Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Jimmy... Dead.]

don't know how genuine this is but it is interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0HaaRZ8nxd4#t=1

 

[viewerfromnihil]

The official story, as usual, isn't the case. The guys in that video expressed what I've heard throughout the community. Here's a great story relevant to the discussion, which also gives the backdrop for the riot: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...tality-of-police-culture-in-baltimore/391158/

 

[Dak]

Of course it's relevant. White people aren't black.

Fifty years ago wasn't that long ago. And the MLK assassination was definitely racially related; it wasn't a crime of passion.

The JFK assassination and MLK assassination were alike enough in terms of both time and perps (well, we know MLK was done killed by elements of the government, only a short while longer before we know the same about JFK). Neither was a crime of passion, and neither were about race.

You think the excuses end at the limits of a district?

I don't know what you're getting at.

Le sigh. It doesn't matter the percentage of looters. It doesn't matter that on all accounts many of the police are thugs as well. Torching a CVS or what-have-you in response makes the situation worse. Period. Fullstop. Maybe the looters/torchers are actually undercover police discrediting the protest. Not like that's anything new. Maybe it's opportunists from out of town. But that would involve those durned kunspercy theories, and we won't be having any of that.

Hell, maybe it's all those damned veterans coming back looking for a new war like some CNN anchor "repeated as a concern". On that note, and on the racism issue, here's an interesting photo:

Black guys lined up protecting police, at least some of whom are white. One guy has a veteran cap on, but I'd bet that at least 4 of the nearest 6 guys are vets, based on face/body language.

 

[Einherjar86]

The JFK assassination and MLK assassination were alike enough in terms of both time and perps (well, we know MLK was done killed by elements of the government, only a short while longer before we know the same about JFK). Neither was a crime of passion, and neither were about race.

Yes it was.

Well, this is fun.

I don't know what you're getting at.

You seem to be saying that black people should be somehow appeased simply because Baltimore has a black mayor, as though this somehow precludes racism as a possibility.

I'm saying that's a dumb thing to say.

 

[Dak]

Yes it was.

Well, this is fun.

In what respects was it racially motivated? The family thinks it was related to efforts to protest the Vietnam War (at least in part for the redirection of government funds towards fighting poverty). Whether or not it is true of JFK, that is one of the theories surrounding his death as well. Being black didn't "help" MLK, but being white didn't help JFK either.

You seem to be saying that black people should be somehow appeased simply because Baltimore has a black mayor, as though this somehow precludes racism as a possibility.

I'm saying that's a dumb thing to say.

In the context of complaints about a lack of representation, it should be somewhat appeasing, but it obviously isn't. Ratchet engage.

 

[Einherjar86]

In what respects was it racially motivated? The family thinks it was related to efforts to protest the Vietnam War (at least in part for the redirection of government funds towards fighting poverty). Whether or not it is true of JFK, that is one of the theories surrounding his death as well. Being black didn't "help" MLK, but being white didn't help JFK either.

First things first, there is considerable evidence that James Earl Ray was not a fan of integration. I don't care what his family says - it makes sense they would try and distance themselves from racism.

Secondly, those who despised JFK often associated him with black rights. Hell, African Americans associated him with black rights! His civil rights speech made him an icon of black rights, so I don't see how you can say that neither the JFK nor the MLK assassinations were race-related. There may have been other factors, but they were both definitely race-related to some degree.

In the context of complaints about a lack of representation, it should be somewhat appeasing, but it obviously isn't. Ratchet engage.

The complaints aren't only about representation though...

 

[Dak]

First things first, there is considerable evidence that James Earl Ray was not a fan of integration. I don't care what his family says - it makes sense they would try and distance themselves from racism.

Whether or not Ray was a fan of integration is irrelevant to whether either A. he killed MLK B. If he did, who put him up to it.

Secondly, those who despised JFK often associated him with black rights. Hell, African Americans associated him with black rights! His civil rights speech made him an icon of black rights, so I don't see how you can say that neither the JFK nor the MLK assassinations were race-related. There may have been other factors, but they were both definitely race-related to some degree.

Generally speaking, race is an excuse, not a reason. Even for the Sharptons of the world.

The complaints aren't only about representation though...

Oh yeah. Muh freebies. No one is disputing police brutality, except the police anyway, so it can't be about that. The fact that these protests always spring up over episodes with general miscreants stinks to high heaven, particularly when after-the-fact, examples of brutalized grandmothers always materialize. Freddie Gray and Mike Brown, regardless of the specifics of the particular incident, had rap sheets and were thugs of sorts. Why aren't the protests about any of the umpteen receivers of police brutality payouts/bruised grandmas/etc? I don't want any of this "straw that broke the camels back" shit. This shitstorm is externally created for some purpose.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm going to ignore your other bullshit (which I typed up responses to and then deleted) and focus instead just on this.

Oh yeah. Muh freebies. No one is disputing police brutality, except the police anyway, so it can't be about that. The fact that these protests always spring up over episodes with general miscreants stinks to high heaven, particularly when after-the-fact, examples of brutalized grandmothers always materialize. Freddie Gray and Mike Brown, regardless of the specifics of the particular incident, had rap sheets and were thugs of sorts. Why aren't the protests about any of the umpteen receivers of police brutality payouts/bruised grandmas/etc? I don't want any of this "straw that broke the camels back" shit. This shitstorm is externally created for some purpose.

The most annoying thing about this has little to do with your surface-level skepticism about what's going on, or with your disregard for any kind of modern critical attitude.

Honestly, the most annoying thing about this comment is your re-purposing of dialect ("Muh freebies") and your insistence on using the word "thug." Now, before you go all reactionary nut-job on me about how "thug" shouldn't be off-limits, let me say that I'm not upset because I think "thug" carries the same racial gravity as a word like "my pals."

