a white person. A black and white person may also attend the same schools, receiving the same education. Because someone is black does not mean they will encounter more hurdles at every turn, and just because someone is white doesn't mean they will avoid every hurdleJust because something can be true doesn't really contradict the broader reality. Do you not know how statistics actually work? Do you not know how studies actually work? Do you not know what disproportionate means? Because the common argument -- and the truth -- is in the term disproportionate.
QuoteOnes race simply means one is statistically more likely to experience something. Not that they are guaranteed to. Johann's narrative made & relied upon a false assumption.
I know the guy. He understands this.
However, there are many things that are simply universal, which have been brought up in this thread. Black names are more likely to be rejected than white names, all else equal. Black & white people convicted of the same crime receive different prison sentences, the latter having relatively reduced ones. Black neighborhoods are far, far more overpoliced (by all measures) than white neighborhoods, and arguably the police work for the latter and work against the former.
1 hour ago, killelall said:No they don't discredit the points I've made. They prove them. Though, in regards to segregation - your pretending it exists like it did back in the day is rather bogus. Where one lives is largely decided by money... that and the community within a city. (Which is more-so social rather than due to the government.)
I didn't "pretend" like it exists like it did back in the day. I stated that it exists. I didn't pretend anything.
You're ignoring the fact that having a black neighbor or black neighbors reduces the value of your home. Again, will provide a source upon request, but it's as factual as saying water is necessary to live.
1 hour ago, killelall said:At no point did I attempt to call black people shot by police thugs. I even brought up the black psychologist who was shot, so how about you quit making up lies in a pitiful attempt to discredit me.
I don't think I'm making up lies. A lie implies intention.
But I will say that someone who is quick to emphasize "George Floyd was a druggie" when he got brutally sat on for 8 minutes and 46 seconds really doesn't have their priorities in line. It read as a dogwhistle, really.
1 hour ago, killelall said:Name some of this recent legislation that still exists.
https://www.epi.org/publication/modern-segregation/
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/05/segregation-now/359813/
I have better things to do with my time than list out every single piece of legislation, action, and what generally every district does to encourage segregation in their communities and schooling. Do your research, I provided you some links.
1 hour ago, killelall said:Right. Its not a myth. In a like manner there is black privilege, native privilege, Asian privilege, and so on, and to all of these there tends to be disprivileges as well. However, a lot of the claims surrounding them revolve on false claims and misused facts, and said use of said privileges or disprivileges often revolves around a racist rhetoric wherein one makes false or exaggerated assumptions about people of specific races.
Those privileges exist how? The only example of black privilege I can think of is that minorities aren't valued enough by the US that a terrorist won't take them hostage.
What privileges do black people, native people, asian people, etc have? Immigrant privilege solely comes from the fact that they're already quite successful in their home countries and have means coming into the country. Black wealth started from almost nothing, and continues to be almost nothing and the system encourages such a thing.
I can link you with nothing but articles if you really want to be convinced, but to deny its existence and the pervasiveness of white privilege through our culture and legislation is the same thing as saying that the change in global climate is not accelerated by humanity. The fact that we even have to argue this as a "fact" is just as insane as how people say racism is "just an opinion."
-
1 hour ago, killelall said:
But that's not what's happening. George Floyd was being arrested on drug charges. The man shot outside of Wendy's beat a cop , stole his weapon, and then shot at him before the beaten officer opened fire (all of which is on camera). These aren't innocent men being killed. Admittedly, the death of George Floyd was wrong and the officers involved deserve to be punished, and charges were immediately being brought against them. Likewise for the officer who was violently assaulted and beaten, as well as against his partner. Something in which neither of them should have been charged with, and once that case is dropped, we can expect riots in outrage by people who don't care about the facts.
For starters, drug charges are bullshit and the drug war was brought about because Nixon wanted to beat down hippies and the black community. I can source this if you want.
Even if Floyd was being arrested on drug charges, who gives a fuck....
And then the next point is: the cops were called cuz he had a fraudulent 20 dollar bill. Even the store clerk regrets it.
