The News Thread

[CiG]

No, they don't. This dead guy thought he could get away with chasing after someone and violently pushing them to the ground because that person said some angry words about a handicap parking space. That's not a survivalist mentality, that's a privileged mentality. Someone who feels entitled to an action in the same way the shooter felt entitled to expressing an opinion.

The difference is one took it into the realm of physicality and died for his troubles. The only racial element in the story besides your wacky lens is the fact that the incident was interracial. Anything else is not supported by your source.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, they don't. This dead guy thought he could get away with chasing after someone and violently pushing them to the ground because that person said some angry words about a handicap parking space. That's not a survivalist mentality, that's a privileged mentality.

Because it can only be one or the other. Please spare me.

 

[CiG]

Because it can only be one or the other. Please spare me.

Please spare me, privileged white guy who has no fucking clue about the mentality of minorities. When I was growing up my family specifically taught me to not do anything like what this guy did because police will more than likely see me as the aggressor and arrest me instead of the white guy.

Now obviously I'm passable as white, but in the context of Australian culture white people can spot a half-caste in most cases due to facial features and so on. For a fully dark-skinned unambiguous minority this advice is even more pronounced and well-documented in African-American culture: that you say "yes sir" to police and don't get into fights with white men that you could easily be smeared as the aggressor in.

So when you say this:

but at the same time, being accosted by a white person unfortunately puts many black people into a survivalist mentality too.

They do if the accosting constitutes an altercation. Black experience is very from white experience.

It directly contradicts what most minorities are taught about living in a majority white society, or at least what they claim to have been taught.

So tell me, what exactly about the black man's reaction to WORDS speaks to being put into a survivalist mentality? The whole point of survivalism is to survive.

 

[Einherjar86]

Please spare me, privileged white guy who has no fucking clue about the mentality of minorities.

Fuck you, I'm sorry, but I do have some fucking clue. Do I know firsthand? No. But do I know and am friends with minorities, including black people? Yes, most fucking definitely. And I'm telling you right now that altercations between blacks and whites are experienced quite differently on both sides.

So when you say this:

It directly contradicts what most minorities are taught about living in a majority white society, or at least what they claim to have been taught.

So the lesson here is that a black person's options are submit or be killed. That's real fucking enlightened.

Should he have responded with increased aggression? No. But this incident does nothing to convince black people that white people won't kill them if they step out of line.

If it had been two white people, I'm willing to bet the results would have been different.

So tell me, what exactly about the black man's reaction to WORDS speaks to being put into a survivalist mentality? The whole point of survivalism is to survive.

And unfortunately, words aren't immaterial--especially for black people in America.

 

[CiG]

Fuck you, I'm sorry, but I do have some fucking clue.

#reported

And I'm telling you right now that altercations between blacks and whites are experienced quite differently on both sides.

I don't disagree with this. Altercations between whites and whites are also very different because no one person's context is the exact same. I could argue that our (as in you and I) differences in class mean that an altercation between you and I would be more different than an altercation between you and an upper class black person.

When I said "No, they don't" previously I was referring to your response to me when I said "Survivalists don't purposely pursue an altercation with the thing they deem a threat." because you said "They do if the accosting constitutes an altercation." - Not that whites and blacks experience altercations very differently. Apologies for not being clear about what I meant by that.

The aim of a survivalist mentality is to survive and that doesn't include pursuing the threat. The black man wasn't trying to survive, he was trying to prove something with physical force. The white man with the gun who was attacked physically did exactly what a survivalist does to a threat: he eliminated it.

Whether he was right or wrong is strictly a matter for hindsight.

So the lesson here is that a black person's options are submit or be killed. That's real fucking enlightened.

Should he have responded with increased aggression? No. But this incident does nothing to convince black people that white people won't kill them if they step out of line.

If it had been two white people, I'm willing to bet the results would have been different.

No and that's a pathetic dichotomy. His options were to respond verbally, leave, submit and apologize or act irrationally and die. At least those are the main options I see. It's not that he stepped out of line, it's that he went out of his way to physically attack somebody else who happened to be carrying a firearm.

