Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Gunfight at the O.K. CorralFollow

#52 Jul 12 2016 at 4:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Almalieque wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What's ironic about this is that I was watching an interview with a BLM member and he was basically arguing that what the black community needed was its own separate economy, with black owned stores, restaurants, businesses, etc, that black people would go to in order to keep the money within the community, and thus enable them to succeed. I don't think he had the historical knowledge to realize that's *exactly* what started segregation. What was annoying is that the journalist interviewing him apparently didn't either.


Err. Actually no. Segregation was implemented to keep blacks down, not provide them their own economy. If "Separate But Equal" were actually equal, we would still be segregated. Blacks fought to end segregation, not to hold hands with their oppressors, but to gain economic support.


Sigh. I get that the more embarrassing and less simplistic narrative-following aspects of the origins of American Segregation are broadly swept under the rug today, but the fact is that many black leaders in the mid 19th century supported segregation under the idea that it would allow black capital to remain in black hands, and was thus a means towards black economic success. You're free to believe that this just didn't happen or something, but as I wrote above, I witnessed a BLM spokesperson calling for the exact same thing just a few days ago.

A quick google search shows lots of examples of BLM (and other black race focused groups) demanding things like separate dorms for blacks only, black only "safe spaces", and black only floors in various buildings on college campuses. Um... This is segregation. It's the exact opposite of the idea of civil rights that were fought for so hard for so long. And yes, it's the same stupid mistake made ~150 years ago and which lead to the wide spread adoption of oppressive Jim Crow laws. Once you start dividing people up into physical spaces, living spaces, learning spaces, eating spaces, and entertainment spaces based on their skin color, you are inviting more racial division and inequality will not lag far behind.

What's the old saying: The more things change, the more they stay the same? Is this progress? I don't think so.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#53 Jul 12 2016 at 5:04 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,358 posts
I'm gonna just leave this here...
Screenshot
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#54 Jul 13 2016 at 7:37 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
A quick google search shows
Well that's reliable.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#55 Jul 13 2016 at 9:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
A quick google search shows
Well that's reliable.
Those stupid smart people..

Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#56 Jul 13 2016 at 7:13 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Sigh. I get that the more embarrassing and less simplistic narrative-following aspects of the origins of American Segregation are broadly swept under the rug today, but the fact is that many black leaders in the mid 19th century supported segregation under the idea that it would allow black capital to remain in black hands, and was thus a means towards black economic success. You're free to believe that this just didn't happen or something, but as I wrote above, I witnessed a BLM spokesperson calling for the exact same thing just a few days ago.

A quick google search shows lots of examples of BLM (and other black race focused groups) demanding things like separate dorms for blacks only, black only "safe spaces", and black only floors in various buildings on college campuses. Um... This is segregation. It's the exact opposite of the idea of civil rights that were fought for so hard for so long. And yes, it's the same stupid mistake made ~150 years ago and which lead to the wide spread adoption of oppressive Jim Crow laws. Once you start dividing people up into physical spaces, living spaces, learning spaces, eating spaces, and entertainment spaces based on their skin color, you are inviting more racial division and inequality will not lag far behind.

What's the old saying: The more things change, the more they stay the same? Is this progress? I don't think so.
You're not countering any of my points, you're just conflating various things.

1. Segregation was created to keep black people down.
2. "Separate but equal" was not equal. The result was the inability for black people to rise in society.
3. Black people fought to end segregation in the civil rights movement not to befriend their oppressor, but because of #2.
4. The intent was to have fair opportunity for progression.
5. As long as white people cater to white business (their friends and family), black business will always lack behind.
6. The "new" intent, which is the same as the "old" intent, is to promote black business within the black community to make up for the lack of support from the white community.
#57 Jul 13 2016 at 7:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In so much as BLM has an "official list of demands", it would be Campaign Zero which focuses absolutely not at all on economic zones or segregated student housing.

No doubt you can find random people to say random things.

Edited, Jul 13th 2016 8:28pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Jul 13 2016 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I'm gonna just leave this here...
Screenshot


That would be a more meaningful strip if BLM itself wasn't essentially ignoring the burning-out-of-control-house of black on black crime while obsessing over the relatively small brush fire that is police shootings of blacks. It's almost like they care far less about black lives and far more about opposing the police. it is, at the very least, a horrific misapplication of effort. No amount of changes to police policies and actions is going to fix the problem because police shootings of blacks is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. As I have said repeatedly in the past (and I guess I have to repeat again), when you account for poverty rates, increased crime rates in poor neighborhoods, and increased police interactions with civilians in high crime areas, the rate at which black people are arrested, detained, shot, killed, etc by police are identical to that of white people.