Explain to me how ANY of this is relevant to the cruel and unusual death penalty he received? What the police did is literally a violation of what Americans hold fundamental to their land, what Floyd did is almost nothing.
The rest of your post is "how can white privilege exists if IM not racist and not all white people are rich!!!" Which is sidestepping how it's a large factor and not the end-all be-all. There's successful black people, that's great, but even successful black people are significantly less wealthy than successful white people. What false assumptions are being made? Collectivist statistics, legislation, and the fact that there's still blatant segregation contradicts every single point you just made. It really sounds like you just came on here to call black people shot by the police "thugs."
You're right; not all black people or white people have had this all-encompassing experience. Nobody is saying they did. We're making conclusions based on facts, tendencies, and statistics. That and a lot of legislation and police brutality is enacted precisely to make the black experience hell! Immigrants have a better opening slate moving into the US than black people do, and again I can source all this if you want. But to call it a 'false narrative' means that our Venn Diagram of reality are two circles, because white privilege is not a myth or an opinion.
28 minutes ago, Slumber said:I tried to explain it in my other post, but I couldn't word it right. This words it right.
He's a lawyer, he's the most valuable person to explain concepts we've got, it's beautiful
-
1 minute ago, AlexArtsHere said:
Basic example, a white person and a black person each apply for the same job with the same qualifications and the same performance in the interview. If the white person gets chosen for that job because the colour of their skin leads them to be viewed more favourably in the eyes of the person responsible for hiring (either intentionally or unintentionally), that's them benefiting from white privilege. It's not they're fault, they're not bad for being white, but it's an illustration of how deeply embedded racism and white privilege is into not only the U.S., but the U.K. and parts of Europe too.
It goes deeper! If they're "stereotypically black names" on an application, it's less likely to be accepted.
-
4 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:
This is dumb and needs to be changed. I've seen talk that there's a subreddit requiring photo of a person's dark skin to join and that this particular subreddit spends most of its time just attacking whites.
/r/FragileWhiteRedditer makes fun of redditers who post dogwhistles and complain about white privilege.
/r/BlackPeopleTwitter is the subreddit you're thinking of, but it's not "attacking" white people it's stuff like this at its general worst. You have to be black to submit tweets and need to be verified, but I think you can comment regardless. Mostly because when white people could post, it got really racist...
Those are the two I can think of. I don't like FWR mostly because it encourages brigades, but BPT is generally pretty fine.
-
7 hours ago, FrostyFireMage said:
- why'd they have to protest and gather in huge numbers in the middle of a pandemic, couldn't it wait?
No, COVID has exacerbated race issues by targeting black people, poor people, and other minorities in greater numbers than white people. A lot of milennials have shit jobs and shit wages and are due for shit wages, and many of these people are unemployed because of a pandemic that Trump botched and continues to make worse.
If we didn't have COVID, we wouldn't be seeing these protests.
There's nothing left to lose for a lot of these protesters.
-
16 minutes ago, MacLovin said:
Anyways, race issues in Asia are odd. They kinda fetishize white people but get incredibly wary of black people. I've heard things through anecdotes and whatnot about why and it's kind of a perpetuation of a stereotype of "black people are extremely sexually active" to the extreme. (I"m putting it in the most civil terms possible.) These anecdotes come from the standard "someone who knows someone who knows someone who . . .etc." stuff and I'm not sure which part of the filipino culture started perpetuating this crap.
I would say that a lot of asian communities (south and east) are antipathic towards black people for whatever reason. I can't even figure out why, aside from basic community propaganda / trusting the US news a little too much.
-
4 hours ago, Anacybele said:
Oh. Huh. That's odd. And something I could never understand or relate to, personally, because I think my pale skin is uglier than tan or darker skin. I'm not sure if I'd like being REAL black, but tan or kinda black? Heck yeah.
I don't think you quite understand the weight that comes with that, nor do you seem to understand the kind of shit "REAL black" gets.
I'm Pakistani and I'm light skinned and that gets much less of a visceral reaction within my own culture than the darker skinned people. South India is darker skinned and not represented in Bollywood, which is the Hollywood of South Asia.