And unfortunately, words aren't immaterial--especially for black people in America.

What he essentially did was chase after a lion to his own detriment because it growled at him. Again, you said what he did was due to being put into a survivalist mentality, explain how that is the case? It seems more like the altercation put him into a hyper-masculine mentality.

 

[Dak]

I don't think any of this justifies lethal force. Apologizing for it invites chaos.

You would like a world where people have significant fear of getting physically blindsided for vocally enforcing the ethical treatment of the infirm?

 

[Dak]

Separately but relatedly, I've been waiting for someone to share the report of the recent foiled mass shooting by a CC person. Of course that doesn't get notice/play. If I didn't have such an extensive RSS I wouldn't know about it either.

Doesn't support the Secular Church narrative.

 

[CiG]

Male, pale and stale university professors to be given 'reverse mentors'.

Male, pale and stale university professors are to be given “reverse mentors” to teach them about unconscious bias, under a new Government funded scheme.

Under the project, white men in senior academic posts will be assigned a junior female colleague from an ethnic minority as a mentor.

I don't even really know how to respond to this one.

Millions of pounds spent on drivel like this by the current so-called conservative government. Peter Hitchens is just endlessly vindicated these days, unlike his brother Christopher who seems more and more ridiculous by contrast as the years roll on by. What the fuck are The Tories even trying to conserve anymore? They should change their party's name to the Moderate Marxist Party or something, considering the only thing that makes them right-wing is that they're a step or 3 behind what Labour wants.

Just...

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Is there a definitive statement regarding the Florida shooting? I strongly support shooting violent people, but if I walk to my car and see a guy yelling at my wife as he stands right up next to the passenger window, potentially sticking parts of himself through the window, a simple shove seems like a reasonable response to me. The black guy didn't make any motions indicating that he was going pummel the guy on the ground (in contrast to Trayvon Martin), and the situation looked approximately defused for the brief moment before the guy shot him. I don't really give a fuck about the handicapped though; people that park in handicapped spots signal to the world that they're entitled dicks, but there's almost always open spots regardless, and most people with those placards are probably obese pieces of shit that could use an extra walk.

 

[CiG]

Most people park in handicap spots because they're fat lazy cunts and don't want to walk the extra distance. Those spots are usually right upfront and close to the store's entrance.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yeah I'm pretty sure I more or less implied and agreed with that.

 

[CiG]

My bad. I meant most people who park in handicap spots who aren't handicapped/in possession of a placard are fat lazy cunts and don't want to walk the extra distance.

 

[The Ozzman]

Is there a definitive statement regarding the Florida shooting? I strongly support shooting violent people, but if I walk to my car and see a guy yelling at my wife as he stands right up next to the passenger window, potentially sticking parts of himself through the window, a simple shove seems like a reasonable response to me. The black guy didn't make any motions indicating that he was going pummel the guy on the ground (in contrast to Trayvon Martin), and the situation looked approximately defused for the brief moment before the guy shot him. I don't really give a fuck about the handicapped though; people that park in handicapped spots signal to the world that they're entitled dicks, but there's almost always open spots regardless, and most people with those placards are probably obese pieces of shit that could use an extra walk.

Shooter was charged with manslaughter

Edit: Anyone want to guess the nationality/religion of the person who drove into the Parliament building?

 

[Einherjar86]

#reported

I don't disagree with this. Altercations between whites and whites are also very different because no one person's context is the exact same. I could argue that our (as in you and I) differences in class mean that an altercation between you and I would be more different than an altercation between you and an upper class black person.

When I said "No, they don't" previously I was referring to your response to me when I said "Survivalists don't purposely pursue an altercation with the thing they deem a threat." because you said "They do if the accosting constitutes an altercation." - Not that whites and blacks experience altercations very differently. Apologies for not being clear about what I meant by that.

The aim of a survivalist mentality is to survive and that doesn't include pursuing the threat. The black man wasn't trying to survive, he was trying to prove something with physical force. The white man with the gun who was attacked physically did exactly what a survivalist does to a threat: he eliminated it.