Any time the police stop someone, there is a statistical probability of any of a set of outcomes. One of those outcomes is the person they stopped being shot by the police officers. It's a very small chance, but it's there. When you multiple that chance against the total number of stops, the numbers come out pretty even based on race. So for every 100,000 police stops of a white person the number of times the police shot that white person is similar to the same number of stops of a back person. The issue is not about how police handle stops (at least not as it relates to the race of the person being stopped). The issue is that out of every 100,000 people living in a poor neighborhood, more of them will be stopped on any given day than will out of 100,000 living in a working class neighborhood, and even more than those living in a middle class neighborhood, and much more than those living in a wealthy neighborhood. Once again, this has nothing at all to do with racial bias by the cops, so trying to "fix" that bias isn't going to work.

The problem is that out of 100,000 blacks far more of them will be living in a poor neighborhood than the number out of 100,000 whites. That's where the statistical result comes from ultimately. And that's the problem we should be addressing. But, as I've said in the past, that's a difficult issue to address, much less fix. It's far easier (and far more politically useful) to just blame the cops, demand that they make changes, and the go a step further by labeling as racist haters anyone who disagrees with this course of action.

So that's what they do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Jul 13 2016 at 7:54 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
That would be a more meaningful strip if BLM itself wasn't essentially ignoring the burning-out-of-control-house of black on black crime while obsessing over the relatively small brush fire that is police shootings of blacks.
You mean how conservatives want to ban Muslims and claim "radical Muslim Terror!" because of the "small brush fire" of terrorist attacks while ignoring the "burning-out-of-control" America on America crime?

Why does any of this matter when heart disease kills everyone more than anything. Can't be concerned about killers until we stop heart disease!
#60 Jul 13 2016 at 8:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You're not countering any of my points, you're just conflating various things.


And you're basically making my argument for me. Here. Let me add something to your list:

0.1. The intent was to have fair opportunity for progression.
0.2. As long as white people cater to white business (their friends and family), black business will always lack(sic) behind.
0.3. The intent, is to promote black business within the black community to make up for the lack of support from the white community.
1. Segregation was created.
1.5 Segregation was latched on to as a means to keep black people down.
2. "Separate but equal" was not equal. The result was the inability for black people to rise in society.
3. Black people fought to end segregation in the civil rights movement not to befriend their oppressor, but because of #2.
4. The intent was to have fair opportunity for progression.
5. As long as white people cater to white business (their friends and family), black business will always lack behind.
6. The "new" intent, which is the same as the "old" intent, is to promote black business within the black community to make up for the lack of support from the white community.
7. Segregation is created again and we repeat the cycle.


Do you not understand that the correct way to promote black businesses is not to chase away whites, but to invite them to come in and do business? That's the *only* way for black equality to be achieved. Set aside the specific races involved. Anytime you segregate the businesses and activities of two groups, where one is already more successful and affluent than the other, the group that will suffer the most will be the less affluent one over time. Always.

What's astounding is that you understand that "separate but equal" did not work, but you don't seem to grasp *why*. It wasn't even specifically because of existing racism by whites towards lacks at the time (although that was certainly present in society). When you separate groups, you create alienation between them. Pretty much by definition. And with alienation will come distrust, suspicion, bias, and over time, hate. Even if you start out with everyone having pure and unbiased non-racist motivations, over time segregation by race will create racism, which will lead to inevitable unequal outcomes based on race. It's a really bad idea. I thought we already learned this lesson.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#61 Jul 13 2016 at 8:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
That would be a more meaningful strip if BLM itself wasn't essentially ignoring the burning-out-of-control-house of black on black crime while obsessing over the relatively small brush fire that is police shootings of blacks.
You mean how conservatives want to ban Muslims...


Well, that's false.

Quote:
...and claim "radical Muslim Terror!"...


That's not a claim, that's a label. It's the things said about it that are kinda important. You know, like "Radical Islamic Terrorists" are responsible for this attack, and that attack, and this other attack over there. On the conservative side of the fence we actually make a distinction between "all Muslims" and "terrorists who base their actions on a radical version of Islam". On the Left side? Not so much. Which speaks volumes about them, not us.

Quote:
...because of the "small brush fire" of terrorist attacks while ignoring the "burning-out-of-control" America on America crime?