Balochistan in Pakistan is a similar issue, with many african-heritage Pakistan is who are treated like shit and systemically discriminated against because of their skin and heritage.
And I know dudes who are dark as fuck who get comments on their skin constantly. They hate it; they love their skin but the amount of people that say "I wish I weren't as dark as you" makes them feel like shit and objectified. It's actually fucking dehumanizing to say "I wish my skin were dark but not THAT dark."
Whether or not your skin makes you feel uglier is irrelevant to the fact that society as a collective values lighter skin, and it's even a problem within some black communities! But it's a massive problem with the people of this country.
-
5 minutes ago, Burklight said:
Just out of curiosity. If rioters showed up where you live and tried to burn it down, would you be cool with it? By your logic, complaining about violence might distract from the cause that the rioters so clearly dont' give a shit about. Again, I'm for making changes to the system, but why stick up for people who clearly care less about equality than you do?
I'm not sticking up for rioters. I'd be pissed about rioters.
But I wouldn't blame it on the protesters, lol, I'd blame it on the police for attacking the protesters instead of the looters, because it's clear that they don't really work for anyone but middle class or upper class whites.
It also wouldn't happen in my current neighborhood because.. we're actually more integrated than the rest of the country. But that's an aside.
QuoteI didn't say the riots were the majority of the protests. I am perfectly fine with peaceful protests. I am not in any way trying to say I am against wanting justice for what happened to George Floyd. The political correctness pandering was relevant for discussing Disney's response to the situation because it's clearly just a money making tactic for them.
I mean, ultimately I'm not sure why anyone cares or how it's political correctness. Political correctness is a buzzword these days used to delegitimize civil rights in other circles... Keep that in mind
-
Did you really talk about pandering to political correctness
And did you really ignore the vast majority of the protests being peaceful
You're doing literally what everyone was describing was wrong... Bad faith talking about looting like it's the majority (when it's orthogonal to the protests)
@Tolvir do you have articles to back up if that's the majority of what police officers do? Because violent crime has gone down since the 90s... by a good amount... And not everyone who is policing attacks against a minority because they do too much as is...
George Floyd's murder was solely callousnous, but there were way more murders that get swept under.
-
14 minutes ago, This boi uses Nino said:
Yikes this got very heated. I'll just say this and then leave:
I don't think defunding police is the right choice, I think better training for police under-stress situations (I know George Floyd didn't die because of such a situation, but many times a cop fires unjustly because of it, it's proven that it happens) with the same funding they already have would work. Because let's be honest, a lot of those funds are probably being allocated to corrupt higher-ups, so the funding wouldn't need to be higher for that.
In fact, it could even be lowered but that's me being positive.
That's just my opinion and I'm not the smartest person ever so I probably missed something.Yeah, I can see this point of view. Fewer personnel, but better trained personnel.
Although, some of the thought behind "defund the police" is that, for instance, black communities are overpoliced and that's where a lot of the funds go. There's cases where the police in New York make like 6 digits, and in some cases 200k/year due to overtime pay. The police department gets 6 billion dollars to do a job that seems like it's paid too much... especially since you don't really need a degree or screening to be part of the NYPD.
And then there's the study where the police didn't actively police but they only responded to calls. Police essentially went on strike and basically only responded to 911 calls. Crime rate went down significantly in that time. Part of the conversation is that we need to rethink how policing works or the necessary extent of policing, and if we should take police & prison funding and put it into social workers for rehabilitation, rather than just saying "we need a better police force." Because really, police are oppressive and the recidivism rate in this country is horrific.
Defund is simply trimming the fat from overfunded police departments, in some respects. In other respects, if there are so few police in an area not responding to much more than traffic violations, how necessary are full departments?
Mix that with oversight and an executive branch willing to act (which I can tell you, this executive branch is the worst in our nation's history) and we can avoid this whole mess and make society better. And ultimately, the protesters are doing this for every American because millennials and Gen X are going to be left the worst state of the world ever.
-
1 minute ago, Anacybele said:
This.
And I'm not ignoring EVERYTHING. I did watch a video posted earlier and listened to Specta.
Man, you ignored something because of one small thing that you disagree with.