My problem is that now that others are suddenly using the word "thug" to describe the looters - particularly a black mayor - suddenly it seems to validate the use of that word for those who know it will generate tension, and you're just letting rip with it. It's like your parents extended your curfew and now you're pushing right up to the eleventh hour every chance you get. You love using the word "thug" because even black politicians have begun using it, so you can point and say "but see???" And it's not just you; news anchors all over the place have been dropping this word like it's fucking sacrosanct.

The reason why using the word "thug" pisses me off is because those who use it do so because they know it will generate controversy. They're not using it to aptly describe these looters. If you really want to prove that you're not racist, then just use the word "criminal." As it stands, you and many others are using "thug" because you know it will get you attention. And in that respect, you're no better than an Al Sharpton.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

relevant @1:20

 

[Einherjar86]

He didn't call them my pals; he was saying that if you're going to call them thugs then you might as well call them my pals.

The point he's making is that people seem to make some kind of distinction between these "thugs" and "just plain criminals." If asked to specify what makes them "thugs," the implicit (and very unspoken) logic is that they're black. My question is: why not just call them criminals??? Why is the "thug" necessary?

It's different if we're discussing the self-application of things like "thug life," or something; but when we adopt that term uncritically then we participate in a very complicated perpetuation of language that is undoubtedly racist.

I would avoid all complications and simply refer to them as "criminals" - a term that both denotes them according to their actions while simultaneously exposing the arbitrariness of such a denotation (i.e. in order for their to be criminals, there must be some code of laws that is being violated).

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

The title is dumb, I was just posting the video.

 

[Einherjar86]

Gotcha.

Let me just clarify my issue once more, because I think this is a complicated matter:

The reactionary argument is that this word isn't racial but that it conveys not only the criminality of these individuals' actions, but also a certain demographic and mindset that isn't racist but happens to encompass a mostly black youth.

That's fine, and it's entirely correct; but the issue that has arisen has to do with why the word is being used at this point - and the reason it's being used is to incite controversy, not to communicate a specific brand of criminal. Using the word "criminal" in this case conveys all the appropriate information. When we continue to use "thug" despite the controversy, we don't preserve some pristine, non-racial definition; we actively participate in the construction of a language that is racially charged.

 

[RedStorm]

Gotcha.

Let me just clarify my issue once more, because I think this is a complicated matter:

The reactionary argument is that this word isn't racial but that it conveys not only the criminality of these individuals' actions, but also a certain demographic and mindset that isn't racist but happens to encompass a mostly black youth.

That's fine, and it's entirely correct; but the issue that has arisen has to do with why the word is being used at this point - and the reason it's being used is to incite controversy, not to communicate a specific brand of criminal. Using the word "criminal" in this case conveys all the appropriate information. When we continue to use "thug" despite the controversy, we don't preserve some pristine, non-racial definition; we actively participate in the construction of a language that is racially charged.

no offense but isn't this pretty obvious?

 

[Einherjar86]

Apparently not to everyone.

 

[Dak]

You're almost 100% backwards on this Pat. Now, the one point you made which does not lead to the conclusion you are implying is that "in continuing to use thug at this point we participate in the construction of racially charged language". Trying to whitewash the difference in types of anti-social behavior with the obviously arbitrary (and sterile) "criminal" label is an excellent example of the sort of ridiculous make-work pedantry that gets pushed by the PC outrageratchet.

Smashing, firing, and looting has been thug behavior for years regardless of race, and is a specific sort of subset of anti-social behavior, which at any given point and time may or may not be criminal. That someone wants to object to thug based on race now, to do a sort of "take the word back" move is laughable, and there's no reason for any intelligent person to give way to this linguistic gerrymandering.

Edit: "Muh freebies" is meme-sourced from "Muh roads", which has generally been used to denigrate typical conservative responses to libertarians, not blacks. Besides the mayor, Obama seemed pretty comfortable using thug in this context also.

Edit#2: Apparently there is quite the lineup of "Muh" memes.

 

[Einherjar86]

No one's whitewashing anything. In fact, someone can fit the "thug" profile and not be a criminal. This is what I mean: thug connotes a perception, criminal denotes particular behavior. It's actually more effective and perceptive to call them criminals than it is to call them thugs.

I don't care about the history of the memes. It just gets annoying when you do that because instead of really explaining yourself you try and let uncritical objects do the work for you. There are dynamics and details that you just gloss right over. Very little thought happening in what you're saying, in my opinion.

 

[Dak]

It's not little thought. It's just that I refuse to cede ground to the internet/pc/sjw ragemill/ratchet/machine. Terms such as thug are meant to be pejorative, and as I stated/agreed before, it does have a meaning independent from criminal. When someone whines about being offended by an intentionally pejorative terms which refers to anti-social behavior, I find it absurd that anyone gives a goddamn. If thugs aren't offended, it definitely applies (thug life!). Non-thugs can get out of here with their secondhand outrage.

That not bowing to every challenge of the internet/pc/sjw ragemill/ratchet/machine is "reactionary" just shows the depths that western society has plummeted to; the Overton window has moved way too far already.

 

[SentinelSlain]

I find it incredibly hard to understand SJWs. I don't dislike them as such and sometimes they bring me much merriment, but I really don't understand them. I think they're like the new puritanical Christians or Communists.

 

[tagradh]

'SJWs' may be irritating, but no more so than the trve hardcore 'anti-PC' brigade that throw the term around all the fucking time.

As with most things, people at both ends of the spectrum are cunts.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's exactly how I feel, in fact. Most people are saying the word just to say it. It's annoying.

Also, appealing to some kind of history of use doesn't ground the meaning of the word "thug." It also has current uses and a current history, which we can't simply choose to ignore.