I wouldn't call the loss of 3000 civilian lives in a single day a "small brush fire" in this context, or in any other. I'll also point out that we don't label our efforts as "American Lives Matter". We label it properly based on what we are fighting for or against. In this case, we believe that we should be fighting against "Radical Islamic Terrorism".

BLM's label is "Black Lives Matter". Which is not an accurate label at all. Hence my point.

Quote:
Why does any of this matter when heart disease kills everyone more than anything. Can't be concerned about killers until we stop heart disease!


It matters because they chose the label. And they did so quite obviously for the word association value of it. If someone disagrees with their action or their movement, they can be accused of not believing that "black lives matter". It's absurd, but there you have it. They chose an overly broad label intentionally. One need only witness their actions when faced with someone making the mistake of saying that "all lives matter" to see how this works and how it is used. That was not by accident.


And yes, if someone said that their primary objective was the "saving of human lives", I'd expect their actions to be in proportion to the things that take the most human lives (so fighting against disease, smoking, car crashes, fighting to promote greater safety habits in homes, especially regarding child proofing, etc). If they instead spent 99.9% of their effort opposing skydiving because of its risk to human lives, I'd be correct in saying that their movement is less about saving human lives and more about opposing skydiving. Get it?

Why does the black life taken by a cop matter more to them than the black life taken by a black gang member? Clearly, it's not just that "Black Lives Matter", but that too many black lives are lost to police actions. Which I totally agree with. I just don't like the kind of word association tricks they use to try to berate people into supporting them. And I don't like the angry rhetoric they use. I think it's counter productive. In the same way I think that self segregation is counter productive. You're only increasing alienation when you do that. You're creating conflict.

Which, I suspect, is the actual point here. It's about inflaming emotions and hoping for violent actions, expecting a counter reaction, and then condemning that reaction as proof of their position all along. Which may be a great way to gain some political influence, but it's a crappy approach if you actually care about black lives. Who do you think gets caught in the middle of all of this? The same poor blacks living in high crime neighborhoods who are already the victims of their own condition. They're the ones who's neighborhoods will be destroyed by rioting. They're the ones who will suffer from longer police response times because the cops are afraid to travel alone. They're the ones who will become even more victimized by emboldened gangs in their neighborhoods. And yes, they're the ones who will suffer the results of increasingly reactionary police that have to account for the possibility that every single encounter with a black person in a car on on the street might result in that black person shooting at them just to "kill a cop".

You think that cops are trigger happy now? You think they are too quick to assume someone has a weapon, or is reaching for a weapon? We keep seeing black people deliberately setting traps and shooting cops, and that number can only increase. And who do you think gets shot? Seriously. Think this through. This movement is not about reducing or ending the conditions that cause police shootings of black motorists and pedestrians. It's about increasing them so as to use their deaths for further political advantage. It's about making black people even more victimized than they already are. And it'll certainly benefit the members and leaders of BLM. But who is going to be paying that cost?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Jul 13 2016 at 10:17 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
And yes, if someone said that their primary objective was the "saving of human lives", I'd expect their actions to be in proportion to the things that take the most human lives (so fighting against disease, smoking, car crashes, fighting to promote greater safety habits in homes, especially regarding child proofing, etc). If they instead spent 99.9% of their effort opposing skydiving because of its risk to human lives, I'd be correct in saying that their movement is less about saving human lives and more about opposing skydiving. Get it?
Of course we get it; that's exactly how the "pro-life" people function.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#63 Jul 14 2016 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
On the conservative side of the fence we actually make a distinction between "all Muslims" and "terrorists who base their actions on a radical version of Islam".
You lost your shit over mosques in New York and are using confirmation bias from the Youtube comments section to rationalize, sweety.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#64 Jul 14 2016 at 3:00 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:

0.1. The intent was to have fair opportunity for progression.
There you again making stuff up. The intent between slavery and segregation was not "to have a fair opportunity for progression". It was "WTF? we can't enslave them? Well, they aren't using our schools, restaurants, etc.". Hence the birth of Jim Crow laws.

If you want to reverse segregation, then you reverse that mentality. As long as white people complain that a starship trooper, James Bond, Miss USA, etc. is a black person, there will be segregation. Stop trying to blame black people for wanting their community to grow.
#65 Jul 14 2016 at 3:08 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
That would be a more meaningful strip if BLM itself wasn't essentially ignoring the burning-out-of-control-house of black on black crime while obsessing over the relatively small brush fire that is police shootings of blacks.
You mean how conservatives want to ban Muslims...