Abolish the police has a point too, and we as a society clearly aren't ready for it mentally. But it has a place in the discussion, and if you're ignoring a whole thing that talks about racial injustice and protests because of one small thing you disagree with... you're frankly a snowflake and you shouldn't have come to discuss in SD in the first place.
SD isn't even anything close to intellectually rigorous, but you refuse to even do the bare minimum to engage.
-
6 minutes ago, Burklight said:
So this discord mod was wishy washy when asked if he supported the cause (I'm assuming "the cause" in this context is fighting racism) and was then fired because he had a problem with violence and looting?
He was fired for being a cunt.
6 minutes ago, Burklight said:I honestly don''t think a majority of the violent looters even know who George Floyd is.
How?
QuoteHow is wishing there was less violence a dogwhistle? I suppose I can't peak for others, but I don't hear a dogwhistle. I just hear people wishing their supermarkets were't on fire, or that their grandma didn't get beaten in the streets.
The dogwhistle is ignoring everything but the violence and looting. That's what I described this user as doing. This is what many users do.
They also describe the protests as riots. Not as protests, which the vast majority are peaceful. This particular one defend police saying the majority are great! But then he called anyone protesting "rioting thugs." As if he didn't just trample on his own point and rhetoric.
6 minutes ago, Burklight said:Are you suggesting that the protests shouldn't be peaceful? I don't think it's a stretch to get from this comment to active calls to violence.
No, it's that peaceful protests don't make the airwaves.
Even if there was no looting, COVIDs on the horizon. People are understandable freaked out. But frankly, if that's what it takes to make the point, because fucking this
being scoffed at, yelled at, treated like shit and getting shitloads of Fox News and Tomi Lahren rants didn't do enough. Nor did Jon Stewart talking about this repeatedly on the Daily Show:
It's a five year old fucking video titled "We can't breathe." but only a few months ago were the majority of Americans pro-BLM.
Go to the General US Politics thread and search for a user named @tuvarkz who called BLM protesters a bunch of thugs. I got suspended for calling that dude a racist later.
Also, like 99.999% of the protests were peaceful.
-
3 minutes ago, Armchair General said:
That list you showed me included KIA2 (which is admittedly just another news feed), soyboys, anti capitalism, lgb drop the t, and some other shit. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the aforementioned shit is in that particular sub, nor should it be held accountable for it's userbase if they're posting elsewhere.
I'm arguing the userbase likely did post bad content onto those subs. I even listed an example of what could have been posted.
The subs are shut down so all you have is internet archives, but go on /r/AgainstHateSubreddits and you may see them pop up there, with plenty of examples too.
Don't assume that it's a guilt by association or reddit trying to appear neutral. If reddit were truly trying to appear neutral, /r/politics would be out, but /r/politics isn't a radicalization chamber like The_Donald or ChapoTrapHouse, or for that matter frenworld, coontown, fatpeoplehate, and other related subreddits.
Especially since a place like The_Donald would argue their counterweight is /r/politics, not /r/ChapoTrapHouse. When /r/politics has done nothing that deserves a ban under their own TOS.
Also LGB drop the T is definitely an anti-trans subreddit. It doesn't matter what their names are if the content is steered in a certain direction. It's like how /r/aaf (for the Alliance of American Football) was lead by someone who banned anyone who posted in like /r/politics, /r/neoliberal, etc because they wanted it to be a racist breeding ground under the guise of AAF fandom.
-
Just now, Burklight said:
Just to make sure I understand what you're saying, if I were to, hypothetically of course, suggesting that looting and vandalism and beating people to death in the streets is unacceptable, then I'm responsible for derailing a productive discussion about how to address racism, and the people doing all the things I think are unacceptable are somehow not responsible for derailing otherwise peaceful protests? I feel pretty confident that isn't what you're implying, so please correct me.
Here's an example. We recently fired an admin on a massive discord I moderate.
Part of the reason for his firing was because of his rhetoric during the protests. Anyone who asked him if they believe in the cause would get deflections, meanwhile he would continue to post clips of looters and places getting looted. And of violence against white people (which made no sense to me, the guy was Filipino and he cared more about that).