My point is that you're choosing to identify where/when the threat begins, and that identification also differs between white people and people of color. You're saying the threat hadn't begun when the victim pushed the shooter, and that he was therefore pursuing the threat; but you're assuming you can make that assessment without recourse to the victim's perspective. I'm saying it does matter, and in this case it could warp the victim's perception of what was going on.

Whether he was right or wrong is strictly a matter for hindsight.

I think it's safe to say that both were in the wrong. Unfortunately, the consequences weigh more heavily on one side.

No and that's a pathetic dichotomy. His options were to respond verbally, leave, submit and apologize or act irrationally and die. At least those are the main options I see. It's not that he stepped out of line, it's that he went out of his way to physically attack somebody else who happened to be carrying a firearm.

What he essentially did was chase after a lion to his own detriment because it growled at him. Again, you said what he did was due to being put into a survivalist mentality, explain how that is the case? It seems more like the altercation put him into a hyper-masculine mentality.

Who knows what he was feeling? We can't know, because he's dead. He may have thought the shooter was preparing to assault his wife. He may have thought the shooter was going to call the police (which is becoming an increasingly real danger for African Americans). Or he may, as you said, have only been childishly provoking the shooter (whom he didn't know was a shooter). Again, the problem is that we'll never know because one side reacted more unnecessarily than the other.

You would like a world where people have significant fear of getting physically blindsided for vocally enforcing the ethical treatment of the infirm?

We do live in that kind of world. That's just how it is. I'd rather live in a world where someone doesn't need to fear being killed for escalating an altercation--inappropriate and unnecessary though it may be--and only needs to fear legal recourse (although in this country, that carries its own issues for black people).

It would be great if neither side overreacted, but one side reacted to a quantifiably greater extent; and unfortunately, that's the side that needs to be more immediately addressed.

 

[CiG]

I'd rather live in a world where someone doesn't need to fear being killed for escalating an altercation--inappropriate and unnecessary though it may be--and only needs to fear legal recourse (although in this country, that carries its own issues for black people).

We all know if it had been a black guy who got pushed by a white guy and he shot him in retaliation, we'd have next to nothing to say. And for the record, I'd be on the black guy's side.

Anyway, you originally posted about this story as an example of "good ol' boys on the right jumping at the first chance to shoot black boys" and I fail to see how this story is what you characterized it as. Pretty weird tangent considering it was your response to my post about someone offering $500 on Twitter to anybody who kills an ICE agent.

 

[The Ozzman]

Privileged, east coast educated white guys assert that they understand more about how minorities think than actual minorities.

This is peak 2018 and it finally came to this board.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Moar leik

 

[The Ozzman]

Well ackchyually, motherfucker

 

[Einherjar86]

Privileged, east coast educated white guys assert that they understand more about how minorities think than actual minorities.

Nowhere did I say I actually knew how black people felt, much less that I know more about how they feel than they do. In fact, I said I couldn't have firsthand knowledge about that. Feel free to hop off Breitbart once in a while and ackchyually read a conversation.

We all know if it had been a black guy who got pushed by a white guy and he shot him in retaliation, we'd have next to nothing to say. And for the record, I'd be on the black guy's side.

If that happened, the black guy would already be arrested and convicted.

Anyway, you originally posted about this story as an example of "good ol' boys on the right jumping at the first chance to shoot black boys" and I fail to see how this story is what you characterized it as. Pretty weird tangent considering it was your response to my post about someone offering $500 on Twitter to anybody who kills an ICE agent.

More often than not, the people who use their firearms prematurely like this aren't in an appropriate mental space to judge whether they should actually use them. They're more thrilled by the chance to do so.

It was mostly just a bit of news for the news thread, and an appropriately alternative story, I felt.

 

[The Ozzman]

Feel free to hop off Breitbart once in a while

Yep, I lean conservative so I must read Breitbart like a good little neocon boy, right? Get bent. Your privilege is showing.

Just as an aside to the shooting thing in Florida, I probably would have merely drawn the weapon to see if the guy backed off. If he continued to advance then all bets are off at that point.