Well, that's false.

Quote:
...and claim "radical Muslim Terror!"...


That's not a claim, that's a label. It's the things said about it that are kinda important. You know, like "Radical Islamic Terrorists" are responsible for this attack, and that attack, and this other attack over there. On the conservative side of the fence we actually make a distinction between "all Muslims" and "terrorists who base their actions on a radical version of Islam". On the Left side? Not so much. Which speaks volumes about them, not us.

Quote:
...because of the "small brush fire" of terrorist attacks while ignoring the "burning-out-of-control" America on America crime?


I wouldn't call the loss of 3000 civilian lives in a single day a "small brush fire" in this context, or in any other. I'll also point out that we don't label our efforts as "American Lives Matter". We label it properly based on what we are fighting for or against. In this case, we believe that we should be fighting against "Radical Islamic Terrorism".

BLM's label is "Black Lives Matter". Which is not an accurate label at all. Hence my point.

Quote:
Why does any of this matter when heart disease kills everyone more than anything. Can't be concerned about killers until we stop heart disease!


It matters because they chose the label. And they did so quite obviously for the word association value of it. If someone disagrees with their action or their movement, they can be accused of not believing that "black lives matter". It's absurd, but there you have it. They chose an overly broad label intentionally. One need only witness their actions when faced with someone making the mistake of saying that "all lives matter" to see how this works and how it is used. That was not by accident.


And yes, if someone said that their primary objective was the "saving of human lives", I'd expect their actions to be in proportion to the things that take the most human lives (so fighting against disease, smoking, car crashes, fighting to promote greater safety habits in homes, especially regarding child proofing, etc). If they instead spent 99.9% of their effort opposing skydiving because of its risk to human lives, I'd be correct in saying that their movement is less about saving human lives and more about opposing skydiving. Get it?

Why does the black life taken by a cop matter more to them than the black life taken by a black gang member? Clearly, it's not just that "Black Lives Matter", but that too many black lives are lost to police actions. Which I totally agree with. I just don't like the kind of word association tricks they use to try to berate people into supporting them. And I don't like the angry rhetoric they use. I think it's counter productive. In the same way I think that self segregation is counter productive. You're only increasing alienation when you do that. You're creating conflict.

Which, I suspect, is the actual point here. It's about inflaming emotions and hoping for violent actions, expecting a counter reaction, and then condemning that reaction as proof of their position all along. Which may be a great way to gain some political influence, but it's a crappy approach if you actually care about black lives. Who do you think gets caught in the middle of all of this? The same poor blacks living in high crime neighborhoods who are already the victims of their own condition. They're the ones who's neighborhoods will be destroyed by rioting. They're the ones who will suffer from longer police response times because the cops are afraid to travel alone. They're the ones who will become even more victimized by emboldened gangs in their neighborhoods. And yes, they're the ones who will suffer the results of increasingly reactionary police that have to account for the possibility that every single encounter with a black person in a car on on the street might result in that black person shooting at them just to "kill a cop".

You think that cops are trigger happy now? You think they are too quick to assume someone has a weapon, or is reaching for a weapon? We keep seeing black people deliberately setting traps and shooting cops, and that number can only increase. And who do you think gets shot? Seriously. Think this through. This movement is not about reducing or ending the conditions that cause police shootings of black motorists and pedestrians. It's about increasing them so as to use their deaths for further political advantage. It's about making black people even more victimized than they already are. And it'll certainly benefit the members and leaders of BLM. But who is going to be paying that cost?
The fact that you are avoiding is that more people die from American on American violence than terrorist attacks. You are statistically far more likely to die from a fellow US citizen than a terrorist. So, according to your logic, we should be more focused on us killing each other than terrorist, as opposed to acknowledging that both are issues.
#66 Jul 14 2016 at 3:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And yes, if someone said that their primary objective was the "saving of human lives", I'd expect their actions to be in proportion to the things that take the most human lives (so fighting against disease, smoking, car crashes, fighting to promote greater safety habits in homes, especially regarding child proofing, etc). If they instead spent 99.9% of their effort opposing skydiving because of its risk to human lives, I'd be correct in saying that their movement is less about saving human lives and more about opposing skydiving. Get it?
Of course we get it; that's exactly how the "pro-life" people function.


You get that this doesn't counter my point, right?