Mention that the police are committing way more violence, mention that the police looted pharmacies five years ago in Baltimore to sell narcotics, mention all of that and it gets summarily ignored.
Mention protests and someone responds with "yeah, but I wish there was less violence and looting" ends up being a dogwhistle. Because there are people who will say that solely to distract, and there's a lot more of them.
That, and OPs own history with making awful takes that are racist (basically, she led far more of a crusade against kneeling than she lets on, and she asked why we weren't questioning Obama's birthplace when his name was Barack Obama and not something that sounded white) is why people make statements like that.
1 minute ago, Burklight said:You're right, and that's in my view part of the problem. If the way you're protesting alienates more people than it persuades, then you're actively hurting a cause that I personally care about.
Luckily these protests aren't doing that. Over half the country is in favor of the protests, but over half the country being in favor of something doesn't mean something gets done. Not with this obstructionist congress.
-
You're aware I wasn't arguing that, right?
I literally even explained that it wasn't guilt by association. I cited examples of how subreddits don't always match their name and spew racist garbage (or, well, in anime_titties' case, world politics, although I haven't seen enough of it to describe it as racist because I was way more interested in /r/worldpolitics due to the titties)
And yet you came out and said something that I explicitly rebuked as a concept, without addressing anything I said.
Seriously, do you even try?
-
11 minutes ago, Anacybele said:
I spent half a year in an awful highly majorly black high school. Obviously, the school was terrible for how it was being run, not for having mostly black students. But while the few white students I interacted with were generally okay, the black ones picked on me and treated me like garbage. I was also literally the only white kid in one of my classes. Our teacher was white too, and they made her cry. This is no joke. I think it's safe to say this was a racial thing.
You spent half a year?
Try spending a whole lifetime as the only black person -- or minority -- in any given group. Instead of just half a year.
Imagine feeling like that for your entire lifetime, and imagine your parents feeling like that for their lifetime. And imagine their parents feeling like it too.
Imagine your parents having to talk to you about how to interact with police to avoid getting killed when you're as young as a 7 year old. This doesn't happen with white people.
Also, it's no coincidence it was a shit school full of black people. The system is designed to put black kids in shit schools constantly, so they don't have the means to escape the bullshit the system's put them through.
Nobody's saying you haven't been discriminated against. But your race has only been the reason for it for half a year. Black people's race has been a source of discrimination for 400 years and counting, and every time they bring it up they're met with "oh, but you shouldn't kneel against the flag, that's disrespectful."
Or by trying to constantly assassinate their civil rights leaders like MLK and Malcolm X. Which is part of the reason the current protests are leaderless; so nobody targets a leader that ends up dispersing the movement.
Dude, read up on the Southern Strategy -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy -- this is the reason everyone associates Republicans with racists. And they'd be right to do so.
A Nixon aide said the drug war was meant to disenfranchise black people -- https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html
That and the disproportionate number of black people in prison mixed with this country's poor take on recidivism makes it so many can never escape. I can go on and on and on about how there's segregation and racial injustices today, but the issue is that you literally won't stop talking about the violence when the protests are massively and overall peaceful.
-
Just now, Tryhard said:
Guilt by association, then?
I can see that Reddit pretty much wants to remove any alt-right and dark humour subreddits from that list. Okay.
I could post on both ShitNeoconsSay because I don't like Neocons. I could post on ConsumeProduct because it would be a funny meme.
Also, Vaush is pretty high on that list, a socialist youtuber.
Seems really dumb to me.
I'm not implying a guilt by association at all. I'm surprised you missed the point, you're normally better than this, but you've been slipping the last few weeks.
Do you really not know why overlaps happen? It's not guilt by association, it's the same people post in racist ass subreddits, ergo it's very likely that there was a lot of legitimate racism and dogwhistling and anti-Semitic shit (shitNeoconsSay will lead to anti-Semitic comments in a bad faith version of it, unless somehow you missed that).