* Heart disease: 614,348
• Cancer: 591,699
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 147,101
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 136,053
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 133,103
• Alzheimer's disease: 93,541
• Diabetes: 76,488
• Influenza and pneumonia: 55,227
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,146
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 42,773

* Abortions ~700,000 (harder than you'd think to find exact current yearly numbers)

And that number is down in recent years. Although I did find one site with an "abortion clock" that has the year to date total already at like 585k, so maybe this year is higher? No clue. Point being that if you do view an abortion as a loss of life, then focusing on abortion as part of your "pro-life" stance is appropriate because more lives are lost due to abortion than any other single cause. It's certainly far far far and away the leading cause of "intentional death". Heck. Even "preventable deaths", it's well above anything else.

On the flip side, black lives lost via cops is down near the bottom of any list you might generate.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Jul 14 2016 at 3:24 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,358 posts
gbaji wrote:
On the flip side, black lives lost via cops is down near the bottom of any list you might generate.


Especially if that list is "How much do you, Gbaji, care about the lives of people killed"
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#68 Jul 14 2016 at 4:45 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And yes, if someone said that their primary objective was the "saving of human lives", I'd expect their actions to be in proportion to the things that take the most human lives (so fighting against disease, smoking, car crashes, fighting to promote greater safety habits in homes, especially regarding child proofing, etc). If they instead spent 99.9% of their effort opposing skydiving because of its risk to human lives, I'd be correct in saying that their movement is less about saving human lives and more about opposing skydiving. Get it?
Of course we get it; that's exactly how the "pro-life" people function.
You get that this doesn't counter my point, right?
You get that my comment was in no way intended to counter your point and has another function, right?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#69 Jul 14 2016 at 4:47 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
On the flip side, black lives lost via cops is down near the bottom of any list you might generate.
Especially if that list is "How much do you, Gbaji, care about the lives of people killed"
I imagine if you changed "black lives" to tech-geek lives" he'd start to care in a hurry.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#70 Jul 14 2016 at 5:32 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Bijou wrote:
I imagine if you changed "black lives" to tech-geek lives" he'd start to care in a hurry.
Funny how "Blue Lives Matter" doesn't offend anyone, but "Black Lives Matter" does.
#71 Jul 14 2016 at 7:51 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,358 posts
I can't find it now, but there was an image on twitter. It had three signs across the top, from left to right:

Black Lives Matter - All Lives Matter - Blue Lives Matter

Underneath it said, from left to right:

"If you have a problem with this, but not with this, and you believe this, then the word black was what you had a problem with"
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#72 Jul 14 2016 at 7:55 PM Rating: Good
***
3,046 posts
Quote:
I can't find it now, but there was an image on twitter. It had three signs across the top, from left to right:

Black Lives Matter - All Lives Matter - Blue Lives Matter

Underneath it said, from left to right:

"If you have a problem with this, but not with this, and you believe this, then the word black was what you had a problem with"

I saw the meme on Facebook recently. I maybe able to find it.

____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#73 Jul 14 2016 at 7:55 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I can't find it now, but there was an image on twitter. It had three signs across the top, from left to right:

Black Lives Matter - All Lives Matter - Blue Lives Matter

Underneath it said, from left to right:

"If you have a problem with this, but not with this, and you believe this, then the word black was what you had a problem with"


I saw that.
#74 Jul 14 2016 at 8:08 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,257 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Bijou wrote:
I imagine if you changed "black lives" to tech-geek lives" he'd start to care in a hurry.
Funny how "Blue Lives Matter" doesn't offend anyone, but "Black Lives Matter" does.


Well, BlueLives don't have memes around drinking white tears popping across the interwebz, they don't have odd kids calling radio hosts and telling those hosts that they owe them money big time for slavery ( though it was amusing when one particular host said something to the effect of 'I just came here. I do not owe you ****' ). Good times. But hey, lets put equivalency sign between those. Absolutely.

Edited, Jul 14th 2016 10:08pm by angrymnk

Edited, Jul 14th 2016 10:09pm by angrymnk

Edited, Jul 14th 2016 10:26pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#75 Jul 14 2016 at 8:13 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
AgnryMnk wrote:
Good times. But hey, lets put equivalency sign between those. Absolutely.
Yes. Given the equivalency made was in reference to the slogan, not unrelated actions.
#76 Jul 14 2016 at 8:26 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,257 posts
Almalieque wrote:
AgnryMnk wrote:
Good times. But hey, lets put equivalency sign between those. Absolutely.
Yes. Given the equivalency made was in reference to the slogan, not unrelated actions.


I can misconstrue your statements myself, thank you very much.

Edited, Jul 14th 2016 10:27pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 65 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (65)