If you could judge subreddits by their name and not their content, these wouldn't make sense. But since /r/anime_titties is a world politics subreddit (no, I am not joking; /r/worldpolitics is basically /b/ after being an anime titties and onlyfans subreddit for a week, for reference) and /r/frenworld was hiding white supremacy between pepo memes, you can't trust the title of the subreddit with its content.
KotakuInAction2 is also a really racist ass subreddit too.
-
1 minute ago, Armchair General said:
Looking at KYM, Consume Product is just poking fun at consumerism...Which is probably hurting someone's ad revenue.
Look at the overlapping subreddits.
https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/consumeproduct
This should paint the picture far better.
-
2 minutes ago, Tryhard said:
i'm not defending it, I'm just noting that places like reddit will always go after what they consider both "extremes" when they do this sort of stuff.
There's several there that I don't even get why they were banned. ConsumeProduct, rightwingLGBT, ShitNeoconsSay?
Unless there's some deep conspiracy involving them I don't exactly know why they've been banned.
Idk about Consume product or ShitNeoconsSay but rightwingLGBT from my understanding was basically better worded as "alt right LGBT"
EDIT: this might explain it better
https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/shitneoconssay
-
2 minutes ago, Tryhard said:
good to know that reddit will ban places like chapotraphouse in order to appear "fair"
CTH is a shit subreddit that encourages violence and doxxing all the time, wtf are you talking about
Defending CTH is not a hill to die on, they deserved everything they got, including their quarantine
-
3 minutes ago, Karimlan said:
To be fair, the line "some of those who work forces... Are the same that burn crosses" comes from "Killing in the Name Of." But yeah.
Oh wow, I somehow got them confused. I haven't listened to rage in a while, but killing in the name of was the song I was talking about lol
Also to add to the previous posts, a majority of the country supports the protests... So they are winning people over... Just not your people. Think about that a moment.
-
2 minutes ago, Anacybele said:
This is exactly what I've been trying to say this whole time. Thank you.
But whenever I talk about how that point is false, you guys summarily ignore it.
You know that MLK was fucking hated up until his death and after his death right? Afterwards his statements were whitewashed and a way to keep black people down from protesting in any way because the root problem was still ignored.
And its worth repeating: MLK WAS HATED AND WAS SEEN AS AN UPPITY N WORD IN THE 60S, THAT ONLY RACE BAITED AND INCITED VIOLENCE, HE WAS NOT REVERED AT ALL UNTIL MUCH LATER, AND A VERSION OF HIM THAT DIDNT EXIST WAS WHAT WHITE PEOPLE REVERED
-
8 minutes ago, Burklight said:
Protests are suppose to persuade people. At least, the most effective ones throughout history have.
They did not.
These current protests are like two orders of magnitude better received than the MLK protests. Those protesters back then were hosed down, threatened, demonized and bumped lynching too.
Anyone who tells you that most of the country was inspired and won over by MLK is a liar. The FBI tried to silence him, blackmail him with mistresses, and they eventually straight up shot the guy.
No protest for rights has ever been peaceful, nice, or convincing. And frankly this country did almost nothing to fight racism after the end of slavery, whereas Germany fucking banned depictions of Nazis and made it a point to educate their children on the horrors of Hitler and the horrors that their country executed to prevent us from doing it again.
Meanwhile snowflakes are complaining about statues of Confederates and slave owners going down.
It also doesn't help that dumbasses like Paul Ryan listen to Bulls on Parade as a song to get amped up at the gym... Instead of listening to the line that de la Rocha says repeatedly stating "some of those who work forces... Are the same that burn crosses."
A song like Bulls on Parade is mainstream and most people ignore the message. How much more blatant can protests get before people pay attention????
-
Oh yeah, those never-Biden people piss me off because of it. They want to throw away any chance at progressive legislation because Sanders sucked so much at growing his base that he got blown out.
General US Politics
in Serious Discussion
Posted
Reportedly he put away the MAGA hat in February 2019, a month after he basically outted himself as a Trump supporter.
I don't think Kanye will do anything because nobody wants someone fucking erratic right now. Someone who's erratic as shit and keeps changing their mind is what got us here, and the reason Biden is polling over 50% is because the "sleepy joe" label is preferable to Tantrump.